Okay, seriously? If so many people are going to hate on a field, at least have the decency to hate on the right one.

I'm tired of so many people taking this as evidence that psychology/psychiatry is wrong or over-reactive and therefore we must never pay any attention to it. First, the article's main expert is a sociologist, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Granted, there's some overlap in the fields, but not enough that I'd trust the guy to start diagnosing or treating people. Second, as the article goes on, the other 'experts' referenced are in order: a nurse (LPN), a neurologist, another neurologist, and whatever the hell you call someone with a PhD in the history of medicine.

You'd think that if this were some sort of conspiracy by psychologists/psychiatrists to drum up legitimacy/business/interest for their field, they'd have the decency to at least provide an expert on their behalf.

Oh, not that this is entirely relevant, but just for the record, psychiatrists are MDs who specialize in mental disorders. Psychologists are PhDs who specialize in mental disorders and human behaviour. Psychologists cannot prescribe medications; so all the complaints about how psychologists are people who do nothing but a front for drug companies and push pills all the live long day? You're thinking of psychiatrists (and in my experience, there are a great many psychologists who would agree with you).

Really? Maybe you've been reading different journals than I have then. Most of the research I've read has been pretty clear on the complexity of human behaviour and how 'simple' indicators are 1) usually not simple, and 2) only a small part of a greater whole.

The problem as I see it isn't that psychology is wrong, it's that people who disseminate and/or use the information produced tend to oversimplify things and jump to bad conclusions (i.e. a study on the correlations between socioeconomic factors and crime suddenly becomes Poor people will kill you! News at 11!).

Unless I am completely mistaken, most botnet infections occur because of user action, not because the computer is allowing remote connections. Linux would be equally vulnerable if unqualified users were using it and installing software on it. When the software they are installing asks for the root password, they would obviously supply the root password, because they are unqualified.

That explains the situation for Windows. Plain and simple, these people using Windows have no business administering a computer, period. I assure you that a botnet infection program can be written for Linux and simply ask the user to do whatever is required during installation. You may discount these because YOU wouldn't do what was requested, but that has nothing to do with what your average Windows-using grandmother would or would not do.

Sorry, you can't make a computer secure that is (a) administered by someone unqualified to do so, and (b) allows software to be installed on it. I would claim an iPod is completely secure. So is a clock radio. If you give a computer user that cannot administer their machine an appliance that cannot have other software installed on it, you can have a secure computer for unqualified users.

A general-purpose programmable computer that requires administration cannot be secure unless it is administered by a qualified person. This is why a lot of corporate systems are indeed secure even through they are running Windows. It is also clearly why other corporate systems are completely insecure and have botnet infections.

Clockwise has some GREAT ideas. The wiimote whiteboard is neat. I've done it myself. However, you should probably consider the scope and aim of what you are doing as well as what your students need. They likely will not really ever need to use the wiimote whiteboard whereas some of clockwise's ideas (such as storage v. memory, personal stuff online, backup up data, basic HTML) may be very useful to them some day.

SUV's are responsible for global warming. Damn them!

"...or even put a mission to Mars in jeopardy." If you are talking about a human mission to Mars, even the lightest of cosmic radiation would only allow for a one way trip for any human. A round trip would provide fatal doses (just a side note).

LOL! Not so much...

First, it's only Finland. Second, there's a minimum floor, which is set rather painful for the poor. So gee, looking a little closer, it's not quite so fair, is it? If you're poor, you still pay a minimum ($106 as I recall), but if you're rich, the sky's the limit. They talked about making it completely proportional, but then the government would lose income...

Finland's law is simply a reach for money by bureaucrats. I await your comment about The Finnish Republic of Corruption.

Judges manipulate Juries all the time, and before they have their shot Jury Selection makes a mockery of "A Jury of your peers".

Nevertheless, Juries finding of FACT is definitive, and not apealable without the introduction of NEW admisable evidence un-known at the trial of first instance.

Now, judges have wide discretion, in the interest of justice, but that discretion is not un-fettered, and does not run to overturning the result of a jury trial; so he WILL be appealed and stands to be overturned.

That is not a problem, it happens everywhere, the problem is THE TIME IT TAKES. While you fiddle, the Chinese win.

The talk of de-establishing the USD as a reserve currency at G20 is just the beginning.

Open your eyes, stop playing silly games.

"Microsoft attempts to block pirates from security essentials software"

Back when I handled criminals, I had some *real* dumb ones, but my favorite robbed a friend's credit union.

When the police found him, he leaped up to tell them that the money in one pocket was his; that theirs was on the other. And when they brought the teller out to ID him, *he* IDed *her* instead!

Yes, criminals really are this dumb.

hawk, esq

Yes, you could tell them that but then you would be a BIG FAT LIAR.

          Copyright doesn't exist to enrich artists and authors. Copyright exists to enrich society.

The state sanctioned distribution monopoly is just something that the federal
government is allowed to do in order to further that goal. The enticement of
authors is a means to an end rather than a means unto itself.

Although even the "corporate bootlicker" spun version of copyright
still might leave students wondering why copyrights still exist
long after the death of the relevant author.

I'll bite....

If your friend comes to you and says "I'm going to kill my wife tomorrow. Will you help?"

And you say "No"

But you don't inform the police that your friend is conspiring to commit murder, and the next day his wife turns up dead and he's the killer, then you have committed a crime by not trying to prevent the murder. In other words you've concealed the crime by omission.

That's accessory before the fact.

I was wondering if it applies to theft as well as murder.

That is true for all endeavors - it's not what you do, but rather how you do what you do.

Probably not. This sounds like tortious interference to me. The theory is that Microsoft's interests are damaged by a third party interfering in its relationship with its customers. When it comes to calculating damages there are all sorts of theories you could use. As you say, any would probably start with lost customers, but you can also look at higher support costs, reduced sale of upgrades (moving to a non-MS OS is not necessary for MS to lose profits), stymied growth in market share, etc.

Of course, if we're interested in the consumers' remedies, that's a whole different can of worms. They couldn't sue for tortious interference (probably) because they're not the ones engaged in the relevant business activities. But they might be able to bring other causes of action (in fraud, for example). They could sue individually, but if they want to get a big shot lawyer involved they would need to go for a class action so there's a bigger lump payout to take fees out of.

(IANAL, but I am a law student. I am not competent to give real legal advice.)

I sent an email to the address at the bottom of the site...

Dear Sir or Madam,

It was with great interest that I perused the materials on the Music Rules website. (On a side note, it doesn't work properly with Firefox 3.0.) I agree that piracy of music is a problem, and some reform of copyright law is needed. However, I believe that your educational materials are misleading and sometimes directly contradict actions of the RIAA in the past.

In the teacher's guide, on page 4, the answer to question #2 (left column) is given:

Caitlin is not a songlifter because personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music. Caitlin can copy her music onto her hard drive and her MP3 player. Caitlin can even burn a CD with her own special mix of music she has purchased.

This however contradicts earlier cases where the RIAA has pursued music pirates for doing this exact same thing. A Washington Post article from 2007:

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

The teacher's guide also ignores the term, "fair use." While fair use is quite limited in U.S. law, generally being restricted to purposes of research and parody, if the RIAA wants to teach third-graders the term, "DMCA notice," why not "fair use?"

Coverage of alternative forms of copyright appears to be non-existent as well, such as the Creative Commons licenses, which allow the creator to turn over specific rights to others, such as the right to modify, or distribute. Public domain coverage is missing as well. Old recordings from before 1923 (such as Edison's early record player) on the Library of Congress site thus would be public domain, and free to download. The materials would scare kids into thinking that everything is copyrighted, and thus illegal.

The materials also should recommend sites where music can be legally downloaded for free. One example is Musopen.com, which contains recordings of public domain works, but also contemporary works where the composer has expressed willingness for his music to be shared. . Warnings should be balanced with alternatives. Also, you could recommend the students to whenever possible purchase music directly from the artist, so that the artist is paid a fair amount.

U.S. federal government training materials ignore this distinction, preferring the "all downloaded music is illegal" mantra. For example, see this training website (it's screen 27 of 48). I can disprove this by visiting this Wikipedia link, where I can download a copy of the W.W.S.S. Wind Ensemble with Dennis Smith playing Arthur Pryor's arrangement of "Blue Bells of Scotland," released under the EFF's Open Audio License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Pryor_-_Blue_Bells_of_Scotland,_for_Trombone_and_Band.ogg). Similarly, recordings by U.S. military bands, being created by the U.S. government, are generally also public domain.

Copyright reform does need to be effected in the United States. The clause in the Constitution governing copyright is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," by securing for a limited time. Today's environment, where it is for the lifetime+70 stifles creativity. Two economists wrote a paper for Harvard Business School (a subsidiary of Harvard University) discussing how weak copyright actually benefits culture (HBS article).

I hope that the educational materials can be refined, so that students get all the facts regarding music piracy, so they can properly decide whether it is legal for them to download song X. Reducing FUD on the RIAA's part will improve their standing in the technology community, and consumers will benefit by using a variety of resources to get music: legal purchases, and legal downloads of free music.

Thank you,

[REDACTED]

Just watch. Now I'm going to get investigated by the RIAA. :-)