friends don't blow for friends... but children do. ;-)

http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html And then tell my why that green transmission tower is pasted into someone's backyard??

Sigh... some of you didn't even read what I wrote did you? I don't use Excel.

My point was that the average user that does use Excel will not be able to view this, as Excel will truncate the file at 65.5k records or so.

I have a MySQL (LOL at Access) database, which is what I intend to view and search the FB data in. And no, it doesn't take 20 minutes to add an index, it takes 20 minutes to run a query that includes non-indexed fields.

I would question whether many people other than a major corp have the resources to work with that large a data set. It's not like Joe Schmoe can open that in Excel. Even if Joe could get it open, running any kind of query, even on indexed fields, would take forever. It can take up to 20 minutes for my quadcore to do a sort on our 300k record 200 field database.

Corporations seem like a much more likely consumer of this data than anyone else. I'm thinking about downloading it just to see... I'll let you know how the sort time goes....

This is in use, although ironically. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8248056.stm

Disney has already been doing this much more effectively for years. You would think that Mickey Mouse would be public domain, but every time he gets close to the public, there is a nice bill through congress that extends the expiration date. You can look at Wikipedia for more on the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act", but it's hardly a surprise that corporations are attempting to circumvent limitations to IP ownership.

What worries me the most is that, if Mickey can get his rat ass protected, what will Congress see fit to remove from the Public Domain, and just how much of a campaign donation does it take to do it?

I'm not sure what the real reason is, but the OSS provision isn't it.

Also leading to confusion... the fact that myriad other OSS media players support shoutcast, such as Amarok, which is included by default with KDE... Wonder if they have received any grief? They sure fall into the same category.

But Manning might not have done anything wrong either, and Lamo himself admitted that he had not seen any proof of wrong doing, other than the fact that Manning claimed to have released these documents.

Further, claiming it's the "right thing to do" is all the easier when you're guaranteed a front page story in a premier tech magazine. Manning claimed he was doing the right thing too, by exposing hypocrisy and unnecessary violence in a volatile situation, but he didn't give his information to wired, he gave it to a third party to release as they saw fit, not promote himself.

So basically, it's ok to be an informant if it soothes your ego to "keep spies from getting killed" (or gets you into a Wired article), but it's not ok if you attempt to keep civilians from getting killed (or it gets you into a Wikileaks article). Now I understand.

I don't have mod points, please someone mod this up, and thank you for actually reading the article.

This is deeply disturbing, and people poking fun and making snarky comments about this situation either didn't read the article, or have little concept of the issues at stake here.

But then, maybe slashdot is just full of self promoting semi-technical douchewads just like Lamo. Oops, hope I didn't strike a nerve there.

"Captain, I discovered that the bulkheads that seal the ship in case of a hull breach actually stop several floors short, and could be compromised in the event of a major collision."

"How dare you point out a fatal flaw in our Honorable Engineer's design. Now that the Icebergs know this, they will surely attack our boat! You should have kept your dumb mouth shut"

"but..."

Dude! Sweet! Financial Numbers!! - Did you even read the &^$%ing article? Your "Financial Numbers" are projections and opinions. Read the article, then ask yourself this:

Are these numbers from more informed people? Yes.
Are they actually facts? No.
Does the article make frequent use of forward looking statements? Yes!
Is the article from 2009? Yes!
Is it at all reasonable to suppose that a forward looking article written almost a year ago that offers only speculative numbers and not facts is not a good citation? Yes!

All I see here is two pieces of anecdotal evidence and one case of bad bad research.