Slashdot Mirror

case that they were clue-challenged in understanding an entire generation

Have a look at that picture, it just screams "We are cool, hip, "individiuals" (the Marketing Idea -- not the adjective). Please read "No Logo by Naomi Klein

"We wanted things that paralleled our customers' priorities, which was hanging out with your friends and having fun."

This idea makes me sick. If someone's "priorities" are as above, they should please (PLEASE) read: Neil Postmans' 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' -- here is the foreword

So here are some more links to document the sordid history of the US abroad.

The Long and Hidden History of the US in Somalia

Us Approves Invasion of East Timor

A brief history of CIA involvement in the drug trade

The Philippine War and Anti-Imperialism

Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal

Keep modding me down and I will keep posting new links. My karma is capped right now so we could be here all night. How is it flamebait to talk about human rights abuses in the US in a story about a software license that forbids such abuses?

First, we have to get a few assumptions out of the way. Let's assume that we're dealing with IBM/Hollerith punch cards, so we can standardize. Now, let's pretend that these cards hold 80 bytes. The card's design predated ASCII, so while there were 12 punches per character, they didn't even represent as much data as a byte. (Follow the link for more.) So, rather than pretend they're 12 bits * 80, let's assume they were used for more or less today's equivalent of 80 bytes. And, in keeping with the hard drive manufacturers' "truth" in advertising, I'm going to assume that 1TB = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes.

Whew, now that we established those assumptions, 1TB of punch cards would be 12,500,000,000 cards.

Assuming the strict standard dimensions under which these cards were produced, we can say that this stack of cards would be ~1,322 miles high +/- ~99 miles. In terms of volume, these cards would take up ~43,025 cubic yards (+/- ~3,211 cu yds). Assuming roughly 100,000 cu yds of concrete for a major-league baseball stadium (seems to vary a fair amount by stadium design), it would take roughly 2.3 TB of punchcards to equal the volume of concrete in a stadium.

Aww, man, I realized I didn't subtract the volume loss for the diagonal-cut top left corner. Someone else can take that.

( As always, props to Google for my research. :-)

It seems it may be coming to that. John Aschcroft has started building the first camp for US citizens Bush and him label "enemy combatants," where their constitutional rights are revoked.

LA Times: Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision, which can also be found in the LA Times archive (for money).
Ashcroft Following Nazi Example.
Bush presses ahead with "enemy combatant".

In May, Bush unsigned the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty which was a treaty opposing crimes against humanity. Why would Bush unsign such a treaty unless he had plans on committing crimes against humanity?

This administration truly scares me.

There is tons of evidence that the Bush administration has been heavily involved with those funding terrorism. Al Queda is a CIA trained military operation. The person funding the September 11th bombings was in Washington, DC meeting with the Bush administration starting on September 4th and was sitting down with Colin Powell discussing "terrorism" when the attacks occurred.

See Global Research or searches on Google for more information. Global research does present many different articles, some authors more credible than others in an effort to present many views. Keep that in mind when perusing their site.

Plans for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan were started by the oil industry in 1996. It is interesting that the majority of the Bush administration has oil interests. It is interesting that the people Bush proposes to put in power in Afghanistan are former employees of oil companies. It is clear that attacking Afghanistan does nothing against terrorism, but I will be very surprised if the oil industries are not heavily involved after we are done killing people there.

It is amazing how self-serving this administration is and how the mainstream media is just starting to catch up with some of this. I find it sad that most Americans are not following what is really going on; otherwise, we could impeach the Bush administration out of office. I bet most Republicans still support this bloody administration, all hail Hitler Bush!

What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view.

No, I told you exactly what bothers me: Stallman depends more on an appeal to emotion than he does on appeal to intellect. When other people do this, they're often trying to convince their audience to believe or to do something that they might not otherwise believe or do. That give me the creeps.

As I've written elsewhere, my disagreement with Stallman exists on a plane separate from my objections to his rhetoric. In other words, in my eyes he is not only Wrong, but also Bad.

In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda."

Propaganda is a very specific term for a set of rhetorical techniques. The word does have negative connotations, but I honestly can't think of a better one to describe what RMS does. The connotations aren't always negative, anyway. In the 20's, the word "agitprop" appeared, which is a combination of the Russian word agitatsiya (or "agitating") and propaganda. The word was used by Russian Communists to describe their own efforts. So your assertion that calling it propaganda is an ad hominem attack is pretty off base. If I wanted to make an ad hom attack against RMS, I'd call him a left-wing radical Communist who dresses funny. That's an ad hom attack.

For more information on propaganda techniques in persuasive writing, look here, or here, or here. These resources are good both for creating your own propaganda, and also for recognizing the propaganda of others. I'd suggest that you read about these techniques and familiarize yourself with them, then revisit RMS's writings. See how many instances of the propaganda techniques you can find. It's fun; it's like a little game.

I suggest you read Stallman's ideas again and give them some thought.

I read Stallman's ideas incessantly. But I read them critically and dispassionately, keeping a copy of those propaganda guides open beside me as I go. It's a terribly educational experience.

good point on the definitions. A few notes back though:

The CIA does not consider the US a democracy NOR a democratic republic. this , we are in fact a federal republic.

Democracy is actually a system of mob rule. This was one thing that even James Madison decried in the Federalist Papers.

I will say this, however, that lately the US is becoming more and more of a democracy when special interest groups with the most money (the biggest mob) bend the ears of the politicians.

You see, in a democracy, the rights of the individual are superceded by the rights of the larger group (the mob). What happens when the mob is made up of luddites? Computers and coffee machines become illegal and we are all out of work. In a republic, my right to work and make a living supercedes your personal beliefs on technology as long as it doesn't infringe on your right to hold that belief.

I know that's a bad example but it's the best that I could come up ATM. A democracy is a terribly unstable beast. The whims of the people are more fickle than the winds of the four corners.

I've attached some links at the bottom. Some of these come from religious websites but it makes a valid point none the less. Note that I don't endorse any of the religous links posted. I could care less. Thomas Jefferson said once (paraphrase) "If a man believes in god or does not, what does it matter to me? It neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg." Another of the links is to the Cato Institute (disclaimer: an organization which I wholly support)

Some Links:
1
2
3
4

"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

In Amused to Death Neil Postman discusses why it isn't the Orwellian future that should frighten us, but the Huxleyian one.

I Have never been an advocate of the "elastic" Constitution. I feel that we should follow the intents of the framers of the Constitution or follow the procedures for amending it. An "elastic" constitution in effect means it can be "amended" at will by changing the interpation.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Jefferson

But perhaps you feel that the founding fathers were authoritarian sons of bitches who didn't want you to think for yourself. Or do you?

I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstitutional.

I consider it awful as well, but I don't expect the supreme court to be able to change this. It's a limited period of time and 'advancing the arts and sciences' is so fuzzy that the interpretation will be left to the politicians.

A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.

I think that's even too long for software, it's obsolete so soon that there is no real benefit to society anymore after 28 years. The abandonware sites clearly show the problem of a lenghty copyright. You cannot get the arts once created except by breaking the law. Considering the better distribution methods since 1780, those 28 years may be considered to be far too long as well. It took many years to get books recognized and distributed properly at that time. Current books have to make their money in a rather short period of time and often get out of print after a decade. Perhaps we should even have different copyright periods for different products, music is far more lasting for instance and easier to obtain than 'obsoleted' books.

But again, the choice for a certain duration of copyright is so fuzzy that the supreme court cannot set one. Where is the optimum? 0 years? 10? 100? Given the fact that the supreme court doesn't believe the constitution to be infallible, they cannot accept 28 years as being the optimum, but have to let the politicians decide.

Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law.

I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?

However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it.

Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off.

Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals.

This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show.

It is the same with drugs. First the government fights it causing the mafia to grow and the prisons to be filled with decent kids. Kids that get influenced by the nasty criminals they share a cell with. And one day the politicians/citizens wisen up and legalize drugs that are not that damaging. At least, that the way it is going/did go in The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and France.

Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Pastor Martin Niemöller paraphrased

It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.

Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!

I guess that not giving them any money won't impress them at all. I guess that nobody ever will get the point and will give customers what they want for a fair price. Oh wait, someone is already getting the point. I suppose that Napster had nothing to do with this at all, though. Never in history has a positive change been brought forth because people chose to disobey their laws. The DDR also still exists and Milosevic is currently the ruler of Serbia. The french aristocracy rules France. South-Africa has Apartheid. America is a british colony.

Would the world not look far different if everybody was like you? Do you think it would be better?

Mass distribution of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.

Using a book is much better. Many books are under copyright, but cannot be ordered any more. That clearly shows the problems with the copyright laws of today. Besides, books are usually considered far more important to society than songs. Especially if you use some unobtainable political or philosophical works, you might get the politicians and courts to think about the consumers for a change. After all, who wants go into the history books as the one that prevented the dissemation of knowledge? You might even get free speech activists to support you on this.

From "Hoagan's Heros" to numerous "Star Trek" episodes, America has had a love affair with NAZIS . And who wouldn't, with their advanced technology and friends in high places.

Make no mistake about it, those NAZIS didn't pussyfoot around -- they got things done. But if you were on the side of right, you too could take a place in the NAZI technilogical utopia.


(And don't even get me started on the gay SM scene's infatuation with the NAZI dream!)

From "Hoagan's Heros" to numerous "Star Trek" episodes, America has had a love affair with NAZIS . And who wouldn't, with their advanced technology and friends in high places.

Make no mistake about it, those NAZIS didn't pussyfoot around -- they got things done. But if you were on the side of right, you too could take a place in the NAZI technilogical utopia.


(And don't even get me started on the gay SM scene's infatuation with the NAZI dream!)

As Robert Anton Wilson said, "Belief is the death of thought."

If you are feeling patriotic, help this guy out.

Maybe, just maybe, all of you supposed scientists will stop believing in the USA's expansionist lies, and start thinking again.

Communism is dead, the Berlin wall is down, and the USSR no longer exists. What's the point of a defence budget 37 times the size of it's nearest competitor, if there are no formidible enemies left?

Time to come up with a new bad guy so we can get that Russian oil, err, that is, so we can rid the world of evil. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

The text, actually, is the foreword to his book: Amusing ourselves to death.

This is such an obvious and sensible objection that it makes me wonder. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a large part of the U.S. government no longer serves the purpose of democracy. The war may be, not on terrorists, but on the American people. My guess is that it is not conspiracy, but widespread government corruption.

That's the only conclusion that supports all the information. For example, the U.S. CIA trained Osama bin Laden. See the 1998 MSNBC article referenced in the first paragraph of What should be the response to violence? where I've tried to pull together some of the facts.

Whenever there is a problem, there seem to be two situations that go together: 1) The U.S. government intelligence agencies say they did not foresee the problem, and 2) the intelligence agencies had a years-long prior involvement with the person who caused the problem. Osama bin Laden is one example of this.

Another example is General Noriega of Panama who had a working relationship with the U.S. CIA for years before he was accused of drug trafficking. Was the exposure of Noriega caused by his not taking orders? A quick Google search on "Noriega General Panama CIA" gave a link to a chapter in a book by Noam Chomsky, The invasion of Panama. Chomsky's book is called What Uncle Sam Really Wants.

Another link on the first Google page was, The Real Drug Lords, A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade by William Blum.

I disagree. True, the narrowing of the public consciousness has been a subject for quite some time (e.g., see Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death), but the mass of so-called "information" that we have to wade through daily just to get to some content that we are interested in is amazing. It can't be anything but distracting to someone who isn't amazingly well focused.

"When the only tool you have is an axe, EVERY job looks like fun!"

Now this *is* interesting.

A good explanation and example of this can be found here.

You don't have to be actually dealing any drugs to be robbed at gunpoint by the cops. Just drive down I-10 through Louisiana with some cash in your car. Oh, yeah, and it helps - a lot - if you're black.

You think I'm kidding, don't you? God, I wish I were. Here, read this. Or, from the President of the ACLU, this. Or lest you fall for the anti-ACLU business that is so popular with demagogues in this country, and dismiss the above as just the ranting of some left-wing weirdos, here is a statement published by the office of conservative Republican congressman Henry Hyde. In fact, the appaling damage which the logic-twisting pro-police-state judicial activists of the Rehnquist Supreme Court have inflicted upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens has outraged many Congressmen of both the Democratic party and the Republican party, who have responded this year with legislation to undo their excesses and restore those Constitutional rights to the public. This bill has not yet been signed by President Clinton, who has a terrible record of siding with the law enforcement gang against the interests of mere citizens. Let us hope that FBI Director Freeh and Drug Tsar McCafferty (that war criminal) don't talk him into vetoing this bill.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

The Gregorian Calendar states that there are 365.2425 days in a year. This fraction is equal to 1/4 - 3/400, or 97/400, hence the three rule ruleset. The further irony is that the actual solar year hasn't been 365.2425 days long since 4000 B.C., so we're still getting drift.
Scientists argue over why the earth is moving outward in orbit, but if nothing else, tidal locking tends to push bodies farther apart, if the larger one is spinning faster than the orbit of the smaller object.

-

The other calendar that gets sighted during these quandry days in the Gregorian Calendar is the Mayan Calendar. I wonder how well that calendar holds up in the face of our orbital escentricities? ^_^

According to The Mayan Calendar, today is JOB IMOX or using Long Count: 12.19.7.0.1. *shrug* I don't know the mechanics of the Mayan Calendar at all so I'm not sure what this means. ^_^;

Here is a great link that explains the Mayan Calendar and off of that set of pages is a great page with general calendar tidbits.

ps. I forgot the orbital period of the Moon(27.33 days) is different that the periods between New Moons(29.5 days). My goof.

The other calendar that gets sighted during these quandry days in the Gregorian Calendar is the Mayan Calendar. I wonder how well that calendar holds up in the face of our orbital escentricities? ^_^

According to The Mayan Calendar, today is JOB IMOX or using Long Count: 12.19.7.0.1. *shrug* I don't know the mechanics of the Mayan Calendar at all so I'm not sure what this means. ^_^;

Here is a great link that explains the Mayan Calendar and off of that set of pages is a great page with general calendar tidbits.

ps. I forgot the orbital period of the Moon(27.33 days) is different that the periods between New Moons(29.5 days). My goof.

Different nations made the switch at different times. I think there are one or two that still haven't changed.

1752 is when the UK and the American Colonies made the switch, while 1582 is when Rome decreed it:

Ten days were omitted from the calendar, and it was decreed that the day following (Thursday) October 4, 1582 (which is October 5, 1582, in the old calendar) would thenceforth be known as (Friday) October 15, 1582...

...The Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Britain (and in the British colonies) in 1752, with (Wednesday) September 2, 1752, being followed immediately by (Thursday) September 14, 1752.

The question is, how do you define the Person of the Millennium.
In my mind, there is one person who has had more influence, albeit subtle influence, than any other person of this millennium.
He didn't do anything that changed the way people thought about music or science or religion. What he did was nothing less than changing the course of history. Literally.
In October of 1582, Pope Gregory XIII issued a papal bull which established our present day calendar. In the years since this papal bull, nearly the entire world has adopted the Gregorian calendar.
Now, I understand that this isn't anything Earth-shattering or profound, but think about it. Everytime you are looking at a calendar or planning a date, that specific date is what it is because of Pope Gregory. How often do we ask, "What's today? The thirteenth or the fourteenth?" Without the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the numerical calendar date would be some 14 or so days off. It may not make a life changing difference, but imagine everything happening 14 days later. Your birthday, your anniversary, even the Millennium (which, btw, is December 31st, 2000, contrary to popular belief, but I digress)
In conclusion, Pope Gregory XIII may not have changed WHAT has happened this millennium, but he has changed WHEN it happened ;)

ThE iLlUsTrIoUs IdIoTt

Thanx to http://www.magnet.ch/s erendipity/hermetic/cal_stud/cal_art.htm for specific information.

"Tired of evil empires? The Source is with you." DoLinux.org

The following was written with implicit sarcasm tags:

All the social problems with Alcohol and cigarettes went away when they were made legal. It should work just the same with cannabis.

1. Cigarettes (nicotine) have never been illegal in this country (USA). Smoking is prohibited in certain situations, but not nicotine. So no fair conclusions can be drawn here.

2. The sale and consumption of alcohol (ethanol) were prohibited in the USA for a while, and caused many, many problems which I won't attempt to summarize here -- they are too numerous. But read some of these pages:

   • Prohibition: The Drug War, Page One
   • Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
   • Marijuana and Alcohol Prohibition

Prohibition of any drug is not only a violation of human rights and an Orwellian interference with privacy -- it's also deadly. We need to stop the drug war now.