Slashdot Mirror

As an RBL subscriber myself, I support this action, even to the extent of blocking other web sites.

When I started using the internet more than a decade ago, it was a neighborly place. When the green card lawyers did their massive spamming and followed it up with a big "fuck you", it was a shock to all of us.

To me, the RBL is about sorting out who has that old-school community spirit from those who don't. The jerks and idiots are welcome to talk to one another (and anybody else who cares to listen to them), but I want to keep them out of my inbox. If an ISP isn't playing by the same anti-spam rules, I cast my ostrakon for them. And if people want to support that ISP by doing business with them, that's swell too, but I don't much care to hear from them either.

As a practical matter, spam-friendly ISPs are often willing to move spammers around in a netblock to avoid a ban, so it could well be that MAPS has given up on anything less than netblock bans. Of course, we don't know the MAPS side of the story, because you didn't take the time to talk to them.

Actually, it's bits of dead sheep. See britannica.com

Can't you realize that government regulation got rid of the AT&T monopoly?

This is only half true. During telephony's first 1/2 century ( roughty 1875-1920), vigorous competition was the norm. From Brittanica:

After the Bell Company's patent on the telephone expired in 1894, it encountered growing competition from independent phone companies and telephone manufacturers. ... In a commitment first enunciated in 1913 but affirmed by the Graham-Willis Act of 1921, AT&T, as a monopoly," agreed to provide long-distance service to all independent telephone companies. By 1939 AT&T controlled 83 percent of all U.S. telephones and 98 percent of all long-distance telephone lines and manufactured 90 percent of all U.S. phone equipment.

That's right, ATT was facing growing competition, so they had the government declare them a "natural monopoly." In 1984, the government was just trying to undue the mistake it had made 60 years earlier.

According to Britannica.com, the population of Florida in 1990 was around 13 million. The certified result says that Bush won by 537 votes. That means Bush is in the lead in Florida by a margin of around 4 thousandths of a percent. Statistically insignificant? Definitely. Gore picked up more votes than that in Broward county alone. It's easy to understand why the Republicans wanted to stop the recounts.

"Polar bear's liver is poisoned becuase of high quantitys of vitamin D, not vitamin A."

From Emazing Science Facts:
"Polar bear livers have such high levels of vitamin A that they are highly toxic to human beings."

From The Alaska Cooperative Extension:
"While most people do not have a ready source of polar bear liver, it is a well known, even notorious source of vitamin A. That is, vitamin A is toxic marginally above required levels and polar bear liver is exceptionally potent."

From Discovery Online:
"Although the extremely high vitamin A content in this fatty diet would be toxic to humans, the polar bear's liver can process it just fine. (When traditional Eskimo hunters killed a polar bear, they would drop its liver through a hole in the ice so nobody would be tempted to eat it.)"

From The Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The polar bear is sought for its trophy value and (especially by Eskimo) for its hide, tendons, fat, and flesh; the liver, however, is inedible and often poisonous because of its high vitamin A content."

Thank you, drive through.

Around these parts, when we talk about the Constit uti on, we generally are referring to both the original and the changes to it. Sort of the same way that when people say "Linux" they're not talking about the 1.0 release.

Personally, I think the constitution is precious precisely because we can change it, (although I am pleased that it's pretty hard to change). The whole point is that the government is not some static thing handed down from on high; it's something we all do. Allowing the constitution to be ammended is just a recognition that a) circumstances change, and b) nothing is perfect, even if it seems that way at the time.

But you're right about the 18th amendment; that's why we repealed it.

It sounds like a small amount of the total - but lets stop and think for a moment. The oceans are HUGE - more than 70% of the worlds surface area. If the statement here is correct and it means that 0.1% of the total energy within the oceans, we're talking about constructing powerplants over 360,796.8 square kilometers of oceans ( earth's surface: 509,600,000 km2. ocean's surface: 70.8% = 360,796,800 km2. 0.1% of which = 360,796.8 km2 )

Perhaps this was a misquoted statistic. Maybe they meant 0.1% of the earth's coastlines - which comes to a suprisingly small figure of only 312 km. Although the statement is vague - do the include the complete volume of the oceans? That would be huge - and how would one trap deep-sea knetic energy?

N.B. My statistics come from articles on britannica.com

The "con" side was led by a fellow student. The student just kept repeating the same thing: "look at the evidence, then make up your own mind." I didn't take his advice. Instead, I assumed that if the WHO was advocating fluoridation so strongly, then it must be good. The majority of people seem to have thought the same: the "pro" side won the referendum.

In the last few years the official story on fluoridation has changed. Fluoridation might be far more dangerous than was supposed at the time of the referendum. Children's toothpaste is now with very low--or no--fluoride, for that reason. The safety level for adults is not really known. In fact, at the time of the referendum, little was actually known about fluoride safety levels. Yet the WHO claimed that its proposed level of fluoridation was certainly safe for everyone.

There is a good "con" site at http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/. This site is an important part of the campaign that has kept Britain 90% fluoridation-free.

I don't really know for sure, but I suspect that if the same situation existed today, the WHO would prevent a "con" website from going up under .health.

The WHO can make mistakes, there is lots of internal politics, and there is a great deal of conservatism in what is called "medical science". The WHO will face up to none of that on their own.

Another good example is with acupuncture. It is only in the last few years that proper experiments have been done, showing that stimulation of acupuncture points affects related areas of the brain. For example, stimulating the acupuncture point associated with hearing affects the part of the brain associated with hearing. And stimulating nearby skin has no effect. (There is an excellent summary article in The Economist here and another good summary from Britannica here ). Again, although the WHO might accept such sites now, they would likely not have done so ten or more years ago.

If the WHO really wants to encourage health, how about a special seal/label/badge that could be put on websites: "This cite certified by the World Health Organisation"? Such a seal would have many advantages, and avoid the main disadvantages, of a regulated .health TLD.

a highly inflationary tax cut,

Now that is an interesting state of affairs. Letting citizens keep their own money is inflationary. He have to take it away via taxes to "save the economy" from the ravages of inflation. Has anyone stopped to think that inflation exists because of hte federal reserve? Inflation is actually devaluation of the currency, and is a consequence of there being "too much money" available. Of course, the reason there is too much money available is because the fractional-reserve banking system, lead and controlled by the Federal Reserve, has created too much money. The Fed buys government debt and gives the treasury credits in its Fed accounts. This acts as "reserves" for lending and as backing for the issusance of currency. It is money created from nothing. Commercial banks borrow money at the Discount Window at the Fed -- again, a debt-for-credit swap. This creates more money out of nothing. Banks make more loans based on deposits and Discount Window loans, making more money from nothing.

The sad thing is, because the U.S. has had a debt-based monetary system since 1933 (and earlier, but only partially), we can never get out of debt because it would destroy the money supply. Before the advent of debt-based money, there was usually little debt on national, corporate or personal scales (wars excepted; they simply printed money to finance early wars). 70% of all business growth was self-financed (financed without borrowing from banks) in the 20s. The Fed put a stop to that by offering loans at below market rates with money created out of thin air.

To pay off the national debt, we will first have to switch back to a commodity-based money system, such as the original silver-backed money system. Commodity money systems don't let the government inflate the money supply at will. The other thing we'd have to do is reform banking. Banks should protect your money, offer useful services, and charge fees for doing so. If you want to invest your money, then do that. Currently, a bank invests 97% or more of your money when you deposit it. This is what causes bank runs; if more than 3% of depositors want to withdraw their money, the bank runs out, because it's given it away to other people. Essentially, when you deposit money at a bank, the bank issues to several people the right to withdraw it. It does this by telling you that you can get it back out, and then loaning the very same money to someone else, who immediately withdraws it to pay for their house or whatever. If the bank runs low on "liquid funds," it borrows from another bank. It may also borrow from the Fed's Discount Window. All the loaning out of the money promised to depositors creates more money on the fly. This process gets recycled several times. I borrow $100k to buy a house. I deposit it at my bank to pay for the construction. The bank then loans it back out to someone else. I write checks; the builder deposits them; his bank loans the money out. Repeat. Because of reserve-fraction regulations made by the Fed, this process has a terminus; but it creates nine dollars for every dollar put into the system (approximately). This is the deposit multipler.

The nanobacteria subject is fascinating but it's another example of a story that is sometimes associated with extra-terrestrial life - probably to gain publicity.

Hmmmm... interesting take, but I don't follow the logic. Robert Folk ruined his reputation with the original "nannobacteria" proposals, and has only recently been supported somewhat by McKay et al. with the "martian fossils", Kajander and his collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for kidney stones, Miller-Hjelle and her collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for polycystic kidney disease, Uwi ns and her findings on nanobes growing on Triassic and Jurassic sandstones collected from petroleum exploration boreholes offshore Western Australia. The American Society for Microbiology has paid serious attention to the controversy, as might be expected. All in all, it's only been recently that "nanobacteria" findings have provided any good publicity at all; mostly, it's been the ruin of the discoverer (in fact, Folk has been described as "coming out of the closet" with his first papers, some 20 years ago -- strong prejudice exists!).

But now things are changing: there are more findings, and more support for the concept. This might even be a scientific paradigm change... and this was my earlier point, that "common sense" arguments are inherently flawed, because the universe is stranger than we imagine.

When was the tectonic plate theory accepted? They must have been interesting times. Certainly my father thinks it's a lot of nonsense...

Alfre d Wegener proposed the theory in 1912, but it didn't receive much support (in the U.S., at least) until post-WWII. My college geology text has a chapter written in '65, which concludes "Although the subject is now a respectable one in scientific circles of the Northern Hemisphere, the question is still far from settled." (Physical Geology, Leet and Judson, 3rd Edition; Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1965)

Wilson, a Canadian geologist, brought everything together around '65 with his model of seafloor spreading, which happened to explain the Pacific seafloor magnetic anomalies found in '61 by Raff and Mason (these are reversed-magnetic-polarity stripes, which are embedded in the newly-created seafloor by the Earth's magnetic field, which periodically reverses -- creating alternating stripes which aren't explainable except by tectonic plate theory). This all but cinched it, but it took years for general acceptance to happen -- in '67, my geology prof wasn't yet convinced, and spent a lecture period arguing against it (the students, OTOH, tended to see the light right away, based on the evidence presented). In '68, Pinchon worked out the plate positions, and by the mid-70's, plate tectonic theory was accepted as correct by all but a few lingering die-hards. (It's interesting that similar remnant-field reversals have been discovered on Mars, isn't it?)

Yes, they were interesting times. Overthrow of "established scientific fact" is always interesting, yet it happens often... that's how science progresses, after all. Only some of the time do the revolutionaries get burned at the stake; the rest of the time, they are merely ridiculed in print and reviled in person.

I guess it is the weakest point. When weighing up evidence like this I guess we rely on our own experiences and yours are different from mine. Having worked in string theory related stuff for a few years I know what it is like to have a sceptical audience. But I generally tend to make guarded statements like "Assuming string theory is a good model then...". I would never make a statement like the following from the NASA press release:

METEORITE YIELDS EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE LIFE ON EARLY MARS
A NASA research team of scientists at the Johnson Space Center and at Stanford University has found evidence that strongly suggests primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago. (My italics)

I guess that's the difference between your opinion and theirs: they figured they had good evidence, and you figure they don't. Dave McKay (of NASA) still sticks pretty much by the findings, and Kathie Thomas-Keprta (Lockheed Martin) very strongly supports them; time will tell who is right. My point is that science never advances without people going out on a limb with their conviction that a new interpretation is correct, rather than the conventional wisdom. This is not the equivalent of perpetrating a hoax! -- even if they are subsequently proven wrong.

Given the doubt over the interpretation of 'nanobacteria' fossils it seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation of part of this 'evidence' is that it is a demonstration that such 'fossils' can be produced by inorganic processes in a sterile environment but of course you don't get big bucks for a finding like this.

On the contrary: some people are getting funding to disprove the "martian fossil" findings. The ASM link quotes some of them. With any discovery, confirmation or refutation of the findings is critical to its acceptance, and the controversy is the process through which the findings on all sides are integrated by the scientific community; Mari on Anderson's lecture is a good summary of this particular controversy, and concludes (correctly, in my opinion) "The main drawback to this story is the media focus on such sensational news. Media hype may increase public awareness of science, but the problem is that the complexities get lost in the glare of the spotlights." Her last couple of sections are well worth reading.

I think the jury's still out, and I think you're prematurely making up your mind. But, hey, it's your mind -- do with it what you will.

---

Yes, RMS is a fanatic. Also Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill.

When Hitler invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia, the Prime Minister of Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain) tried to be "rational" and to avoid a new World War. So he sat down to negotiate with Hitler. He succeded to keep the peace. Hitler would rule Austria and Checoslovaquia.

Churchill was very critic about that. He always said that the Nazis were dangerous and that Hitler and the Nazis should be stop as soon as possible.

When Hitler invaded Poland it was clear he was right.

Only fanatics can lead a revolution. If RMS was rational, the Free Software movement would be lost.

I know that also Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse-tung were fanatics. But is our responsibility to decide what is the wise solution. To follow a fanatic or to surrender to the current situation.

I follow RMS

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA: Pétain, (Henri-)Philippe

Because he thought it would be worse for the French to fight a losing war with Germany, he went so far as to collaberate with the enemy, becoming leader of the Vichy puppet state.

Was French resistance doomed, futile? Well, whether it was or not, I think it was worth trying, but that's just me. Better to die a hero than live as a Nazi stooge.

Pétain, however, felt that capitulation was the lesser of two evils.... and he has gone down in history as a traitor.

This has nothing to do with the current election, except for this:

Whenever I hear someone talk about how we must support the lesser of two evils (even if they are comparitively trivial evils like our two presidential tickets), I think of Pétain and the choice he made.

This is very interesting. One can envision an inexpensive desktop unit that consists of a clear, heavy plastic or glass dome settled upon a flat base containing the coolant and other freezer innards, and through which clear, heavy plastic or glass dome, can be seen a solid mass of ice containing within itself an intricately layered ice sculpture, all carefully constructed from very pure water and dense colorants to maximize clarity and sharpness, and in which are delicate, often beautiful figurines and other three-dimensional features, such as entire miniature forests or seascapes, as well as highly-detailed clouds and flocks of birds.

This combination of a relative ease of manufacture of such internally complex but quite durable ice sculptures and the availability of quiet, inexpensive freezer mechanisms, might very well prove to be a popular art form, much in the way of those old "Lava Lamps" from the 1960's, but not nearly as tacky ... uh, I meant to say, "but even groovier" 8^].

(No, I will not speculate upon what the pornography industry would do with this, nor will I remark upon what might be done with a Beowulf cluster of such devices).

This first example is becoming cliche, but stick with me a moment: In Japan, acts of violence and depravity are commonplace in anime and manga, and are accepted... yadda yadda. And their people commit one of the lowest rates of real violence in the world.

Contrast that with Germany, where entertainment that depicts violence committed by one human against another is verboten. Command and Conquer had to be retouched and its manual rewritten to depict its soldiers as robots, not people. Even then, it was sold only to adults. Forget about playing Panzer General. And God Forbid you even link to a web page that mentions Nazis in anything but a contemptful light. This is a reaction to their Fascist era, a time when elected German leaders executed 6 million minority citizens.

So yes. It is cultural. IANASociologist, so I won't get all Jungian and speculate about archetypes and cultural personality, but each society has to find what works -- and what doesn't -- for them. And in every society except stagnant, isolated ones, it's an ongoing search.

Now I'm going to use a word that will make a lot of you want to invoke Godwin's Law. But I'm not using that word in the sense in which Godwin usually encountered it. I'm going to use it in it's original sense. It's important that we, as informed citizens, be able to talk about this word, and know what it really means.

Get out your dictionary and look up the first definition of fascism - it's not about goosestepping and stiffarm saluting and gassing minorities. It's about efficiency. Fascism is the principle that any order, any rule, any law, is justified if it means the state will benefit: be more efficient, run smoother, be safer. Beginning to sound familiar? It should.

Because that's exactly what a lot of legislators have aimed for lately, without regard for individual liberty: anti-smoking laws, censorship of violence in media, drug wars, gun control, three strikes mandatory sentencing. Even worse, if it hasn't been effective at safety and efficiency, it's been successfully sold as such.

And it's not only state-oriented fascism, it's corporate-oriented fascism. Washington legislators are more than happy to exchan ge votes for the contributions of major corporations in order that they may run more efficiently. Laws are continually passed "for the good of the people" when they are really just good for business. To hell with the constitution, there's a buck to be made.

It's scary how the children of men who fought against fascism in WW2 are so willing to embrace it. It's scary how easily we've forgotten. Too many liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike are willing to sacrifice our liberties for safety and efficiency. My grandfather, a WW2 B-29 pilot, is probably pounding the walls of his coffin in frustration.

But that's the dark corners of the big picture. We still have defenders of the liberties endowed upon us by the constitution: From the EFF to the NRA. The entire state of Nevada and most of Texas. From PETA and Greenpeace to Larry Flynt. The Libertarian Party and even Nader. Anyone who argues for the rights of anything other than big business and "what's best for the country."

We aren't going to wind up like modern Germany. There's an equilibrium somewhere between libertarian anarchy and fascism, and we're seeking it. There are too many of us who paid attention in high school Civics class and know what's in the bill of rights. There are too many of us who own guns and know how to use them properly... and accurately. There are too many of us who entertain ourselves simulating small unit combat and tactics...

So you see, in the end, FPS and RTS games are one of the weapons in our arsenal against bad government. They fit right in alongside free press and the right to bear arms. No wonder they're being condemned by government. I suggest that these games -- weapon and combat simulators, really -- should be protected under the second amendment, as well as the first.

This is something that really irks me about science. I paid attention in Chemistry class, and I learned that definition of "organic".

However, you should know that the word "organic" predates the our knowledge of atoms by several centries (No doubt because you were misinformed by junk science; or at least by scientists who were racing to "discover" shit that was already there (Hey, happy Columbus Day).

Atoms were first 'discovered' about a century ago, but the word organic is at least 500 years old. It's original meaning *was* somethign like "Derived from the organism". The definition of "organic" had nothing to do with "Carbon based", because we had no idea that the universe existed on an atomic level.

You doubt my word? Here, check out the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
the word 'organic' is about 500 years old.

Scientists discovered the word organic in much the same way that they 'discovered' carbon atoms. The matter was already there, scientists were trying to make heads-or-tails out of it these new things which they were calling 'atoms' (Which means "Cannot be cut"), and so they appropriated the word 'organic' to mean 'carbon-based', because as far as they knew, everything that was "carbon-based" was "derived from living organisms".

Then came petroleum byproducts like Gasoline and Plastic (BTW, plastic is *another* old world which was "redefined" by science. plastic used to mean "pliable"), which are technically "carbon-based", but unless you trace their root back for many eons. But the "Carbon based" definition stuck.

So next time people like me talk to you about "Organic veggies", there's a reason why we use that word.

This is something that really irks me about science. I paid attention in Chemistry class, and I learned that definition of "organic".

However, you should know that the word "organic" predates the our knowledge of atoms by several centries (No doubt because you were misinformed by junk science; or at least by scientists who were racing to "discover" shit that was already there (Hey, happy Columbus Day).

Atoms were first 'discovered' about a century ago, but the word organic is at least 500 years old. It's original meaning *was* somethign like "Derived from the organism". The definition of "organic" had nothing to do with "Carbon based", because we had no idea that the universe existed on an atomic level.

You doubt my word? Here, check out the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
the word 'organic' is about 500 years old.

Scientists discovered the word organic in much the same way that they 'discovered' carbon atoms. The matter was already there, scientists were trying to make heads-or-tails out of it these new things which they were calling 'atoms' (Which means "Cannot be cut"), and so they appropriated the word 'organic' to mean 'carbon-based', because as far as they knew, everything that was "carbon-based" was "derived from living organisms".

Then came petroleum byproducts like Gasoline and Plastic (BTW, plastic is *another* old world which was "redefined" by science. plastic used to mean "pliable"), which are technically "carbon-based", but unless you trace their root back for many eons. But the "Carbon based" definition stuck.

So next time people like me talk to you about "Organic veggies", there's a reason why we use that word.

I'd be surprised to learn that they weren't "owned" by somebody, either the composer or the person hiring the composer.

Then be suprised.

I believe information sans owner is probably the historically new idea, not the reverse

Then believe wrongly.

The first restricitions on copying were esstablished merely "to raise government revenue and to give governing authorities control over publication contents."

The first law to ever acknowledge publishers or writers as having ownership rights to their works (as opposed to publishers having royally-granted monopolies on the buisness of publishing) was the Statute of Anne, passed in England in 1710. More than 6,000 years after the origin of the written word.

Steven E. Ehrbar

I agree with your post, except for this part - the War on Drugs didn't start because hippies liked to smoke it - it started because of racism - Chinese immigrants smoked opium, and because of this they could work ungodly hours and would work for cheaper than American workers

I think the drug laws cause more problems than they solve but bringing in this racism canard is wrong.

It makes me wonder, what would be the mass of an object at dead stop? I've heard it argued that there can be no dead stop due to there being no exact framework for the universe, but I disagree, if the big bang was a point, matter must be traveling in opposite directions at exactly opposite velocities on either side of this single point, every velocity in one direction is matched exactly by a velocity on the other side of this single point. This thought being how I believe the big bang occurred.

It has to do with a formula I came up with while I was having a particularly good day, one I haven't had since, Angular velocity (J) multiplied by density (D) divided by volume V equals the gravitational wake (G) of any particular object, or JD/V=G. In a singularity, V is going to be 0, this is lots of matter in no space, spinning quickly for the same reason a figure skater moves faster when they pull up into a tight axle. Being literate computer folks I think you know what a divide by zero gets you, JD/0=? it leads me to suspect that even a singularity has measurable volume, because active spin in no space would make infinite gravity and suck the universe in to get cozy.

First, the big bang was a singularity to begin with, a mighty big one, likely spinning as it sucked in whatever mass was growing it, and it's spin was every velocity that was put into it spinning in almost zero volume, but a curious thing happenened, the velocities added to it started to cancle it's spin, slowing it down until J was 0, so 0D/0=0, no gravity to hold D inside of V, so physics snapped back in that very instant and all the velocity ever added to it springs back traveling in equal and opposite directions like god's own firecracker.

This therory appears to be consistant with Frame Dragging and the whole general relitivity business.

if you'd like to take a look at my raw notes, go here, although I warn that they're a little messy and in some parts totally wrong :)

Actually that's not entirely true. The confederates, if you recall actually fired the first shots of the war. The Union did not, at that time, have any massive organized troops. Their defeat in Charleston, kinda kicked them in the butt a little bit.

carnivore

a member of the mammalian order Carnivora, literally "meat eaters." The order Carnivora is composed of 10 families of primarily predatory mammals: the dogs, foxes, wolves, and jackals (Canidae); bears (Ursidae); raccoons and pandas (Procyonidae); weasels, skunks, otters, and badgers (Mustelidae); genets, civets, and mongooses (Viverridae); hyenas (Hyaenidae); cats (Felidae); sea lions, or eared seals (Otariidae); earless seals (Phocidae); and the walrus (Odobenidae). Although the term carnivore can be applied broadly to any meat-eating animal, including mammals in other orders such as the otter shrews (Insectivora) and the Tasmanian devil (Marsupialia), mammalogists generally use the term in this more restricted sense. Most members of the order are in fact meat eaters, although some ursids, procyonids, and canids rely heavily on vegetation, and the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) lives almost entirely on bamboo shoots.

Marine carnivores (the three families of pinnipeds, or seal-like forms) are found in all oceanic waters and along the coasts of all the continents. Terrestrial carnivores are native to all continents but Antarctica and Australia, although the dingo (Canis dingo) was introduced to the latter during the early Aboriginal invasion.

How is Europa's size compared to Earth's or Luna's? With this discovery, could this be a comfortable place for people to live (with water and all)?

Europa's diameter is 3,138 km (1,946 miles), just a bit smaller than Earth's moon.

The surface gravity is also slightly less than that of our moon, which is 1/6 Earth gravity. That wouldn't stop people from living there, but the fact that the entire surface is ice would make it a bit, well, slippery.

I know it's far away, but how does it compare to Mars?

Europa isn't really comparable to Mars in many ways. Mars has an atmosphere -- thin and unbreathable, but much more substantial than vaccuum. Also, being much closer to the sun, Mars would have more energy available for things like growing plants and generating power from wind and sun.

On the other hand, I suppose that Europa's oceans (assuming they exist) could be more hospitable than the surface! Anything's possible... especially when monoliths are involved. :)

--

ADDON: (Sorry..forgot to add the cross reference)

Source 2: Britannica .com

Sorry, just didn't want to get sued or something.


-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

No, you are half right. It has to do with Taranto...but it has to do with Tarantullas:

And I quoteth:
"The St. Vitus' dance became a real public menace, seizing hundreds of people, spreading from city to city, mainly in the Low Countries, in Germany, and in Italy during the 14th and 15th centuries. It was a kind of mass hysteria, a wild leaping dance in which the people screamed and foamed with fury, with the appearance of persons possessed. In these convulsive, frantic, and jerky dances, religious, medical, and social influences probably interacted in response to such things as the epilepsy-like seizures of persons suffering from the Black Death. Italy was afflicted with tarantism, an epidemic presumably caused by the bite of venomous spiders. Its effects had to be counteracted by distributing the poison over the whole body and "sweating it out," which was accomplished by dancing to a special kind of music, the tarantella."

Source: Britannica.com

Thank you...come again.


-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Knowing that the word is amphora, here are some references to the amphora being used as a unit of measure

Encyclopædia Britannica
amphora,
ancient Roman unit of capacity equal to 48 sextarii and equivalent to 25.5 litres (6.7 U.S. gallons). The term amphora was borrowed from the Greeks, who used it to designate a measure equal to about 34 litres (9 gallons).

From Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary:Firkin - Used only in John 2:6; the Attic amphora, equivalent to the Hebrew bath (q.v.), a measure for liquids containing about 8 7/8 gallons.

History : Sketches in Jewish Life - Ch. 16 - B
On the lintel over the doorway, between two wreaths of Flowers, is carved a Vessel, shaped like a Roman amphora. It so closely resembles the conventional type of the 'Pot of Manna,' as found on coins and in the ruins of the Synagogue at Capernaum, that it doubtless formed ...

These seem to document that the term amphora was used to represent a unit of measure, and perhaps a unit of currency going back to biblical times. And so, much the same as we have symbols to represent currency (like $) or measurement (#) you'd have to think the symbol (or a predecessor) is older than 500 years.

The greatest risk is that of degradation overtime from simple aging of the DNA-based tissue, not to mention being able to become victim of biological diseases since it's alive, after all.
I personnaly would shake in horror at the thought of my computer developping AIDS ;)
This said, I doubt such an implementation would actually happen over time, there are just too many risks involving 'live' components in mechanized objects.

--
Kiro

First, the basis for current copyright laws came into existence because the printin g press made it possible to quickly, cheaply, and easily create almost limitless copies of current products being sold by a small group of people. The printing press forced literature to look at a new method of distribution and ownership.

Sound familiar? So, now that digital copying allows the quick, cheap, and easy replication of digital products, well...it's time for new laws, and a new way to look at music ownership and distribution. I think it's time we stopped looking at music as a product -- manufactured by musicians, packaged by record companies, and distributed by, well, distributors.

What if we started looking at music as a service, provided by musicians, subsidized by fans, and distributed to the masses freely? On a recent road trip, my fellow musicians and I were musing over the implications of digital distribution. Our model is this: Let the artist create. Let the listeners who care about the music and the artist support the project, contributing to those they enjoy and want to support. When x amount is reached, and the project can be funded, the artist releases the music to the masses. Never again will they have to charge, they can reach whomever they want unrestricted by the prices set by distributors, and they don't have to starve.

Much like many software distributions today, the listener could download the product for free, replicating for their own use, at their own expense. Or, the listener could still buy a packaged version of the product, complete with liner notes, cover art, and a physical media.

For a valid version of this model, check out Todd Rundgren's Patronet. His is a subscription service. You subscribe, you pay and he promises to deliver product exclusively to subscribers online. His most recent album was originally distributed online via this method. It's an interesting concept.

So, slashdotters, what do you think of Music as a Service? Think it's a valid model? Would you pay? Would you create under those terms? Now is the time to forge out the (workable) venue that you want.

"So we're not home and dry."

First, the basis for current copyright laws came into existence because the printin g press made it possible to quickly, cheaply, and easily create almost limitless copies of current products being sold by a small group of people. The printing press forced literature to look at a new method of distribution and ownership.

Sound familiar? So, now that digital copying allows the quick, cheap, and easy replication of digital products, well...it's time for new laws, and a new way to look at music ownership and distribution. I think it's time we stopped looking at music as a product -- manufactured by musicians, packaged by record companies, and distributed by, well, distributors.

What if we started looking at music as a service, provided by musicians, subsidized by fans, and distributed to the masses freely? On a recent road trip, my fellow musicians and I were musing over the implications of digital distribution. Our model is this: Let the artist create. Let the listeners who care about the music and the artist support the project, contributing to those they enjoy and want to support. When x amount is reached, and the project can be funded, the artist releases the music to the masses. Never again will they have to charge, they can reach whomever they want unrestricted by the prices set by distributors, and they don't have to starve.

Much like many software distributions today, the listener could download the product for free, replicating for their own use, at their own expense. Or, the listener could still buy a packaged version of the product, complete with liner notes, cover art, and a physical media.

For a valid version of this model, check out Todd Rundgren's Patronet. His is a subscription service. You subscribe, you pay and he promises to deliver product exclusively to subscribers online. His most recent album was originally distributed online via this method. It's an interesting concept.

So, slashdotters, what do you think of Music as a Service? Think it's a valid model? Would you pay? Would you create under those terms? Now is the time to forge out the (workable) venue that you want.

"So we're not home and dry."

As Jenkins points out in his article, if Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and the authors of the Bible were covered by the DMCA, none of their works would have received a fraction of the attention or influence they've generated

Publication of drama was left, along with much of the poetry and the popular literature, to publishers who were not members of the Stationers' Company and to the outright pirates, who scrambled for what they could get and but for whom much would never have been printed. To join this fringe, the would-be publisher had only to get hold of a manuscript, by fair means or foul, enter it as his copy (or dispense with the formality), and have it printed. Just such a man was Thomas Thorpe, the publisher of Shakespeare's sonnets (1609); the mysterious "Mr. W.H." in the dedication is thought by some to be the person who procured him his copy. The first Shakespeare play to be published (Titus Andronicus, 1594) was printed by a notorious pirate, John Danter, who also brought out, anonymously, a defective Romeo and Juliet (1597), largely from shorthand notes made during performance. ....

This history also points out that what are now known as copyrights were used long ago to limit who could and could not print almost anything. Once again the privilege (and money) generally went to the rich and well-connected.

According to Brittanica.com, people blink at a rate ranging from once every two to ten seconds. I'd be curious to figure out EXACTLY how such a piece of software would determine whether you were blinking for the sake of blinking, or blinking to activate something on the computer. Presumably, it would keep track of how often you normally blink, along with standard deviations from that pattern, and then say, "ooooo, that was quick - better send a message to the application...". This leads to one major problem: What if I have something in my eye, and I start blinking a whole lot? Is it going to open every application I have? Even if we forced a double blink, this could potentially be a problem. Blinking, unfortunately, is not a very well regulated activity - we do it often, and we can come up with averages for intervals, but for a computer to decide whether I really meant to initiate an action, or whether I am just having a crazy eye spasm has got to be difficult. Mouse clicks are easy. They are a definite action - which demands a definite response on the part of an application.

Formal wars between India and Pakistan:

• 1948, Pakistan troops enter Kashmir in the guise of tribals. Kashmir signs instrument of accession with India. Indian troops drive out Pakistani forces.
• 1965, Pakistan troops invade Kutchh, hoping to take advantage of Indian state in disarray after its 1962 war with China. India opens second front in Punjab and almost captures Lahore. Agrees to U.N. sponsored cease-fire.
• 1971, India helps with the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan after 1 million Bangladeshis are massacred and more than 10 million cross the border into India.

Non-declared wars:

• 1989-present, Pakistan trains and arms ``freedom fighters'' who are conducting a proxy war in Kashmir. Documented by U.S. State Department studies, among others.
• 1990's, Indian and Pakistan troops face off on the Siachin Glacier(at a height of over 20,000 ft). Both face enormous cost and the cold claims more casualties than bullets.
• 1999, Flashback to 1948, ``Kashmiri separatists''(that later turn out to be mostly Pakistani troops) cross the border into areas of Kashmir just before the snows melt on the mountains. Indian troops flush them out at great human cost because they are limited to not striking targets beyond the "Line of Control"(demarcated through a bilateral agreement in 1972).

PBS interview by Jim Lehrer about 1999 conflict plus some background.

I have a bunch of more references if anyone is interested.

Damascus Steel (Britannica)

Ever heard of the Bacteriophage?

Or seen a picture of one?

Isn't the apperance mechanical like? The first time I ever heard about the phage was from a ufo freak who suggested that in reality phages are MNT devices that has been planted in our ecological system by extra terrestial intelligence. To what purpose would you say? I don't know.

But, I do know that the phage is a virus that attacks and feeds off bacterias, and that they are found in many flavours and designs. It's primary objective is to reassemble, and spread. More about the phages

Today phages are increasingly popular in biology as they are believed to keep the secrets of bacterias and might provide us with knowledge to battle resistant bacterieas.

In the end we might find out that they were created by somebody like us, maybe in a galaxy far far away, a long time ago.

Anyway, here's some more pictures

resource pages: www.phage.org and the foresight page

NanoBot

So we are back to the solar-panels-on-the-roof argument. I'll remember to call you next time I need someone to shovel snow off my roof so my solar panels can see the sun.

I'm afraid I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, so I cannot check on your claimed 20 year longevity. However, I do see a Britannica article that points out that one needs 40sq m of solar panels per person per day, even in sunny regions. Not everyone can afford to buy one house per person. And these estimates are for thermal energy generation (the ones that I called viable in my original post). Other media success stories also use thermal energy solutions. Photovoltaics are far less efficient.

Your use of ICs as an analogy is poor. Our computers use very tiny amounts of silicon per person. Photovoltaics, on the other hand, need large surface areas and far more raw material.

Theory is nice, but changing the world needs more than a few nice theoretical numbers.

I'm from Costa Rica and it makes me proud to see it in a Slashdot story.

First of all, we don't have 1 computer. You can check out some stats here that compare it to other central american countries.

No, it's not communist.

Here's a map and here's some real info.

Education is not bad. As a matter of fact AIS (Acer Inforation Services) set up their base customer help lines in Costa Rica, so most of the calls people made to 1-800-ACERHELP (I don't remember the exact number) got routed to CR. This was because labor is cheap compared to the states and people are skilled.

In 1997 (I think) Intel build the latest Fab in Costa Rica, where a lot of the Pentium III people use here are produced.

However, getting back on track. Internet for everyone is not easy. Costa Rica's televcommunications infrastructure is still developing. They released Cable Modems around 6 months ago and the talk is starting about DSL. The drawback, however, is that net access is only from statelite links, and a poor country like Costa Rica can't afford big fat links from satelites it doesn't own, so net access outside Costa Rica is kinda slow.

The Telecomunications are also a matter of big discussion, since right now they are controled by the state. That means that there is only one telephone company and one ISP (Comertial) from which all individuals and businesses get their connections.

Getting email to everybody started with getting access to all schools, but that's a far away project.

I hope everything matures.

-Cureless-


--

I'm from Costa Rica and it makes me proud to see it in a Slashdot story.

First of all, we don't have 1 computer. You can check out some stats here that compare it to other central american countries.

No, it's not communist.

Here's a map and here's some real info.

Education is not bad. As a matter of fact AIS (Acer Inforation Services) set up their base customer help lines in Costa Rica, so most of the calls people made to 1-800-ACERHELP (I don't remember the exact number) got routed to CR. This was because labor is cheap compared to the states and people are skilled.

In 1997 (I think) Intel build the latest Fab in Costa Rica, where a lot of the Pentium III people use here are produced.

However, getting back on track. Internet for everyone is not easy. Costa Rica's televcommunications infrastructure is still developing. They released Cable Modems around 6 months ago and the talk is starting about DSL. The drawback, however, is that net access is only from statelite links, and a poor country like Costa Rica can't afford big fat links from satelites it doesn't own, so net access outside Costa Rica is kinda slow.

The Telecomunications are also a matter of big discussion, since right now they are controled by the state. That means that there is only one telephone company and one ISP (Comertial) from which all individuals and businesses get their connections.

Getting email to everybody started with getting access to all schools, but that's a far away project.

I hope everything matures.

-Cureless-


--

Didn't a bunch of Canadian Indians (Iraquois? Mohawk?) stage a revolt with semi-automatic weapons a few years ago?

That was the Oka crisis in the early 1990's. The Quebec government allowed a golf course to be built on some land near Oka, Que. A group of Mohawk claimed the land was sacred ground (may have been a burial ground, it was a long time ago). Mohawk Warriors showed up in support, set up

BZAPP!!! Wrong answer.
The city of OKA allowed the construction of the golf course over the ancient burial ground; a blockade ensued for a few weeks, when the Sûreté du Québec (police) was called to dismantle it. In the ensuing mêlée, an officer was killed.

(By the way, Oka is the algonquin name; mohawks call it Kahnesatake. Once mohawks settled there, they gradually drove out the algonquins and hurons who lived there elsewhere).

The land in dispute around Oka is not, and never has been an indian reserve, as it is commonly assumed, and this explains the involvement of the Sûreté du Québec rather than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (federal) normally used in case of indian revolts (such as the Kahnawake revolt in 1956 against the construction of the Saint-Lawrence Seaway - Oddly enough, the picture on the website is taken at Kahnawake; the bridge is the Mercier bridge, which was blockaded in 1990). As a matter of fact, the federal government department of indian affairs has been purposely been dragging it's feet in this matter, the more so because it helps tarnishing the image of Québec towards the world.

In Canada, indian affairs are a federal jurisdiction, so to better control them and use it against the french who want more control over their lifes. But in the OKA case, the land where mohawks have been living never had the status of reserve. In fact, that land was donated by a french religious (whose name escapes me) order to american mohawks that were fleeing the genocide perpetrated against the mohawk nation in upstate new-york, in the early 1800's, even though the mohawks/iroquois were the ennemies of the french (well, that was when they were useful to the english at war against the french - but when they were no longer useful, after the american Revolution, they were simply exterminated and driven out).

Other mohawks settled in Kahnawake , immediately south of Montréal (the site is worth visiting, being written in mohawk - see below).

barricades, and held a standoff. A second standoff took place on the Mercier Bridge. I believe those standoffs ended peacefully. Another standoff took place at the Ipperwash military base in Ontario; a group of natives claimed the land had been unlawfully taken from them. One native was shot and killed; there have been calls for an inquest into who gave the shooting order.

It is interesting to note that while in Québec, the weeks-long blockade had almost totally cut the road to some important suburbs of Montréal and thus inconvenienced untold thousands of commuters (to the point that an emergency commuter train service had to be implemented), not a single mohawk has been killed by police nor army, whilst a little band of indians in Ontario blocking a little backroad saw one of theirs shot dead by police after only a few days of obstruction. This clearly shows the inherent racism of the english and the high tolerance of the french. In fact, in Québec, 20% of the carceral population is indian, whilst in the rest of Canada, it is 80%.

As for Quebec, even the Quebecois have become sick of the separation mess. The government there has been trying to incite separtist feeling time and time again, but I don't think they're

There is no rush, it is inevitable; history clearly shows that a people's desire for sovereignty (it is not separation nor separatism, we've always been a separate nation) cannot be suppressed indefinitely.

going to pull it off anytime soon. Still, the Parti Quebecois (the ruling party) is pretty paranoid about English - ask a Canadian about the "tongue troopers" and Bill 101 sometime.

The purpose of bill 101 is to protect the existence of the french language in Québec against the onslaught of neighbouring english. The most visible effects have been the prohibition of english commercial signs, and the impossibility for immigrants to go to english schools.

The main idea there is to drive home the point that one cannot expect to live in Québec without knowing french.

Even though more than 80% of the population of Québec is french, immigrants have systematically assimilated themselves into the english community, since the immigration is a federal jurisdiction (the federal govenrment still does not inform immigrants that Québec is primarly french, and encourages them to speak english), and for the last quarter millenium (th e french first came to settle in 1604, thus beating the Mayf lower), the english have been labouring hard to make the french disappear from Canada (in 1760, at the time of the conquest, the french were 90% of the population; in 1867, at the time of the confederation, the french were 50% of the population; nowadays, the french are only 24% of the population). Ethnic cleansing in Canada has been quite successful: large segments of french population outside of Québec have been almost totally eliminated. In the 1880's, a whole french province, Manitoba, was forcibly repressed and turned into an english province. Ontario outlawed the teaching of french language in schools back in 1912. And, as recently as 1977, airlines pilots were susceptible to jail terms if they spoke french during the performance of their duties.

The expression "tongue troopers" is a bogeyman of the english media. The office de la langue française do not hire inspectors to report violations, but rather relies on the public to file complaints, which are then investigated by inspectors.

Another less known (and much less publicized, it would definitely shatter the negative image of Québec the federal government has consistently been trying to portray) effect of bill 101 is the protection it extends to native languages. This is why the Kahnawake website is in mohawk language: Québec has the highest proportion of native speaking their native language (over 80%) whereas in Canada, only the older generations speak the native languages, as the young have been mercilessly taught in schools that viciously suppressed any use of the native language.

Bill 101 is a very mild instrument whose purpose is to undo centuries of extremely harsh treatment.

There's some East-West tension; Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of Manitoba and B.C. tend to be more conservative than the rest of the country. Nothing vicious; the last really ugly conflict was during the last Quebec referendum (of course).

Of course. This is the typical cluelessness that can be expected out of the english in Canada towards the french. And they wonder why the french want to go out...

--
Here's my mirror

Didn't a bunch of Canadian Indians (Iraquois? Mohawk?) stage a revolt with semi-automatic weapons a few years ago?

That was the Oka crisis in the early 1990's. The Quebec government allowed a golf course to be built on some land near Oka, Que. A group of Mohawk claimed the land was sacred ground (may have been a burial ground, it was a long time ago). Mohawk Warriors showed up in support, set up

BZAPP!!! Wrong answer.
The city of OKA allowed the construction of the golf course over the ancient burial ground; a blockade ensued for a few weeks, when the Sûreté du Québec (police) was called to dismantle it. In the ensuing mêlée, an officer was killed.

(By the way, Oka is the algonquin name; mohawks call it Kahnesatake. Once mohawks settled there, they gradually drove out the algonquins and hurons who lived there elsewhere).

The land in dispute around Oka is not, and never has been an indian reserve, as it is commonly assumed, and this explains the involvement of the Sûreté du Québec rather than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (federal) normally used in case of indian revolts (such as the Kahnawake revolt in 1956 against the construction of the Saint-Lawrence Seaway - Oddly enough, the picture on the website is taken at Kahnawake; the bridge is the Mercier bridge, which was blockaded in 1990). As a matter of fact, the federal government department of indian affairs has been purposely been dragging it's feet in this matter, the more so because it helps tarnishing the image of Québec towards the world.

In Canada, indian affairs are a federal jurisdiction, so to better control them and use it against the french who want more control over their lifes. But in the OKA case, the land where mohawks have been living never had the status of reserve. In fact, that land was donated by a french religious (whose name escapes me) order to american mohawks that were fleeing the genocide perpetrated against the mohawk nation in upstate new-york, in the early 1800's, even though the mohawks/iroquois were the ennemies of the french (well, that was when they were useful to the english at war against the french - but when they were no longer useful, after the american Revolution, they were simply exterminated and driven out).

Other mohawks settled in Kahnawake , immediately south of Montréal (the site is worth visiting, being written in mohawk - see below).

barricades, and held a standoff. A second standoff took place on the Mercier Bridge. I believe those standoffs ended peacefully. Another standoff took place at the Ipperwash military base in Ontario; a group of natives claimed the land had been unlawfully taken from them. One native was shot and killed; there have been calls for an inquest into who gave the shooting order.

It is interesting to note that while in Québec, the weeks-long blockade had almost totally cut the road to some important suburbs of Montréal and thus inconvenienced untold thousands of commuters (to the point that an emergency commuter train service had to be implemented), not a single mohawk has been killed by police nor army, whilst a little band of indians in Ontario blocking a little backroad saw one of theirs shot dead by police after only a few days of obstruction. This clearly shows the inherent racism of the english and the high tolerance of the french. In fact, in Québec, 20% of the carceral population is indian, whilst in the rest of Canada, it is 80%.

As for Quebec, even the Quebecois have become sick of the separation mess. The government there has been trying to incite separtist feeling time and time again, but I don't think they're

There is no rush, it is inevitable; history clearly shows that a people's desire for sovereignty (it is not separation nor separatism, we've always been a separate nation) cannot be suppressed indefinitely.

going to pull it off anytime soon. Still, the Parti Quebecois (the ruling party) is pretty paranoid about English - ask a Canadian about the "tongue troopers" and Bill 101 sometime.

The purpose of bill 101 is to protect the existence of the french language in Québec against the onslaught of neighbouring english. The most visible effects have been the prohibition of english commercial signs, and the impossibility for immigrants to go to english schools.

The main idea there is to drive home the point that one cannot expect to live in Québec without knowing french.

Even though more than 80% of the population of Québec is french, immigrants have systematically assimilated themselves into the english community, since the immigration is a federal jurisdiction (the federal govenrment still does not inform immigrants that Québec is primarly french, and encourages them to speak english), and for the last quarter millenium (th e french first came to settle in 1604, thus beating the Mayf lower), the english have been labouring hard to make the french disappear from Canada (in 1760, at the time of the conquest, the french were 90% of the population; in 1867, at the time of the confederation, the french were 50% of the population; nowadays, the french are only 24% of the population). Ethnic cleansing in Canada has been quite successful: large segments of french population outside of Québec have been almost totally eliminated. In the 1880's, a whole french province, Manitoba, was forcibly repressed and turned into an english province. Ontario outlawed the teaching of french language in schools back in 1912. And, as recently as 1977, airlines pilots were susceptible to jail terms if they spoke french during the performance of their duties.

The expression "tongue troopers" is a bogeyman of the english media. The office de la langue française do not hire inspectors to report violations, but rather relies on the public to file complaints, which are then investigated by inspectors.

Another less known (and much less publicized, it would definitely shatter the negative image of Québec the federal government has consistently been trying to portray) effect of bill 101 is the protection it extends to native languages. This is why the Kahnawake website is in mohawk language: Québec has the highest proportion of native speaking their native language (over 80%) whereas in Canada, only the older generations speak the native languages, as the young have been mercilessly taught in schools that viciously suppressed any use of the native language.

Bill 101 is a very mild instrument whose purpose is to undo centuries of extremely harsh treatment.

There's some East-West tension; Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of Manitoba and B.C. tend to be more conservative than the rest of the country. Nothing vicious; the last really ugly conflict was during the last Quebec referendum (of course).

Of course. This is the typical cluelessness that can be expected out of the english in Canada towards the french. And they wonder why the french want to go out...

--
Here's my mirror

just because we don't like the law doesn't give us license to break it

Did you ever study the Boston Tea Party in history class?

The Americans were protesting both a tax on tea(taxation without representation) and the perceived monopoly of the East India Company.

If it weren't for our ancestors breaking "the law." We'd still be under the rule of Britain.

acm

The Statute of Anne, passed in England in 1710, was a milestone in the history of copyright law. It recognized that authors should be the primary beneficiaries of copyright law; it also established the idea that such laws should have only limited duration, after which works could pass into public domain. The designated period came to be set at 28 years. Similar laws were enacted in Denmark (1741), the United States (1790), and France (1793). Through the 19th century most civilized countries established laws that protected the work of native authors.

However, in practice today, copyrights are used more and more as a means to beat back the creativity and ability to acquire information of others. (Search back in Slashdot for the story about "For Dummies".)

Um, not to rain on your unsupported rant, but MIR is still functioning peachy keen. Articles here and here

This is an article from brittanica.com containing the definition and description of the flywheel. Hope this will sort things out for ya. Have fun.


--------------------------------------------

Who says that intelligence is the ultimate goal in evolution? Intelligence could be just another evolution dead end just like the dinosaurs. (Remember, the dinosaur s where successful, it took major catastrophic event to end their reign)
Technology/science has helped us to live "better" lives since we are more productive. But are are our lifes better. I've heard theories that hunter/gatherer/early farmers "worked" few hours a day, and where are we now? 8hrs+ workdays, stress, no time with our families (remember, families used to work together, the elderly taught the younger).
Maybe this is the reason we haven't heard from other life forms, intelligence is a dead end from evolution point of view, but it's early and I havent got my caffeine fix yet, so I'm just rambling... :)
J.
crap! slashdot is f*cking up my href's! (yes, I did use preview)

Who says that intelligence is the ultimate goal in evolution? Intelligence could be just another evolution dead end just like the dinosaurs. (Remember, the dinosaur s where successful, it took major catastrophic event to end their reign)
Technology/science has helped us to live "better" lives since we are more productive. But are are our lifes better. I've heard theories that hunter/gatherer/early farmers "worked" few hours a day, and where are we now? 8hrs+ workdays, stress, no time with our families (remember, families used to work together, the elderly taught the younger).
Maybe this is the reason we haven't heard from other life forms, intelligence is a dead end from evolution point of view, but it's early and I havent got my caffeine fix yet, so I'm just rambling... :)
J.
crap! slashdot is f*cking up my href's! (yes, I did use preview)

At any rate, I don't think that there's any reason to believe that instant-Inernet-communication will cause a language shift any different than that of folks of varying cultural backgrounds living in the same town. Despite the profound cultural mixing in New York (esp. in comparrision to, say, North Platte, Nebraska), you'll note that New Yorker English and North Platte English (save for some few vocab differences) are basically the same-- certainly not diffrent dialects, let alone different langauges.

It's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.

If and only if you believe that your action will influence manufacturer B -- otherwise you sacrificed something for nothing.

And I don't believe the shit about "If only everybody did this, then...."

Whether others follow my lead or not, I can't control. (At least, not without using force. While using force to stop polluters is certainly justified, it's outside the scope of this discussion about market choices.) I am responsible for my own actions only; the actions of others don't release me from that responsibility.

Ok... enough of this stuff. The idea of taking The Golden Mean when faced with a range of choices dates (in 'published' form) from Aristotle, who expounded at great length on this concept and its validation as a method.

(Yes, this counts as "a long time ago.")

The Golden Mean was developed from the Socratic dialectic , a concept which is probably more useful.

considering that the first rocket engines (super high quality German suckers designed by none othe rthan the Edision of rocketry, Wernher von Braun) were built by concentration camp slave labor. It was certainly the best product of its kind availible, so . . .

First off intellectual property has no "rich history". It pratically has no history past a few hundred years, and the original copyrights were granted by kings to publishers in return for not badmouthing the monarchy - hardly a lofty foundation. Infact, note that copyrights came after periods like the renissance rahter than before.

You're partly right, partly wrong. As the Britannica article on copyright law points out, copyright did develop the way you said, and only became "modern" in 1710. It is striking, of course, that the spread of a specific technology (the printing press) and its eventual ubiquity was what drove copyright law to develop as it did - just as new technologies are forcing us to evaluate it anew.

But you're incorrect if you believe that the only intellectual property law is copyright. In fact, the Amazon dispute is about patents, not copyright. And patent laws go back at least to 1421 (again, read the appropriate Britannica article for yourself). I think a tradition at least 5.8 centuries old deserves some respect, but that may be just a personal blemish on my part.

It's sorta like arguing that slavery was a great thing because of all the wealthy plantations it created, but it was other forces driving America into the future.

I usually hate it when people use slavery as a metaphor, but you make an interesting argument. I see what your saying; my argument is a little circular. (So, too, is part of Katz's argument, where he says that "Corporations... exclude ... 'non-commercial' voices." Well, of course, because once they bring on a new "voice" it becomes, by definition, commercial.)

I suppose in some sense my argument about the rich history of invention and creation we have had under intellectual property protections is unknowable (at best) or circular (at worst). Yet I think I'll stick with it, having had firsthand experience with a publishing firm that worried every day about the integrity of the databases it published. If those databases were pirated (as they have been, on occasion), without strong copyright protection, the company lost money. If it happens again, the company will probably stop making the databases - and everyone, including the pirate, loses out in the end.

Also, copying is not theft - it might be illegal, but it is just not theft in the true sense of the word. The people who created are not deprived of their original work in any way. They may be deprived of a monopoly over other prople's purchasing habits...

That's pretty much the point Katz was trying to get across in that passage where he quoted Lessig ("If I tell you an idea, you have not deprived me of it"). But, unfortunately, it is incomplete. When you illegally copy a copyrighted work, you have deprived someone of something other than a mere monopoly. (In fact, it is the technology, not the "pirate" or "thief," which is responsible for revoking the monopoly.) The thing you have deprived the creator of is the potential to earn profit. We have to balance creators' needs against consumers', and Katz (and you) seem to tip the scale unfairly toward consumers.

For them copying may be good as it "gets the word out" and provides free advertizing.

There is certainly some truth in that. However, it is too narrow. Musicians are not the only people protected by intellectual property laws. If Stephen King's new book, which is to be published at midnight tonight over the Internet, is pirated and passed around freely by e-mail and mirrored on dozens of web sites, the copying will certainly be free "advertising" for King, but he will lose money. Maybe he would stop publishing online. If that happened, everyone would lose out in the end, including the people who got to read it for free.

I do agree with you that "theft" is too strong a word; as someone may or may not have hundreds of illicit MP3s stored on his computer (shhhh! the RIAA might be listening!) I certainly don't like considering myself a thief or pirate. (Actually, I kind of would like to be a pirate, although without the trite patch or the fruity parrot.) But we are living in an age when the pace of technological change makes us all accept a degree of uncertainty, ambiguity and fuzziness of terminology. So I don't mind all that much.

A. Keiper