Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

EFF Releases Wireless Router Firmware For Open Access Points

Jay Maynard EFF strikes again... (56 comments)

This is just another spammer and net criminal enabler. The EFF has long fought against efforts to end spam. Encouraging wide-open net access with no accountability is just another step down that road.

The EFF: enabling spammers since the 1990s.

about two weeks ago
top

Critroni Crypto Ransomware Seen Using Tor for Command and Control

Jay Maynard Time to get rid of Tor (122 comments)

Tor has only ever been an enabler for spammers and other criminals, making it possible for them to hide their tracks. Time to get rid of it.

about two weeks ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Jay Maynard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with CAGW advocates, not skeptics. You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.

about three weeks ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Jay Maynard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

And I note the standard Slashdot moderation is in full effect: "I disagree with it, therefore it must be trolling."

about a month ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Jay Maynard Re: CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by predictive power and explanatory power. Nothing else. CAGW has neither.

about a month ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Jay Maynard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

damned autocorrect.

that should be "the same old tired leftist government takeover of economies".

about a month ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Jay Maynard CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it...when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory...and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.

As it is, he fudging is so blatant that "climate science" is nothing of the sort...it's a Trojan horse for the same lod tired leftist government takeoff of economies. That trick never works.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

All right, so Adelson evades the ban by paying the Times' owners $3 billion for the paper, runs his piece - indistinguishable from a full-page ad - and then sells the paper back to the owners for $3 billion less the price of a full-page ad.

There's still plenty of ways - available only to the rich - to evade your ban. You're not helping your claimed problem, you're making it worse.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

Your argument is like the old joke:

"Will you sleep with me if I gave you a million bucks!"

"Yeah!"

"How about $25?"

"What do you think I am??!"

"We've already established that. Now all we're doing is haggling over the price."

If it's wrong to spend millions to publish political speech but not billions, then you're just haggling over the price.

about a month ago
top

Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions About His Mayday PAC, Part 2 (Video)

Jay Maynard Re:Didn't answer anyone's questions directly, did (42 comments)

Amen. I was looking for a direct answer to my pointed question, and all I got were mealy-mouthed platitudes.

about 1 month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" is, and should remain, the law of the land. Especially when it comes to political speech."

"Replace the word "especially" with "except" in that, and I agree."

In other words, you'd turn the First Amendment on its head when it comes to political speech. Fortunately, the entire history of First Amendment jurisprudence as applied to political speech disagrees with you.

This is as it should be. There is NOTHING more important in our society than the freedom to speak about political issues. Anything else eviscerates the First Amendment.

"If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy the entire newspaper and then run whatever he wants, fine. What I don't want to see is him giving a politician a bucket of money, or spending money to run ad or smear campaigns."

If you see no difference between Sheldon Adelson buying an ad in the NYTimes and buying the NYTimes itself and ordering it to run his positions, then there is no hope for you. All banning the first and permitting the second is raising the cost of the ad.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

But if the NYTimes publishes an editorial supporting a candidate, how is that different from someone buying the same space in the NYTimes to run an ad? You either have to ban that as the NYTimes making a campaign contribution, or else allow it and leave a giant gaping loophole that lets corporations give to campaigns as long as they can do it in something that can be labeled "news media". This inconsistency is at the heart of Citizens United, and the reason that the decision came down as it did.

Not all contributions are money, though many are just as valuable.

Further, you talk about campaign contributions of cash, but ignore contributions of cash to such things as issue advertising, not related or coordinated directly with a campaign. Are you proposing to outlaw that kind of speech as well? If so, where do you draw the line? And how do you do so without putting a faceless, unelected bureaucrat in charge of deciding what is political and what is not? If you don't, doesn't that pretty much destroy your carefully crafted regime?

And this exposes the fundamental problem: governments cannot regulate speech and do it fairly. Political speech, especially, cannot be regulated without the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Supreme Court jurisprudence is recognizing that fact at long last, and this is to be encouraged, not stifled.

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" is, and should remain, the law of the land. Especially when it comes to political speech. Don't like what someone says? Reply to them. Don't like how loud they say it? Say yours louder. Get help if you need to.

Anything else strikes at the very heart of our country's freedoms, and is not to be borne.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

So are you willing to tell the New York Times they can't weigh in on an election, either?

And why should a million people be able to send $100 to a candidate but Greenpeace not be able to send that same $100 million from its members?

And how do you define "politician"?

The same rules must apply to all. Anything else leads to governments deciding what is and is not acceptable speech. That is simply unacceptable, period, end of discussion.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

Then let him.

The alternative is to allow government regulation of political speech, something that any lawyer will tell you demands the strictest of scrutiny under well-settled law. The harm in allowing government to decide what is political speech, and how it is to be exercised, is incalculably greater than the evils ascribed to the nasty eeeeevil Koch brothers, who folks arguing for government regulation of speech seem to universally want to target. (And as to money buying elections, ask Eric Cantor how well that works.)

If you allow some faceless, unelected bureaucrat to decide what is permissible political speech and what is not, you're destroying the First Amendment, period. As much as I fear for a country that elected Barack Obama twice, I still trust its electorate more than I trust unelected bureaucrats.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

Sure, all voices deserve to be heard. That's why people should be allowed to band together freely to speak louder than any one person can.

Guess what? That's exactly what allowing corporations to have free speech does. Don't believe me? Ask Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or the World Wildlife Federation, all of which are corporations.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Re:Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

Sideslash has it exactly right. The answer to speech you don't like - be it the content, or the source - is more speech explaining why it's wrong, not silencing speech you disagree with.

Regulations to speech have the problem that they're open to interpretation by the regulators - and regulations to political speech have the additional problem that they can silence the very speech needed to fight them.

about a month ago
top

Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC

Jay Maynard Government regulation of political speech (308 comments)

Why does the prospect of government regulation of political speech not terrify you to your core? Any "campaign reform" proposal must necessarily result in government deciding which speech is political and which is not, which is permissible and which is not. How do you prevent government from suppressing only political speech that it disapproves of?

about a month ago
top

Zuckerberg's $100 Million Education Gift Solved Little

Jay Maynard Public schools are broken (335 comments)

Zuckerberg spends $100 million to prove that throwing money at broken public schools does not fix them.

Are we surprised? No.

about 3 months ago
top

Why Buy Microsoft Milk When the Google Cow Is Free?

Jay Maynard Big Labor's transparent motive (409 comments)

"Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis said she'd rather see companies pay more in taxes and fund schools that way, rather than relying on their charity or free software."

Of course she would. Big Labor's all about squeezing those nasty eeeeevil corporations for all they can get.

Why should Google pay taxes to the district so they can buy Microsoft? Why should they be forced to help their competition at gunpoint?

about 4 months ago

Submissions

top

IBM Breaks Open Source Patent Pledge

Jay Maynard Jay Maynard writes  |  more than 4 years ago

Jay Maynard (54798) writes "IBM has broken the pledge it made in 2005 not to assert 500 patents against open source software. In a letter sent to Roger Bowler, president of TurboHercules SA, IBM's Mark Anzani, head of their mainframe business, claimed that the Hercules open-source emulator (disclaimer: I manage the open source project) infringes on at least 106 issued patents and 67 more applied for. Included in that list is two that it pledged not to assert in 2005. In a blog entry, the NoSoftwarePatents campaign's Florian Mueller said that "IBM is using patent warfare in order to protect its highly lucrative mainframe monopoly against Free and Open Source Software." I have to agree: from where I sit, IBM likes Open Source only as long as they don't have to compete with it."
Link to Original Source
top

CodeWeavers to give away software tomorrow

Jay Maynard Jay Maynard writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jay Maynard writes "Falling gas prices have left more money in everyone's pocket. They'll do something else: Because the price of gas has fallen below $2.79 a gallon in the Twin Cities, CodeWeavers will give away their software tomorrow. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has the scoop: "When CodeWeavers CEO Jeremy White saw that gas was $2.79 a gallon during a recent fill-up, "I screamed, 'Woohoo!' Then I yelled, 'Oh, crap!' as I realized every American can now have my software for free — kind of upsets my fourth-quarter revenue projections," he said.""
Link to Original Source
top

Judge in Capitol v. Thomas Considers New Trial

Jay Maynard Jay Maynard writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Jay Maynard writes "The judge in Capitol Records v. Thomas said today he's thinking about granting a new trial because he may have committed a "manifest error of law" in his jury instructions. He says that his instruction that simply uploading music to a P2P network without any proof that anyone actually downloaded it may conflict with a case in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that said "infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination''. Briefs are due by May 29, with oral argument July 1. The judge invited friend of the court briefs by May 29, as well."
Link to Original Source

Journals

Jay Maynard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>