Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, but it's "exceeding glad" in the King James Bible. If you are literate, you may try reading Matthew 5:12 at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html.

May He have Mercy on your Half-Witted Soul.

More intelligent map handling is in the works for Xastir. For things like Tiger maps it already doesn't read thru every map for each redraw and the maps are nicely detailed. And organizing the tigermap sets is high on the list of todo's.

If you see features that are needed, come on by the sourceforge project page at http://sourceforge.net/projects/xastir/ and leave a feature request. Or join us on the mailing lists at: http://krypton.hscs.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/ xastir-dev and http://krypton.hscs.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/ xastir The developers are active and very responsive to reasonable feature requests. (heck we even accept some of the unreasonable ones :-)

More intelligent map handling is in the works for Xastir. For things like Tiger maps it already doesn't read thru every map for each redraw and the maps are nicely detailed. And organizing the tigermap sets is high on the list of todo's.

If you see features that are needed, come on by the sourceforge project page at http://sourceforge.net/projects/xastir/ and leave a feature request. Or join us on the mailing lists at: http://krypton.hscs.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/ xastir-dev and http://krypton.hscs.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/ xastir The developers are active and very responsive to reasonable feature requests. (heck we even accept some of the unreasonable ones :-)

It's exactly what I am doing using Java implementation of XML-FOP. Check Apache FOP. By the way it is free :)

The other free PDF libraries are available for Common Lisp, Python, C

Conclusion: I know what I am talking about. But I am not that "expert" as you may think about me. Here is an example of what real experts are saying:

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

Will you argue with Dijkstra? I won't. Although he is talking about myself as well - I am poisoned with PHP experience as you do. I just aware of that fact and you don't.

We have plenty of methane that doesn't even need to be mined. Most public landfills have to vent methane properly to prevent explosions. With the right business model, I'm sure state & local governments could use income from selling off methane to be refined into an energy source Hell, even the EPA supports this course of action. Why bother with underwater mining, when it's practically in our own backyards?

That was my first though. So it beats a C90, but what is faster?

Found the answer here.

And if you were wondering about a Beowolf cluster of these, the top ten ranking excludes "cluster results".

You can always use the command line utility malsync. FWIW, there is a tarball and an OSX binary (compiled under OSX 10.1.x) available here.

Maybe it implies that your computer is secure unless you download the patches regularly? Like a vulnerability is not a vulnerability until Microsoft acknowledges it?

Oh yeah that's right, it's a feature!

Ali

Furthermore, ERICA is integrated with Windows, so you can use it to completely control the computer and do almost anything you need (not sure how well it would work with Quake ;-) . And just to make it more interesting, it was made by the same guy that made Stephen Hawking's system!

He called them Hypercards.

Many /.'ers thumb their noses at the academy. Who needs a degree if you have the skills? Why pay money for a piece of paper when one can get right to coding? But the acceptance digital media within the ivy-covered walls can help the acceptance of digital media as more than "playing" video games, surfing pr0n, and "stealing" copyrighted content (not that any of these are not worthy endeavors in themselves ;) ). One of the best ways to ensure the evaluation and production of digital media is to have them studied in an academic context, and only a tenured professoriat can make that happen in ways that matter academically.

At present, digital media are often marginalized as low-brow. Video-games are often blamed for encouraging mindless violence, the web is blamed for shortening attention spans, and security-checking is vilified as terrorism, email is the font of spam, and reverse-engineering is called breaking copyright. This is the public understanding of digital media.

Specialized software and digital research being done at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanites is at present abstract and does little to affect the thinking of the unwashed masses of undergraduates, let alone the public at large. But this kind of work is important because it influences the scholars who drive the field, and their work goes largely unnoticed by the established disciplines that might most benefit from them. On the other hand publicly-accessible texts are in many ways the "content" the web has been looking for (as demonstrated by usage), but recognition of such projects is still limited to circles of elite users. This must change, and a cohort of professors teaching students can help bring about that change.

Creating an established body of scholars able to use computers in ways that help normal people understand how Art and Architecture, Modern Languages and Film shape the world in which we live--this will further the widescale acceptance of digital media as worthile and noble ones.

It is important that people see digital media as more than video-games and surfing the web. Devising a body of standards by which digital media can be evaluated in the context of tenure review (limited though that context might be) will help.

The need for a set of standards to review and assign value to the digital work of humanities scholars is crucial to the culture of computing.

Many /.'ers thumb their noses at the academy. Who needs a degree if you have the skills? Why pay money for a piece of paper when one can get right to coding? But the acceptance digital media within the ivy-covered walls can help the acceptance of digital media as more than "playing" video games, surfing pr0n, and "stealing" copyrighted content (not that any of these are not worthy endeavors in themselves ;) ). One of the best ways to ensure the evaluation and production of digital media is to have them studied in an academic context, and only a tenured professoriat can make that happen in ways that matter academically.

At present, digital media are often marginalized as low-brow. Video-games are often blamed for encouraging mindless violence, the web is blamed for shortening attention spans, and security-checking is vilified as terrorism, email is the font of spam, and reverse-engineering is called breaking copyright. This is the public understanding of digital media.

Specialized software and digital research being done at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanites is at present abstract and does little to affect the thinking of the unwashed masses of undergraduates, let alone the public at large. But this kind of work is important because it influences the scholars who drive the field, and their work goes largely unnoticed by the established disciplines that might most benefit from them. On the other hand publicly-accessible texts are in many ways the "content" the web has been looking for (as demonstrated by usage), but recognition of such projects is still limited to circles of elite users. This must change, and a cohort of professors teaching students can help bring about that change.

Creating an established body of scholars able to use computers in ways that help normal people understand how Art and Architecture, Modern Languages and Film shape the world in which we live--this will further the widescale acceptance of digital media as worthile and noble ones.

It is important that people see digital media as more than video-games and surfing the web. Devising a body of standards by which digital media can be evaluated in the context of tenure review (limited though that context might be) will help.

The need for a set of standards to review and assign value to the digital work of humanities scholars is crucial to the culture of computing.

Many /.'ers thumb their noses at the academy. Who needs a degree if you have the skills? Why pay money for a piece of paper when one can get right to coding? But the acceptance digital media within the ivy-covered walls can help the acceptance of digital media as more than "playing" video games, surfing pr0n, and "stealing" copyrighted content (not that any of these are not worthy endeavors in themselves ;) ). One of the best ways to ensure the evaluation and production of digital media is to have them studied in an academic context, and only a tenured professoriat can make that happen in ways that matter academically.

At present, digital media are often marginalized as low-brow. Video-games are often blamed for encouraging mindless violence, the web is blamed for shortening attention spans, and security-checking is vilified as terrorism, email is the font of spam, and reverse-engineering is called breaking copyright. This is the public understanding of digital media.

Specialized software and digital research being done at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanites is at present abstract and does little to affect the thinking of the unwashed masses of undergraduates, let alone the public at large. But this kind of work is important because it influences the scholars who drive the field, and their work goes largely unnoticed by the established disciplines that might most benefit from them. On the other hand publicly-accessible texts are in many ways the "content" the web has been looking for (as demonstrated by usage), but recognition of such projects is still limited to circles of elite users. This must change, and a cohort of professors teaching students can help bring about that change.

Creating an established body of scholars able to use computers in ways that help normal people understand how Art and Architecture, Modern Languages and Film shape the world in which we live--this will further the widescale acceptance of digital media as worthile and noble ones.

It is important that people see digital media as more than video-games and surfing the web. Devising a body of standards by which digital media can be evaluated in the context of tenure review (limited though that context might be) will help.

The need for a set of standards to review and assign value to the digital work of humanities scholars is crucial to the culture of computing.

thanks for clearing this up for those of us that are physics impaired. even newton's cannon makes my brain hurt.

I know what the little dimples on golf balls are for. They make it fly further by reducing turbulance behind the ball.

No, actually, the dimples increase the turbulence. This is good thing because it means turbulent airflow remains attached to the surface longer. With a smooth ball, the flow lends to remain laminar (smooth), but it detaches from the surface of ball. A detached flow creates more drag than turbulent flow would.

Some airplane wings have vortex generators on the upper surface to cause turbulent flow, reducing the likelihood of a flow detachment.

A more techinal explanation is available here.

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

"FORTRAN --"the infantile disorder"--, by now nearly 20 years old, is hopelessly inadequate for whatever computer application you have in mind today: it is now too clumsy, too risky, and too expensive to use."

--Edsger Dijkstra, 1975
How do we tell truths that might hurt?

... then why don't movie makers ... themselves ... re-release the movies in the way that the audience wants to see them?"

You mean the way Stanley Kubrick did with Eyes Wide Shut? There is a long orgy scene in EWS, that American censors said would have to go, because it was too explicit. In the version shown in American obstructions were digitally drawn in to hide the, um, "action".

But as to the deeper question, "why don't artists just give people what they want?" I am going to translate that to "why don't artists just give people what they are comfortable with, what won't challenge them?"

Well, many film-makers, writers, musicians, entertainers do exactly that. But there are great artists, like Kubrick, who feel they have a point of view that it is important to express. They think that they have an idea that it is important to present to the public even if it isn't completely comfortable at first.

Is this a good thing? It depends how you feel about cultural and social change. American writer Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book called Uncle Tom's Cabin. I believe the term "Uncle Tom" has a cultural meaning nowadays that it acquired in the last couple of generations. I believe that scholars such as those whose article you can read in the link I have pointed to, contend that UTC was an uncomfortable read for many, when it was published, because it put a human face on the effects of slavery for white American readers. So, yeah, I believe being open to letting artist's challenge our accepted views of things is worthwhile.

Could it be that there is something wrong with the languages which we use? You know darn well that there's something wrong! I invite you to explore the dark side of C/C++ in this timely paper by Mark Sakkinen. Hey folks, let's use better technology which is inherently safer. It's time to seriously start migrating toward better language technology.

But why should marital status be known right away? This implies that some people cannot have a non-sexual conversation unless it is explicitly forbidden. And what to do about the polyamourous?

You have read Douglas Hofstadter's A Person Paper on Purity in Language? Cured my thinking that the issue didn't matter. Although in today's economy I wouldn't necessarily mind a title which let potential employers know I'm available. We just need a race-neutral word. Hi, I'm Nrs. Geekotourist!

Why don't they just do it like watches do?
Or: http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/clocks.html

The US has historically stayed out of religious wars. The United States was designed to be neutral on religion, primarily to avoid conflicts over it. The founders had direct experience of religion closely tied to government, and strongly rejected that approach. Their reasons were both philosophical and pragmatic, are well documented, and don't need to be repeated here. But if you don't know them, reading the Federalist Papers will be helpful.

Religious wars are historically tough to settle. The history of the original Crusades covers centuries of dumb decisions. Europe had centuries of wars with religious overtones, and partly for that reason, the main European countries are decidedly more secular than the United States. France, for example, has a majority of nonbelievers, and Britain is getting close.

The United States currently finds itself peripherally involved in three religious wars. A few decades ago, the US attitude would have been "a pox on both your houses". Today, the administration's pro-Christian bias is making unnecessary enemies. We're getting drawn into the endless religious wars of other countries. Mostly countries which can't build a government that works. That's no coincidence. As Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

Jefferson on religion is always worth reading. If you haven't read Jefferson on this, do so now.

Hell yeah! I still can't stream p0rn, even though I bought this brand new modem, and it's ALL THEIR FAULT!

The Albemarle Amateur Radio Club (WA4TFZ) will be holding it's FD2002 (warning: PDF) at the Earlysville Firehouse. Come check it out if you're near Central VA. Should be starting around 10AM on Sat. morning.

Well, that supposedly works for Kevin Bacon, but actually 10 is the highest degree, so maybe they should shoot for 11

;-)

When I looked at that site, and followed the link to the material on Putnam, and his analysis of civic associations, this quote just about blew me away given the current context:

When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans' propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. "Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition,"[End Page 65] he observed, "are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types--religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America."

Now if that doesn't embody the Open Source community, I don't know what does. And here's an organization named after de Tocqueville that seems clueless as to what he valued!

You can rant about "right-wingers" if you wish, but some of us on the "Right" place value on conserving more enduring values such as those de Tocqueville celebrated, and not in "Country Club" Big Business-centric loyalties of politicians of both parties (see how much money Democrats get from big business, which prudently plays both sides of the fence ;-). Many of us on the Right value the human right of free enterprise (and association), in contrast with big enterprise. See also Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", with respect to his notion of the "Gift Culture". And, as I recall, he would consider himself to be more of the Right (libertarian variety?), than of the Left.

ROC

No, this line is:

The image of the tube in question shows an Eimac transmitting triode.

Computer equipment? Only if ENIAC had an early 50MHz wireless trans-Atlantic LAN that we don't know about.

I'm a CS major at UVA. The reason for the page's linear setup is because that's apparently the trademark of Professor Gabe Robins. Go ahead, click on his Images page. This guy is a genius at everything he does, except for making picture pages. Like most decent colleges, we have a t3 with good rates, and even that gets clogged up by his images page. Dr. Robins did work with the military, so I used to joke that the page was created to take down enemy machines. I pass the museum every time I go to Olsson (CS building), but haven't been to its site and thought it was funny that the connection-killer layout is back. Oh, and the Tech vs. UVA retards: enough is enough. Go Hockeys. Durrrr! School rivalries are gay, both schools their shares of bright people. Rather, than fight over non-existent entities like school pride, the intelligent folks everywhere need to band against rampant idiocy, or we'll get swallowed by the morons.

I'm starting my third year as a CpE major at UVA (though I'm more of a CS major, and most of my friends are CS majors). I really haven't had much exposure to the greek system here. I mean, yeah, I know where the frat houses are mostly located, and could probably find a few hundred drunk fratboys on a friday night, but I know and associate with very few of them. There really aren't all that many in the engineering school either, they're mainly in the college of arts and sciences.

Ah the joy of a decent manual!
I remember going from MS-DOS 3.2 to 6.2, and wondering why the hell they had removed all useful information from the manual. The 3.2 manual had detailed memory maps, irq listings, an ascii table, keyboard layouts, serial and parallel pinouts, etc. The 6.2 manual just glossed over some commands.

Personally, I read the brochure on the burroughs B500 and was just a wee bit scared:

"A master control program to automatically manipulate machine programs, allocate memory, assign equipment, and route all information.

Found that quite humurous - I wonder if that is where the tron script writers got the idea? Reading the brochure was odd - I am a youngin' and know very little about very old computers (relatively...), and was quite curious about the description of the chip: "processors operate on 49 bit words (48 bits plus parity bit)"... where these chips then 49 bit? From the sound of the brochure it makes it seem like the entire system was 49 bit (memory, storage, etc). Or was it like a 4 bit processor that just used 49 bit commands?

Anybody know?

Personally, I read the brochure on the burroughs B500 and was just a wee bit scared:

"A master control program to automatically manipulate machine programs, allocate memory, assign equipment, and route all information.

Found that quite humurous - I wonder if that is where the tron script writers got the idea? Reading the brochure was odd - I am a youngin' and know very little about very old computers (relatively...), and was quite curious about the description of the chip: "processors operate on 49 bit words (48 bits plus parity bit)"... where these chips then 49 bit? From the sound of the brochure it makes it seem like the entire system was 49 bit (memory, storage, etc). Or was it like a 4 bit processor that just used 49 bit commands?

Anybody know?

Read the label carefully on that verbatim floppy ... It says it's a l33t warez copy of Zork Text adventure

Sorry. The link for "halitosis" in my previous post is wrong. The correct link for"halitosis" is right here.

msq

Sorry. The link for "halitosis" in my previous post is wrong. The correct link for"halitosis" is right here.

msq

According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word "halitosis" was first used in 1874, while the word "Listerine" was first used in 1880.

Now, I'm right there with the most paranoid of conspiracy theorists, but I still don't believe time-travel has (same as ever will be) been invented.

Maybe Listerine was invented to cure halitosis?

msq

According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word "halitosis" was first used in 1874, while the word "Listerine" was first used in 1880.

Now, I'm right there with the most paranoid of conspiracy theorists, but I still don't believe time-travel has (same as ever will be) been invented.

Maybe Listerine was invented to cure halitosis?

msq

When I looked at that site, and followed the link to the material on Putnam, and his analysis of civic associations, this quote just about blew me away given the current context:

When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans' propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. "Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition,"[End Page 65] he observed, "are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types--religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America."

Now if that doesn't embody the Open Source community, I don't know what does. And here's an organization named after de Tocqueville that seems clueless as to what he valued!

Now, you can rant about "right-wingers" if you wish, but some of us on the "Right" place value on conserving more enduring values such as those de Tocqueville celebrated, and not in "Country Club" Big Business-centric loyalties of politicians of both parties (see how much money Democrats get from big business, which prudently plays both sides of the fence ;-). Many of us on the Right value the human right of free enterprise (and association), in contrast with big enterprise. See also Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", with respect to his notion of the "Gift Culture". And, as I recall, he would consider himself to be more of the Right (libertarian variety?), than of the Left.

ROC

IIRC, de Toqueville was the Frenchman who traipsed around some of early America's landmarks and acted snooty. He wrote a book about how stupid the USians were (while not actually using that word)

• Then, I'll find out who created Guinan.

Well, if we're looking for the original inspiration, it was probably Harriet Beecher Stowe, but she's been dead for a while now.

Still, I'm eagerly awaiting the ClawHammer release. Every x86 box I've built for the last 5 years has been pure AMD, and I've been quite happy with them.

This just makes me sick. I've read Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America several times, it's one of my favorite books. He considered unchecked capitalism a serious threat to participatory democracy. How vile for an organization to sully his name with drivel like this report.

"I have repeatedly said that libraries have children's book sections, why can't the Internet have the same type of section devoted to children's interests?" he said.

The aerogel is so old (1932) that this isn't even funny ...
Info Here

You are making the mistaken assumption that microwave heating of liquid water is primarily based on the excitation of a particular vibrational mode. It is not. A simple explanation can be found here.

What does this have to do with cancer?

I have no idea what your mistaken ideas about how microwaves heat water have to do with cancer. I didn't even mention the word "cancer".

Let's see if we can follow your logic, and extrapolate a solution: 1) cell phones can heat your brain a tiny amount 2) heating it might give you cancer, even though there's no evidence for it 3) therefore anything that heats your tissue more than a cellphone should be banned 4) therefore, all clothing, heaters, laptops, and warm food should be banned.

I made no such argument. I didn't even say that cell phones should be banned. Perhaps your education is not just deficient in physics, it is also deficient in basic reading comprehension?

This is a commonly held theory but has been proved wrong. See here. For the lazy:
"Glass is neither a normal liquid nor a normal solid. While the atoms in glass are essentially fixed in place like those in a normal solid, they are arranged in the disorderly fashion of a liquid. For that reason, glass is often described as a frozen liquid--a liquid that has cooled and thickened to the point where it has become rigid. But calling glass a liquid, even a frozen one, implies that glass can flow. Liquids always respond to stresses by flowing. Since unheated glass can't flow in response to stress, it isn't a liquid at all. It's really an amorphous or "glassy" solid--a solid that lacks crystalline order."

When I was in school, this was the most fascinating thing that I ever read about. Simple mirrors and rotation. Ofcourse, the Young's double slit experiment is also fascinating, but I didn't understand it when I was in School :)

More info at a link I got from Google: http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures / pedlite.html

S

Michelson-Morley had to do with the existence of aether. It was complicated, but elegant.

But Michelson had already done an even more historically impressive experiment, I think, that had to do with the most accurate measurements of the speed of light in his day by far. "In 1878 Albert A. Michelson first accurately measures the speed of light with $10 worth of apparatus along the seawall" (scroll toward the middle of the page).

The more accurate measurement he made in the 1920s is described briefly below that quote on the same page. Certainly the $10 experiment is in the grasp of most classrooms, but I think the mountaintop one is also possible for today's students, what with GPS and all, or even a really good topo map (+/- a few feet gets you close-enough-for-proof-of-concept). You have to get 2 teams of kids on 2 different mountains- and with SUVs and the quality of roads nowadays, how hard is that to do in the high sierras with some adult supervision? Maybe hard to do if you live in Kansas, admittedly.

Plus, what school kids want to sit around a stuffy lab? How cool an experiment would it be to the most science-jaded student to get out of the classroom and into the wilderness to do science on an as easily appreciated concept as the speed of light? ;-)

Here's another good article on the history of the speed of light and better details of Michelson's efforts.

I don't think there should be any legislation - period.

I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.

The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.

This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.

In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.

Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.

The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.

Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.

The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.

People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.

Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.

Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.

I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.

And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.

I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.

Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.

While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)

I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.

......

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:

I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...

Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.

Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,

With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."

I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.

Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789

I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.

The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.

Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:

The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.

A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.

One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).

As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.

Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.

Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.

Even Madison has said:

"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "

They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.

Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:

"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."

Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.

Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!

The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?

Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.

The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.

*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***

I have some thoughts on this, thanks for prompting me!

I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.

The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.

This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.

In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.

Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.

The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.

Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.

The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.

People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.

Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.

Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.

I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.

And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.

I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.

Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.

While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)

I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.

......

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:

I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...

Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.

Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,

With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."

I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.

Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789

I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.

The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.

Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:

The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.

A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.

One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).

As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.

Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.

Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.

Even Madison has said:

"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "

They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.

Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:

"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."

Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.

Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!

The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?

Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.

The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.

*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***