Slashdot Mirror

I recently got interested in this and started using rss2email in a cron job. I get info from slashdot, the washington post, thinkgeek, and a few others I can't recall.

As far as either being a dem. or republican is concerned, blame the voting system, not the people.
Our voting system is designed for two parties.
I don't understand why we even let third parties run under our current system; it is destructive and benefits the minority.
I think we'd all be much happier under a Approval Voting, where you vote for all the candidates that you wouldn't mind seeing in office, and don't vote for those you wouldn't.
The problem is that the people in power owe their victory to the quirks of our current system.

For one thing, I am sure Apple want people to download the free iTunes software (free as in free beer that is) and feel the great Apple user experience. Which would not happen to that extent if you could "just as well" browse a less reliable web front-end. Remember, due to a certain Seattle-based software corporation web browsers are not standardized by far! However, to you Linux fanbois and fangals, I say with conviction that Apple will not block the web-script, as long as it does not account for a major share of their traffic. And did you know that you can go the other way around and make your own ITMS pages as well?

Okay, so that is a little off topic, and I realize that your point is that there should be absolutely no regulation. I think, however, the regulation is necessary for a public domain resource (like radio spectrum) but that regulation should take local realities into account.

The libertarians tend to think, the radio spectrum should not be treated as public domain, but rather as private property on land is -- the first one to use it can claim it. It can be traded. The government (of different levels) can claim the eminent domain over parts of it and take them (as it does with land for highways if any, etc.). There can be regulations, concerning the size and location of fences, as well as content (you can't lie naked in your front yard). And so on. There are some clever carricatures of this concept, but it still seems more appealing than what we have now. And it follows Occam's Razor principle, by not inventing new concept (FCC et al).

Clear Channel is running its radio in the cheap seats under a government sponsered and enforced monopoly. [...] Clear Channel is just turning to the government to try and squelch a competitor.

Clear Channel's behavior (perhaps even the company itself) is a product of the government's folly -- much like AT&T's monopoly was before that, and the Baby Bells are now... We may be rightfully disgusted by it, but we should not be surprised, nor should we allow for creation of similar government enforced and sponsored monopolies in the future (space travel anyone?) or present (airline bailouts).

I know you have alternative parties, but they're not really viable choices.

Voters were clearly still happy with Bush in 2002 or else they would have moved to limit his power.

On top of this, Al Qaeda unfortunately chose that time to instigate their terrorist attacks; that is a situation which only worked in the administration's favor. It was a unifying event, bringing Americans together, and giving the president an opportunity to launch a war which America supported, bolstering Bush's popularity. After taking Afghanistan, Bush used the momentum to pursue his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Whether or not this will have worked in his favor has yet to be seen. He may have miscalculated; if Iraq would have resisted more, he might have been able to draw out the war through the elections. In the past 100 years, presidents who were running during a period of war that hadn't yet "turned sour" were reelected. If he can keep the spin on the war in Iraq up, he might have a chance. On the other hand, no president who ever lost the popular vote has won a reelected. In any case, it should be an interesting election.

yes, a tiny percentage of voters could have changed the outcome, but when 40% of the people don't vote, clearly it doesn't really matter to the majority who wins.

So, the majority of voters (the only "majority" who counts) were disenfranchised in 2000. It wasn't even the first time that it had happened, just the most obvious.

We may be in a situation where the flawed electoral system in the USA is beginning to collapse. It may be at the point where what the majority of voters wants doesn't matter, because the elections are being fixed, as they were in Florida. I'm not sure we're there yet, but I do know that the system is flawed and needs to be changed.

• Crater over-predicted penetration of tile coating significantly
  • Initial penetration to described by normal velocity
    -- Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for3cu. In)
  • Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating
    -- Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient mass and velocity
  • Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause significant damage
    -- Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level) can cause significant tile damage

Flight condition is significantly outside of test database
-- Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test

Very good. See also this a hilarious summary of Tufte's essay in PowerPoint style.

cbd.

For a concise summary see also here ;-)

Here's a picture of this thingie.

Great stuff. I wonder what the man himself would have thought of all of this. For those (like me) who want to know more you can download Mike's entire story from here.

In the authors previous post, he states that such Compulsory Tax would run the average family about $50/year and basiclly give them unlimited access to music, video and other artistic productions online.

Now, of that $50 he's allowing 20% to go to "bueracratic overhead" for this knew govt. agency to oversee this monstrosity. So, that leaves $40 to go towards the artists. If we assume that at present the average family's artistic download comprises of 75% music and 25% for all other media then _Music Artists_ would recieve about $30 per family in the US.

Now my point: If this $30/family tax is supposed to be sufficient to fairly compensate the Music Industry artists for their work, then why doesn't the RIAA open shop and allow unlimited downloads for $30/year for all their artists big and small?

What parent wouldn't pay $30/year to give their kids unlimited legal access to their favorite tunes? Certainly $30/year is worth not risking your kid making you the subject of a $$$ lawsuit!

Who needs another bueracratic govt. agency that will be subject to abuse, fraud, and internal waste? This also will not penalise those of us who do not download music and other art from the net, and don't want to be taxed for the behavior of others.

Please, can someone explain why we need to force this down the throat of every American - to give music fans unfettered access to their music - when the music industry, if they choose, can make their works available at rates cheap enough that most people will not steal?

This idea is a follow-up yet it's something we should be following very seriously. Right now, a country station gets to pay Madonna/Celine Dion because they sell the most albums. This could change all that!

Yeah, Madonna and Celine aren't what sell today, but what do I know...

Again, Python (capitalized) source code as opposed to python (snake).

Of course, we then run into the problem of trademarks and service marks that are lowercase to begin with. In english, we tend to associate first-caps as a proper name, just as we do with people. Which, I guess, is one reason why k. d. lange. has her name in all-lowercase - to be different.

• Linux IPv6 howto
• Redhat 6to4 HowTo
• Debian 'howto' (actually mailing list post)
• Aaron Swartz's how to enable IPv6 in OSX

Ah, but Google does have one....well, available at the Googleplex.

The ongoing case against the retroactive extension of copyright duration is also very important to many people, including The Mutopia Project. Though of course, which cases are most important depends on your point of view.

The Supreme Court evidently expects you to pay money to read it now, rather than waiting a few weeks/months. The SCofUS gives Alderson a SCotUS recording monopoly and first dibs on publishing. Based on other transcript prices, you would pay about $200. As discussed on Copyfight, a legal blog, Alderson doesn't allow purchasers to publish on the web. So while we can get next-day transcripts of late night TV shows, we're expected to wait weeks to read the arguments of our most influential legal employees. Thank you Aaron Swartz for putting this up.

It doesn't appear to be the "real" transcript, but rather a reconstruction from memory:

"Thanks to some friends, I've been able to get a copy of the Eldred case transcript. I've cleaned it up, added the names of the justices where possible (searching my memory, the responses in the text, and press reports) and HTMLized it."

That is a quote from the site it's posted on Here

For those of you who really don't want to read through the license, here it is in haiku form:

Macromedia: Just like IBM / but this baby has our name / Macromedia Inc

and of course IBM's

IBM: You really wish that/ Our licenses would fit in/ merely three short lines.

More:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000360
http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/xk9pNnpwmwRdU