I just studied the "Licensing" page, and I think that playing music for your customers is a "commercial" use and you would need a commercial license from Magnatune. But they offer their whole catalog for commercial use, and if you license from them, you know that 50% of whatever you pay goes straight to the artist.
I'm not sure how much they would charge for a dentist to play music for customers, but the "Public Space" license (e.g. for playing music in the dining room of a restaurant) is $45 per year for one album.
P.S. I'm a happy customer of Magnatune; I admire what they are doing and I hope they succeed. I have no other ties of any sort to them.
Without the NewtonOS, it just wouldn't be worth it. The level of integration among the apps made Newton what it is today.
How hard would it be to take GNOME and extend it in NewtonOS-like ways? What about NewtonOS holds your loyalty so?
If you prefer KDE, stick that in the above instead of GNOME.
In other words: Newton is gone, NewtonOS no longer developed. What are the key features of NewtonOS that would need to be copied before you would consider the Newton successfully cloned?
What will you do about the Arabs who really believe that all Jews must die, and Israel must be wiped from the Earth? If the leader of the Palestinians is viewed as colloborating with the Israelis, he will probably be assassinated by extremists on his own side; this tends to limit how cooperative he might ever be. Do you have a solution for that? For that matter, Sharon might find himself in trouble if the extremists in Israel are unhappy.
But the above doesn't really matter. I stand in awe that you can use the phrase "the perfect and achievable solution" to describe a plan that includes Israel grabbing land from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The whole area would erupt in war.
I'm sorry, but you aren't living in the real world.
I'd be interested to see a hardcore Newton fan actually make a list of what it would take to get him to switch to something new.
Suppose the Oqo ever emerges from vapor as something you could actually buy. Then put a Linux 2.6 kernel on it, and your choice of desktop (KDE or GNOME). In some ways this would be better than a Newton (faster processor, color screen). How would a Newton user like this? What essential Newton features are missing?
I understand that the Newton used a "data soup" more than explicit files. Is GNOME Storage anything like this?
I have already told you. Do the civilized thing. Draw the borders of israel any way you like, take as much land as you want to (who is going to stop you anyway?), and make those people your citizens with full rights. Give them the right to vote and I bet terrorism disappears overnight.
I don't think it would work overnight, but I agree that this would be better than what Israel is doing.
By the way, my question was meant as, "Should Isreal's policy be to block ambulances at security checkpoints, delaying them, or to let them through even though terrorists will load them up with explosives some of the time?" The answer "treat the people right so that, in a generation or so, they are well-integrated into your society and no longer wish to be terrorists" is not a responsive answer. Both of Israel's choices suck, here. I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions like that.
I am sick and tired of listening to this pathetic excuse. "we are not as bad as saddam"
Well, this shouldn't be used to excuse atrocities or preventable mistakes, but it's true.
This is the worst kind of moral relativism. Saying that if you give people a little more freedom then saddam then it's enough is bullshit.
I presume you did not intend to put those words in my mouth. This is a long way from my observation that the behavior of American troops is so far not inflaming the average Iraqi-in-the-street to grab weapons and start shooting.
I don't have the time, or the inclination, to really go over this issue with you. From what I've read, the average Palestinian would rather get a job working for Israelis than kill Israelis.
I notice in your long list of accusations against Israel, you didn't mention any of what terrorists do to Israel. For example, terrorists have loaded explosives into ambulances, driven them past security checkpoints, and blown them up. In response, Israel stopped giving ambulances a free pass through security checkpoints. What should Israel do here? Both of their choices suck.
I have serious concerns about Israel's policies, but I am not as certain as you are that the Israeli government is completely villainous, and I stand by my assertion that they would have much more trouble holding the Palestinians if they had treated them even worse.
Oh great. As long as we don't actually eat their babies all other behavior is excused.
You have trouble figuring out when to take people literally, I guess.
Throughout history the majority has never risen up. The majority has never fought to gain freedom. It's always been a small, active and organized minority that throws off the shackles of bondage. The majority will always be happy to make it through the day with a belly full.
There is something to this.
It's very common in totalitarian governments that the military stays faithful to the ruler.
I don't think that applies to the US armed forces, at least not in the near term.
I propose that we either clarify the second amenment or get rid of it.
Politics is the art of the possible. You will not find either of those suggestions to be possible. However, I respect that you are willing to follow your opinions through to their logical conclusion.
Israel is able keep 3.5 million people under occupation despite the fact that they have plenty of firearms and sidearms.
Israel is far from angelic here, but they haven't done anything so extreme that all the Palestinians feel they have no choice but to rise up in arms. The US isn't perfect, but the average Iraqi has figured out that our soldiers aren't going to eat their babies or anything. In both cases, a majority of the people are not shooting at the occupying soldiers.
[US soldiers don't take losses] from rifles or AK47s.
Um, sorry to break it to you, but this is not true. They do take losses from small arms fire. It's true that they take worse from the IEDs, although many IED attacks are followed up with small arms fire.
When the govt comes after you it will be coming in with drones that lauch missiles and jet fighters that are carrying daisy cutters. They will destroy your entire neighborhood with one strike.
Even if Joe Stalin II holds power in Washington, D.C., this is not likely to happen on a wide scale. How long would the men flying the bombers stay loyal to him, and keep bombing their own country? If the whole country is up in arms, how will the tyrants get food and such?
I guess the real threat is that the tyrant will hide a nuke warhead in every city, and personally send the detonation signal when displeased. I still think someone with a gun would find a way to assassinate the tyrant eventually.
If the second amendment does not guarantee your right create a bomb making factory in your basement then it's useless.
So, what? Do you propose a new Amendment that will guarantee the right of the people to own and carry Stingers and such? Do you propose to repeal the Second Amendment? Do you in fact propose anything?
Guns are nice but they are useless in trying to hold the power of the govt in check.
Hardly "useless". It's true that modern weapons of war (tanks, missiles, etc.) far outstrip mere rifles and handguns, and trained soldiers are likely to win most stand-up fights against untrained ordinary people. Yet if the people are armed, they at least can fight.
Look at Vietnam: our soldiers took losses from those AK-47s you ridicule. Look at Iraq now: our soldiers are taking losses from a relative handful of attackers.
Imagine a truly evil government took power in the US. These days political rhetoric can be vicious, and people accuse each other of being evil, but I don't mean trivial evil; let's say someone starts killing off people by the hundreds or thousands, as Stalin did. This would get the average American up in arms. Don't you think that literally millions of people, armed with rifles and pistols, might make a difference? Even if we assume that the Army turns evil and protects the tyrants, rather than the Constitution, could the Army stand in the face of millions of armed people?
But we don't have to imagine a crisis of national proportions. Guns can be useful even at a very local level. In the 50's, in the deep South, some police stations were the local recruiting stations for the Ku Klux Klan! Imagine you were a black person living in such an area. If Sarah Brady told you that you shouldn't own a gun, you should let the police protect you from the Klan, what would you say to that? Because black folks were armed, there was a lot of white-on-black violence that never happened, because the white KKK thugs were deterred.
I do wonder whether the Founding Fathers would interpret the Second Amendment to mean that citizens should be able to own tanks, Stinger missles, etc. It's abundantly clear to me that they would approve of citizens owning assault rifles such as the M-16 (as P. J. O'Rourke put it, back when the Bill of Rights was written, every rifle was an "assault rifle").
...once they drop the axe on PVRs, VCRs, MP3 players, any type of recording, sharing or portable media devices that don't require retinal scans and call in activation...
They won't try this. People like all these things, and if the government tries to take them away, the people will vote to replace the government.
I buy CDs, usually most the songs suck, but theres a few on there.
I recommend you check out Magnatune. They let you listen to all the songs they sell, and then they let you decide how much you want to pay for an album (in the range of $5 to $18) and if you only like a few songs, just pay the $5. Then you download the music, in your choice of four formats (WAV, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, MP3).
I'm not connected with them but I've bought several albums through them and I hope they prosper.
How is it that guns are an essential liberty, but iPods are so dangerous that they must be outlawed?
Because guns can be used to keep someone from killing you, and guns can be used (in the last extreme) to fight a government that can no longer be fought "within the system".
It's hard to exercise your freedoms when you are dead, and guns can help prevent death. They can be abused, just as free speech can be abused (a few restrictions on the free speech rights of Jim Jones might have saved his followers, for example). For that matter, gasoline can be abused (the worst mass murder I can recall was when someone used gasoline to burn down a crowded night club with hundreds of people inside it) but you seldom hear people calling for a ban on gasoline, strict liability for gas stations, etc.
The First and Second Amendments are, coincidentally enough, the two most important of the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech helps keep the political process healthy, and guns in the hands of citizens are the ultimate check on the power of government.
iPods are nice, but they hardly represent a crucial freedom.
I can't even figure out what your point is. Currently, developers of technologies cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who use them to violate copyright. If Congress changes the law, how will that affect gun makers? Will people be using Glocks to record NFL games?
So far, under the law, the only devices that are outright banned are ones that are deemed to have no legitimate uses. A VCR can be used to pirate movies, but it can also be used to time-shift TV shows, so VCRs aren't outright banned. Cars can be used to run over pedestrians, but they can also be used to drive to work, so they aren't outright banned. A gun can be used to injure or kill an innocent person, but it can also be used to defend the innocent from attackers, so guns aren't outright banned.
And the Second Amendment gives special protection to guns anyway. The Founding Fathers designed many checks and balances into the American system of government, and guns in the hands of the people are the ultimate check on government power, to be used if all others fail and the people are faced with tyranny.
Gun makers will finally be held liable
Oh wait, you said "finally". So you want gun manufacturers to be liable! Do you also want car manufacturers to be liable when a drunk driver kills someone? How about holding duct tape manufacturers liable when a kidnapper uses duct tape in a kidnapping? Should the makers of kitchen knives be liable when a serial killer kills again?
If you write a program for viewing images, and a pedophile uses your program for looking at images of small children being raped, should you be liable?
I think that the people who want to hold gun makers liable for abuse of guns are just looking for a way to run the gun makers out of business. These people have decided that guns are bad (even though the Lott study shows clearly that guns are a net benefit to society, because citizens with guns prevent more harm than criminals with guns cause). Since guns are bad, and the end justifies the means, then any underhanded way to hurt the gun makers is okay. Well, I don't agree.
Do you have some other reason why you think gun makers should be held to a special standard of liability?
Does an A64 really require a 400W+ power supply as many sites suggest?
If you want a quiet and reliable system, it's a good idea to buy a power supply that is rated for more Watts than you actually need. Near the top of the possible power output, power supplies are less efficient and emit more heat. If they aren't working very hard, they run cooler, and they should have a long life and not require as much noisy cooling.
I'm not certain how much of a difference the above really makes, but that's my rule of thumb.
Anyway, what you will be doing also matters. If you plan to put in a ferocious nVidia graphics card, and play CPU-intensive games for hours, you will need more power than if you just use an ordinary graphics card and surf the web. If you plan on having a whole bunch of hard drives, you will need more power than if you just have one.
Anthologies used to be popular (but aren't anymore; these days novels are what sell). Asimov was invited to write a story for a new anthology. The anthology was bicentennial-related, and my memory insists that every story in the anthology was supposed to be based on the phrase "The Bicentennial Man". (Just the phrase. Asimov wrote about a robot who wanted to be human, but other authors could have written anything related to the phrase.)
By the way, there was a 3 Laws subplot in the original story. In his quest to become human, the title character decided he needed to become mortal. As a robot, he could "live" forever, and that was a barrier to humans accepting him as human. He told a robot surgeon to perform an operation on him that would result in his health deteriorating over a few years and end in his "death". He looked human enough that the robot balked; this was clearly harm, and he seemed to be human. He informed the robot surgeon that he was not human, and then ordered the robot to do the procedure. (And ironically, because he seemed to be human, the robot accepted orders from him.)
The movie changed this; instead of an operation from a robot surgeon, he had a "blood" transfusion, and IIRC a human doctor friend of his did it for him (sadly).
Asimov did explore these problems. In the novel The Naked Sun (IIRC) they discuss the idea of building warships with robot brains, and no humans on board, and then telling the warships that all ships they encounter in space are like them. Such warships could destroy space ships without the robot brain going insane, because the brain would not realize it was harming humans. Presumably they would also tell them that if they hear voices on the radio pleading for mercy, it's an enemy trick.
Asimov discussed the subtlties of the 3 Laws. They were originally designed to make a simple robot keep people from suffering accidents, but over time the robots got more sophisticated, and were able to make value judgements (like, save the women and children first). Asimov's "last" robot story (not written last, but takes place last in the timeline) has two really advanced robots deciding that they met the definition of human, and were more important than the meat humans who happened to have invented them.
For an opposing view, read the short story "A Code for Sam" where a 3 Laws prototype robot goes insane, because humans do all sorts of dangerous things (like smoking cigarettes) and it wasn't permitted to run around doing nothing but trying to prevent humans from coming to harm. (The robot Sam does better; his moral code is "leave the world a slightly better place than you found it", or something along those lines.)
even Lance Armstrong would probably be completely parked on a bad bike.
Yes, if the equipment is bad enough, it can be enough of a disadvantage to drag down even Lance.
My point is that all the riders have decent bikes, and the difference the bike makes isn't incredibly huge.
Lance is doing most of his riding on a bike you could own. Trek will sell you the same bike Lance uses for around $7000. If you get a Trek 5200, you will have a bike almost as nice for well under $3000.
Lance grabs every legal advantage he can. But you could probably put him on a Trek 5200 and he would still win the Tour. Put him on a 40 pound mountain bike and yes, he would lose, but that wasn't my point.
It is not possible for Lance and his guys, by riding hard, to gain a significant advantage over other GC contenders on a flat road stage. It's also basically impossible for Lance to get a stage win on a flat road stage, because some random sprinter can out-accelerate him in the last 200 meters. (Those same guys who can out-accelerate Lance over a very short distance will lose many minutes in the mountains, which is why Lance doesn't worry about them.) Because of all this, Lance is not making any significant time against his GC contenders as the flat road stages continue.
Yes, it is possible for a GC contender to lose time on a flat road stage, due to a crash. Thus my comment on all the GC guys riding defensively in the flat road stages.
Seriously, corporations don't do jack unless they think it'll help them sell their wares.
Sweeping statements like that are generally wrong.
Corporations are not Borg entities. They are made up of individuals. Sometimes the individuals can successfully push the company into doing some Good Things, and guess what? Those individuals might not be the souless, calculating evil bastards you seem to think they are.
It's true that corporations often do good things that might in some way benefit them. That's called "doing well by doing good" and I don't have a problem with it. You shouldn't, either.
Corporations don't have hearts, and neither do boards or executive officers.
It's healthy to be a bit suspicious of companies; don't accept their press releases without a grain of salt. But you sound like someone who has gone overboard the other way. All corporations are not the same, and everyone who works for a corporation is not necessarily evil.
It is impossible to get rid of monitors, at least here in Washington state. Even working monitors. Schools don't want them donated. Salvation Army and similar charities don't want them. You aren't allowed to throw them in the trash. All you can do is sell them, if you can find a buyer who actually wants one, or pay $10 for environmentally correct disposal. ($10 is for a 14" monitor; bigger ones cost more.)
So, this is a free service that is worth $10 or more if you need to get rid of a monitor. Cool.
technology literally has won this race in the not too distant past.
Well, the point I was trying to make is that the bike didn't ride itself, Greg LeMond had to do his part too.
The point you are making is that technology can give a rider an edge, and that edge could make the difference between a win and a lose. I'd have to agree that, without the aero bars, Greg LeMond couldn't have pulled out that win.
But all the tech can do is give you an edge. There is no hardware that can assure a win.
Slashdot Mirror
One solution would be to get your music from Magnatune.
http://magnatune.com
All Magnatune music is licensed under the Creative Commons license with terms of Attribution, NonCommercial, and ShareAlike.
http://magnatune.com/info/openmusic
I just studied the "Licensing" page, and I think that playing music for your customers is a "commercial" use and you would need a commercial license from Magnatune. But they offer their whole catalog for commercial use, and if you license from them, you know that 50% of whatever you pay goes straight to the artist.
I'm not sure how much they would charge for a dentist to play music for customers, but the "Public Space" license (e.g. for playing music in the dining room of a restaurant) is $45 per year for one album.
P.S. I'm a happy customer of Magnatune; I admire what they are doing and I hope they succeed. I have no other ties of any sort to them.
steveha
Without the NewtonOS, it just wouldn't be worth it. The level of integration among the apps made Newton what it is today.
How hard would it be to take GNOME and extend it in NewtonOS-like ways? What about NewtonOS holds your loyalty so?
If you prefer KDE, stick that in the above instead of GNOME.
In other words: Newton is gone, NewtonOS no longer developed. What are the key features of NewtonOS that would need to be copied before you would consider the Newton successfully cloned?
steveha
What will you do about the Arabs who really believe that all Jews must die, and Israel must be wiped from the Earth? If the leader of the Palestinians is viewed as colloborating with the Israelis, he will probably be assassinated by extremists on his own side; this tends to limit how cooperative he might ever be. Do you have a solution for that? For that matter, Sharon might find himself in trouble if the extremists in Israel are unhappy.
But the above doesn't really matter. I stand in awe that you can use the phrase "the perfect and achievable solution" to describe a plan that includes Israel grabbing land from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The whole area would erupt in war.
I'm sorry, but you aren't living in the real world.
steveha
actually trying to do something about it other than shoot your mouth off makes one an idiot?
No, he thinks the GoneME guy is an idiot, and that the stuff the guy is "actually trying to do something about" is idiotic stuff.
Hope this helps.
steveha
I'd be interested to see a hardcore Newton fan actually make a list of what it would take to get him to switch to something new.
Suppose the Oqo ever emerges from vapor as something you could actually buy. Then put a Linux 2.6 kernel on it, and your choice of desktop (KDE or GNOME). In some ways this would be better than a Newton (faster processor, color screen). How would a Newton user like this? What essential Newton features are missing?
I understand that the Newton used a "data soup" more than explicit files. Is GNOME Storage anything like this?
steveha
Less rantish, and I agree with everything he says here.
t ml
m l
http://www.whiprush.org/2004/07/ten_gnome_nitpi.h
Oh, he also talks about GoneME. He has a very low opinion of it.
http://www.whiprush.org/2004/07/its_not_a_joke.ht
steveha
"What should Israel do here?"
I have already told you. Do the civilized thing. Draw the borders of israel any way you like, take as much land as you want to (who is going to stop you anyway?), and make those people your citizens with full rights. Give them the right to vote and I bet terrorism disappears overnight.
I don't think it would work overnight, but I agree that this would be better than what Israel is doing.
By the way, my question was meant as, "Should Isreal's policy be to block ambulances at security checkpoints, delaying them, or to let them through even though terrorists will load them up with explosives some of the time?" The answer "treat the people right so that, in a generation or so, they are well-integrated into your society and no longer wish to be terrorists" is not a responsive answer. Both of Israel's choices suck, here. I'm glad I don't have to make any decisions like that.
I am sick and tired of listening to this pathetic excuse. "we are not as bad as saddam"
Well, this shouldn't be used to excuse atrocities or preventable mistakes, but it's true.
This is the worst kind of moral relativism. Saying that if you give people a little more freedom then saddam then it's enough is bullshit.
I presume you did not intend to put those words in my mouth. This is a long way from my observation that the behavior of American troops is so far not inflaming the average Iraqi-in-the-street to grab weapons and start shooting.
steveha
What an odd thing to say.
I don't have the time, or the inclination, to really go over this issue with you. From what I've read, the average Palestinian would rather get a job working for Israelis than kill Israelis.
I notice in your long list of accusations against Israel, you didn't mention any of what terrorists do to Israel. For example, terrorists have loaded explosives into ambulances, driven them past security checkpoints, and blown them up. In response, Israel stopped giving ambulances a free pass through security checkpoints. What should Israel do here? Both of their choices suck.
I have serious concerns about Israel's policies, but I am not as certain as you are that the Israeli government is completely villainous, and I stand by my assertion that they would have much more trouble holding the Palestinians if they had treated them even worse.
Oh great. As long as we don't actually eat their babies all other behavior is excused.
You have trouble figuring out when to take people literally, I guess.
Throughout history the majority has never risen up. The majority has never fought to gain freedom. It's always been a small, active and organized minority that throws off the shackles of bondage. The majority will always be happy to make it through the day with a belly full.
There is something to this.
It's very common in totalitarian governments that the military stays faithful to the ruler.
I don't think that applies to the US armed forces, at least not in the near term.
I propose that we either clarify the second amenment or get rid of it.
Politics is the art of the possible. You will not find either of those suggestions to be possible. However, I respect that you are willing to follow your opinions through to their logical conclusion.
steveha
Israel is able keep 3.5 million people under occupation despite the fact that they have plenty of firearms and sidearms.
Israel is far from angelic here, but they haven't done anything so extreme that all the Palestinians feel they have no choice but to rise up in arms. The US isn't perfect, but the average Iraqi has figured out that our soldiers aren't going to eat their babies or anything. In both cases, a majority of the people are not shooting at the occupying soldiers.
[US soldiers don't take losses] from rifles or AK47s.
Um, sorry to break it to you, but this is not true. They do take losses from small arms fire. It's true that they take worse from the IEDs, although many IED attacks are followed up with small arms fire.
When the govt comes after you it will be coming in with drones that lauch missiles and jet fighters that are carrying daisy cutters. They will destroy your entire neighborhood with one strike.
Even if Joe Stalin II holds power in Washington, D.C., this is not likely to happen on a wide scale. How long would the men flying the bombers stay loyal to him, and keep bombing their own country? If the whole country is up in arms, how will the tyrants get food and such?
I guess the real threat is that the tyrant will hide a nuke warhead in every city, and personally send the detonation signal when displeased. I still think someone with a gun would find a way to assassinate the tyrant eventually.
If the second amendment does not guarantee your right create a bomb making factory in your basement then it's useless.
So, what? Do you propose a new Amendment that will guarantee the right of the people to own and carry Stingers and such? Do you propose to repeal the Second Amendment? Do you in fact propose anything?
steveha
Guns are nice but they are useless in trying to hold the power of the govt in check.
Hardly "useless". It's true that modern weapons of war (tanks, missiles, etc.) far outstrip mere rifles and handguns, and trained soldiers are likely to win most stand-up fights against untrained ordinary people. Yet if the people are armed, they at least can fight.
Look at Vietnam: our soldiers took losses from those AK-47s you ridicule. Look at Iraq now: our soldiers are taking losses from a relative handful of attackers.
Imagine a truly evil government took power in the US. These days political rhetoric can be vicious, and people accuse each other of being evil, but I don't mean trivial evil; let's say someone starts killing off people by the hundreds or thousands, as Stalin did. This would get the average American up in arms. Don't you think that literally millions of people, armed with rifles and pistols, might make a difference? Even if we assume that the Army turns evil and protects the tyrants, rather than the Constitution, could the Army stand in the face of millions of armed people?
But we don't have to imagine a crisis of national proportions. Guns can be useful even at a very local level. In the 50's, in the deep South, some police stations were the local recruiting stations for the Ku Klux Klan! Imagine you were a black person living in such an area. If Sarah Brady told you that you shouldn't own a gun, you should let the police protect you from the Klan, what would you say to that? Because black folks were armed, there was a lot of white-on-black violence that never happened, because the white KKK thugs were deterred.
I do wonder whether the Founding Fathers would interpret the Second Amendment to mean that citizens should be able to own tanks, Stinger missles, etc. It's abundantly clear to me that they would approve of citizens owning assault rifles such as the M-16 (as P. J. O'Rourke put it, back when the Bill of Rights was written, every rifle was an "assault rifle").
steveha
...once they drop the axe on PVRs, VCRs, MP3 players, any type of recording, sharing or portable media devices that don't require retinal scans and call in activation...
They won't try this. People like all these things, and if the government tries to take them away, the people will vote to replace the government.
I buy CDs, usually most the songs suck, but theres a few on there.
I recommend you check out Magnatune. They let you listen to all the songs they sell, and then they let you decide how much you want to pay for an album (in the range of $5 to $18) and if you only like a few songs, just pay the $5. Then you download the music, in your choice of four formats (WAV, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, MP3).
I'm not connected with them but I've bought several albums through them and I hope they prosper.
http://magnatune.com
steveha
How is it that guns are an essential liberty, but iPods are so dangerous that they must be outlawed?
Because guns can be used to keep someone from killing you, and guns can be used (in the last extreme) to fight a government that can no longer be fought "within the system".
It's hard to exercise your freedoms when you are dead, and guns can help prevent death. They can be abused, just as free speech can be abused (a few restrictions on the free speech rights of Jim Jones might have saved his followers, for example). For that matter, gasoline can be abused (the worst mass murder I can recall was when someone used gasoline to burn down a crowded night club with hundreds of people inside it) but you seldom hear people calling for a ban on gasoline, strict liability for gas stations, etc.
The First and Second Amendments are, coincidentally enough, the two most important of the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech helps keep the political process healthy, and guns in the hands of citizens are the ultimate check on the power of government.
iPods are nice, but they hardly represent a crucial freedom.
steveha
I can't even figure out what your point is. Currently, developers of technologies cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who use them to violate copyright. If Congress changes the law, how will that affect gun makers? Will people be using Glocks to record NFL games?
So far, under the law, the only devices that are outright banned are ones that are deemed to have no legitimate uses. A VCR can be used to pirate movies, but it can also be used to time-shift TV shows, so VCRs aren't outright banned. Cars can be used to run over pedestrians, but they can also be used to drive to work, so they aren't outright banned. A gun can be used to injure or kill an innocent person, but it can also be used to defend the innocent from attackers, so guns aren't outright banned.
And the Second Amendment gives special protection to guns anyway. The Founding Fathers designed many checks and balances into the American system of government, and guns in the hands of the people are the ultimate check on government power, to be used if all others fail and the people are faced with tyranny.
Gun makers will finally be held liable
Oh wait, you said "finally". So you want gun manufacturers to be liable! Do you also want car manufacturers to be liable when a drunk driver kills someone? How about holding duct tape manufacturers liable when a kidnapper uses duct tape in a kidnapping? Should the makers of kitchen knives be liable when a serial killer kills again?
If you write a program for viewing images, and a pedophile uses your program for looking at images of small children being raped, should you be liable?
I think that the people who want to hold gun makers liable for abuse of guns are just looking for a way to run the gun makers out of business. These people have decided that guns are bad (even though the Lott study shows clearly that guns are a net benefit to society, because citizens with guns prevent more harm than criminals with guns cause). Since guns are bad, and the end justifies the means, then any underhanded way to hurt the gun makers is okay. Well, I don't agree.
Do you have some other reason why you think gun makers should be held to a special standard of liability?
steveha
Does an A64 really require a 400W+ power supply as many sites suggest?
If you want a quiet and reliable system, it's a good idea to buy a power supply that is rated for more Watts than you actually need. Near the top of the possible power output, power supplies are less efficient and emit more heat. If they aren't working very hard, they run cooler, and they should have a long life and not require as much noisy cooling.
I'm not certain how much of a difference the above really makes, but that's my rule of thumb.
Anyway, what you will be doing also matters. If you plan to put in a ferocious nVidia graphics card, and play CPU-intensive games for hours, you will need more power than if you just use an ordinary graphics card and surf the web. If you plan on having a whole bunch of hard drives, you will need more power than if you just have one.
steveha
Anthologies used to be popular (but aren't anymore; these days novels are what sell). Asimov was invited to write a story for a new anthology. The anthology was bicentennial-related, and my memory insists that every story in the anthology was supposed to be based on the phrase "The Bicentennial Man". (Just the phrase. Asimov wrote about a robot who wanted to be human, but other authors could have written anything related to the phrase.)
By the way, there was a 3 Laws subplot in the original story. In his quest to become human, the title character decided he needed to become mortal. As a robot, he could "live" forever, and that was a barrier to humans accepting him as human. He told a robot surgeon to perform an operation on him that would result in his health deteriorating over a few years and end in his "death". He looked human enough that the robot balked; this was clearly harm, and he seemed to be human. He informed the robot surgeon that he was not human, and then ordered the robot to do the procedure. (And ironically, because he seemed to be human, the robot accepted orders from him.)
The movie changed this; instead of an operation from a robot surgeon, he had a "blood" transfusion, and IIRC a human doctor friend of his did it for him (sadly).
steveha
Asimov did explore these problems. In the novel The Naked Sun (IIRC) they discuss the idea of building warships with robot brains, and no humans on board, and then telling the warships that all ships they encounter in space are like them. Such warships could destroy space ships without the robot brain going insane, because the brain would not realize it was harming humans. Presumably they would also tell them that if they hear voices on the radio pleading for mercy, it's an enemy trick.
Asimov discussed the subtlties of the 3 Laws. They were originally designed to make a simple robot keep people from suffering accidents, but over time the robots got more sophisticated, and were able to make value judgements (like, save the women and children first). Asimov's "last" robot story (not written last, but takes place last in the timeline) has two really advanced robots deciding that they met the definition of human, and were more important than the meat humans who happened to have invented them.
For an opposing view, read the short story "A Code for Sam" where a 3 Laws prototype robot goes insane, because humans do all sorts of dangerous things (like smoking cigarettes) and it wasn't permitted to run around doing nothing but trying to prevent humans from coming to harm. (The robot Sam does better; his moral code is "leave the world a slightly better place than you found it", or something along those lines.)
steveha
It was the first episode of SG1.
A woman character said something like "you've managed to McGuyver up a gate interface!" The actress ad-libbed that, they liked it, they kept it.
steveha
by the way, Slashdot and OSDN does not comply with the act either
Really?
Slashdot is almost nothing but text, and it has displayed well in every browser I have tried, including lynx and links (text-only browsers).
Are you saying that Slashdot won't work correctly with the web browers the blind folks use? Why do you believe this?
steveha
even Lance Armstrong would probably be completely parked on a bad bike.
Yes, if the equipment is bad enough, it can be enough of a disadvantage to drag down even Lance.
My point is that all the riders have decent bikes, and the difference the bike makes isn't incredibly huge.
Lance is doing most of his riding on a bike you could own. Trek will sell you the same bike Lance uses for around $7000. If you get a Trek 5200, you will have a bike almost as nice for well under $3000.
Lance grabs every legal advantage he can. But you could probably put him on a Trek 5200 and he would still win the Tour. Put him on a 40 pound mountain bike and yes, he would lose, but that wasn't my point.
steveha
It is not possible for Lance and his guys, by riding hard, to gain a significant advantage over other GC contenders on a flat road stage. It's also basically impossible for Lance to get a stage win on a flat road stage, because some random sprinter can out-accelerate him in the last 200 meters. (Those same guys who can out-accelerate Lance over a very short distance will lose many minutes in the mountains, which is why Lance doesn't worry about them.) Because of all this, Lance is not making any significant time against his GC contenders as the flat road stages continue.
Yes, it is possible for a GC contender to lose time on a flat road stage, due to a crash. Thus my comment on all the GC guys riding defensively in the flat road stages.
steveha
Seriously, corporations don't do jack unless they think it'll help them sell their wares.
Sweeping statements like that are generally wrong.
Corporations are not Borg entities. They are made up of individuals. Sometimes the individuals can successfully push the company into doing some Good Things, and guess what? Those individuals might not be the souless, calculating evil bastards you seem to think they are.
It's true that corporations often do good things that might in some way benefit them. That's called "doing well by doing good" and I don't have a problem with it. You shouldn't, either.
Corporations don't have hearts, and neither do boards or executive officers.
It's healthy to be a bit suspicious of companies; don't accept their press releases without a grain of salt. But you sound like someone who has gone overboard the other way. All corporations are not the same, and everyone who works for a corporation is not necessarily evil.
steveha
It is impossible to get rid of monitors, at least here in Washington state. Even working monitors. Schools don't want them donated. Salvation Army and similar charities don't want them. You aren't allowed to throw them in the trash. All you can do is sell them, if you can find a buyer who actually wants one, or pay $10 for environmentally correct disposal. ($10 is for a 14" monitor; bigger ones cost more.)
So, this is a free service that is worth $10 or more if you need to get rid of a monitor. Cool.
steveha
technology literally has won this race in the not too distant past.
Well, the point I was trying to make is that the bike didn't ride itself, Greg LeMond had to do his part too.
The point you are making is that technology can give a rider an edge, and that edge could make the difference between a win and a lose. I'd have to agree that, without the aero bars, Greg LeMond couldn't have pulled out that win.
But all the tech can do is give you an edge. There is no hardware that can assure a win.
steveha
Heh. Joke's on me, then. It didn't occur to me to wonder where PJ got it...
steveha
...and this Roland Piquepaille guy is really flattering the GROKLAW web site design.
steveha