If you don't like it, write your representatives and congresspeople.
If someone started this bill, I can't trust that same demographic of people to stop that bill for all of its oversimplifications and shallow thought processes.
You ask only one side of a two-sided question. What happens when the bacteria is unleashed into our environment and can handle how things have changed. It might immediately die from the changed levels of gasses in the atmosphere, different levels of radiation reaching the surface of the earth, ot might be gobbled up and digested by a couple of dust mites leaping of this hypothetical clutses hand.
The government is better at governing people than people are. The government is actually made up of people, despite what many believe. These people have careers in politics and government. They become experts and specialists. Perhaps you are content pulling your own teeth, but I'd rather have a dentist do it. Likewise, I'd rather have people dedicated to driving a country rather than hoping everyone goes in the same direction.
And in order for the government to exist, we have to put resources into it. We do it in the form of money. We all vote for politicians who ultimately decide our taxes. That is our burden for living in a goverened society. Once you are taxed, the money belongs to the government. It's not your money that the government took, its your money that you gave. Just like you don't take money from your employer, they give it to you.
If you don't spent every last red cent of your paycheck, do you have to give the surplus back to the company? No, you tuck it away and save it for a rainy day. Who knows when your job will turn sour and you'll have to take a pay cut.
Likewise, the government should *save* some surplus for a rainy day. As good as the economy has been (which is arguable), there ain't much else it can do besides get worse. Then where will all of the fancy new taxt cuts and programs be?
Now, yes, the goverment needs to be limited. But, you can't tie both hands behind its back and expect it to work. You do have to have checks and balances and ways to be heard and ways to change direction peacefully. Our government has those things.
What we do have to wrroy about is the rich (individuals and corporations) trying to steer the government through political means and pulling the wool over eyes. We need to have a government that works for us, not necessarily the corporations.
My biggest concern with the DMCA is duration of copyright terms. Right now a copyright can be held for a hundred years or so. What happens to the technolgoical measures that prevent unauthorized access after the time is up?
Will the world 100 years from now be a world with no current public domain as everything will be locked up?
If you read the orignal submission to slashdot, it links to two articles. There were actually two submissions combined into one. The second submission pointed to the Sharky Extreme Article.
Anyways, back to your comments... The Radeon has been quite surprising to the industry. It came in just behind all of the GeForce-2 cards in Sharky's benchmarks and well above the Voodoo5. My point of contention with them is that their tests seem to be limited to 16-bit color-depth.
As for the stability of their drivers, I don't know where you're coming from. I've personally had no problems with their drivers. Hanging out in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video, I've seen an pretty-much uniform distribution of complaints for all card manufacturers.
Finally, as I'm not a Linux user, so I can't comment on the drivers available for Linux. I've found limited BeOS drivers available, though, and they're stable. Perhaps by your logic BeOS developers are better than Linux developers? Perhaps ATI doesn't forecast enough profit in the Linux sector to justify making in-house drivers? This is spawns a whole 'nother can of worms.
Now, I know this isn't the best forum for anything pro-ATI, but I'll continue nonetheless.
For as long as I can remember, ATI's chips have performed far better in 32-bit color depth tests than 16-bit color-depth tests. Yet, Sharky doesn't seem to show any charts comparing the cards in 32-bit except for the Re-Volt benchmark which they admit is outdated. However, they do state on page 6 of their review that the GeForce-2 cards rule both 16-bit and 32-bit.
Did I miss something?
Anyways, it seems that the Radeon is only a few FPS behind the GeForce-2 cards, and I imagine that difference is humanly imperceivable except for super-humans. Meanwhile, you gain better DVD playback and other huge multimedia offerings, especially if you look into the always-a-pleasuer All-in-Wonder line from ATI.
So, why did Sharky need to use so many pages to get these points across?
The nice thing about ZDNews is that users can submit (filtered) comments on each article to be viewed by the public. I imagine a lot of Slashdotters already addded their opinions. Of the opinions I read, a lot of them are criticizing Hilary Rosen's article and the RIAA in general.
If you haven't already added your comment, it is too late to add it to the article. It's been moved to a discussion forum.
Anyways, maybe Hilary will check back and see the real public opinion.
We are more powerful now than we were 1,000 years ago. Project that 1,000 years into the future and it is almost unimaginable how much control we might have over our food sources. My whole argument is that as human-kind progresses, we are learning to expand into previously unformidable environments. Compare our existence now to that of 1,000 years ago and look where we might be 1,000 years from now. And the technology curve isn't even a linear increase.
You claim there was a dust bowl in the 1930's. I tell you there was an ice age in the late 1600s and early 1700s. What do you think had a larger impact? My guess is that the global ice age had more impact. But, we survived.
So, Stephen Hawking may think that at the current rate of pollutant production and current state of technology that we're doomed within 1,000 years. But, 1,000 years is a long time for things to change, especially as our technological prowess increases. We could certainly use our increasing powers to destroy ourselves faster. But I submit that human kind has come this far by having a will to survive slightly stronger than our will to destory simply for our convenience.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say Stephen Hawkin was running for office on an environmentalist ticket. Now, I'm all for the environment, but I also think we have to look outside the lifespan of humans to see trends that are "bigger than life". And I think that trend has been that humans and the earth have survived. We are part of nature, not separate from it. We evolve with nature and nature evolves with us.
Changes to food sources? We control our food sources. Do you honestly think cows would be here if itweren't for us keeping them alive to eat? Do we just randomly pick berries, or are me genetically altering our foods and plantin them where we want them.
Not only would humans adapt themselves to a changing environment, we'd take everything else we need along for the ride.
So, I didn't ignore it, I just didn't include it in my scope.
.wap would not be a good TLD. WAP is usually a reformatting of rehular information. Such information can usually be optained in either WWW/HTML or WAP, and in the future, even further formats.
Instead, let's use names like http://wap.slashdot.org.
RichReader version 1.61 can convert PDFs to their format for reading on the PalmOS. I believe other readers can do this as well, but this is the first that came to mind.
Global climate change is part of a pattern that our puny human lifespans are to impatient to measure.
Maybe the global warming is even part of a natural cycle that would normally devastate species but our pollutants have stiffled the magnitude of it and stablized the world.
Whatever the case, there are to sides to every story.
I never would have thought that Stephen Hawking would be such a doom-sayer.
Look, people haven't gotten this far be being unable to adapt. Next to cockroaches, we're pretty damned flexible.
Worst case scenario is that we are drowing in acid rain, unbreathable air and sweltering heat. So, we wear super-raincoats, generated oxygen supplies and personal air-conditioners. And that's the worst-case scenario.
Come on! If people can live in frigid Alaska and worst, we can survive other extreme conditions on a global scale too.
Valenti said several times that our copyright extensions were only to keep up with Europe. I have several problems with that.
First of all, Eurpoe shouldn't incluence our laws that much.
Who was it that promoted such extensions in Europe? Wouldn't it be interesting if the MPAA or RIAA (or their Eurpoean counterparts) pushed those laws through, only to have the U.S. match them here?
So what if Europe's copyright terms are longer than ours? That doesn't eman Europeans can profit it from U.S. works while Americans can't. After all, would a European want to pay for it in Eurpose when he could order it from the U.S. (or get it on the Internet) for free?
Something is definately fishy with this whole thing.
Mr. Valenti argued many times that tools that enable crime, at leastw ith their primary use, are illegal. Thus, DeCSS is illegal because it's only use is to circumvent encryption, a technological measure, which is illegal under the DMCA.
In the Sony vs. Betamax case, the judge ruled that even though VCRs could be used for illegal purposes, they were OK because there was substantial legal use.
However, I think if you were to look at guns, you could say that they are primarily used to commit murder. Sure, you see the occasional bit news footage where a citizen defends himself with their own gun, but that is only amongst hundreds of bits of footage where people are robbed and killed with guns.
So, shouldn't guns be illegal by Mr. Valenti's reasoning (and that of many courts)?
Too bad the constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. Also too bad that the AHRA guaranteed us the right to fair use.
He uses the VCR as a reason to invalidate the DMCA because Valenti was proven "wrong". In actuality the reason why said technology hasn't damaged the industry is because of two reasons: a) it takes long to copy a video tape and quality degrades; and, b) anti-pirate measures such as macrovision.
There are more than those two reasons, those are just the most tangible ones.
The reason VCR's didn't damage the movie industry is that they were smart enought o adapt to it. They learned that they could defeat pirates by making the movies too cheap (by value, not money) to pirate and increasing merchandising.
Why pirate movie that you could rent for a couple of bucks? Why spend 90 minutes copying a movie when you could just rent it again on your way home from work for a nother couple of bucks? It is a lot of time and effort to use a VCR to steal. It is not a lot of time and effort to watch a movie legally by renting a tape.
That is how the movie industry survived VCRs. In fact, its how they managed to grow after VCRs.
He still managed to get a lot of applause and laughs out of the audience. I was a bit disappointed with that since the audience consisted mostly of *Harvard Law School* students...
Not to slam law students, but I have a feeling most of them grow up to be lawyers who focus on the existing laws so they can make a living rather than focusing on spirit of the law and underlying constitution so that they could make a better life for all.
Furthermore, they're students, not seasoned lawyers with a lifetime of both personal and professional experience.
Man, around here, a new set of Windows will cost you roughly $3,000 for a whole house. I'm assuming this $1,000 price tag suggestion is for a whole house. Even if it is just for one floor, it's still cheaper.
This begs the question...
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 2
Wow! I had no idea. So we can't trust Judge Rehnquist. I stand by my statement that the media is looking for senstionalism, though. If they wanted proof that Rehnquist had ethics problems, they should've cited some of the information that AC posted.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone started this bill, I can't trust that same demographic of people to stop that bill for all of its oversimplifications and shallow thought processes.
...this was going to be about open source medicine, not open source software used by the medical community. Not nearly as eye opening.
You ask only one side of a two-sided question. What happens when the bacteria is unleashed into our environment and can handle how things have changed. It might immediately die from the changed levels of gasses in the atmosphere, different levels of radiation reaching the surface of the earth, ot might be gobbled up and digested by a couple of dust mites leaping of this hypothetical clutses hand.
The government is better at governing people than people are. The government is actually made up of people, despite what many believe. These people have careers in politics and government. They become experts and specialists. Perhaps you are content pulling your own teeth, but I'd rather have a dentist do it. Likewise, I'd rather have people dedicated to driving a country rather than hoping everyone goes in the same direction.
And in order for the government to exist, we have to put resources into it. We do it in the form of money. We all vote for politicians who ultimately decide our taxes. That is our burden for living in a goverened society. Once you are taxed, the money belongs to the government. It's not your money that the government took, its your money that you gave. Just like you don't take money from your employer, they give it to you.
If you don't spent every last red cent of your paycheck, do you have to give the surplus back to the company? No, you tuck it away and save it for a rainy day. Who knows when your job will turn sour and you'll have to take a pay cut.
Likewise, the government should *save* some surplus for a rainy day. As good as the economy has been (which is arguable), there ain't much else it can do besides get worse. Then where will all of the fancy new taxt cuts and programs be?
Now, yes, the goverment needs to be limited. But, you can't tie both hands behind its back and expect it to work. You do have to have checks and balances and ways to be heard and ways to change direction peacefully. Our government has those things.
What we do have to wrroy about is the rich (individuals and corporations) trying to steer the government through political means and pulling the wool over eyes. We need to have a government that works for us, not necessarily the corporations.
For those of you who oppose the electoral college, read this article. If it doesn't change your mind, it will at least give you food for thought.
I think this might need to be expanded to include more information. Possibly UCITA, the ever-growing copyright terms and ridiculous patents.
Still, Star Office 5 left something to be desired in the area of contact management.
Will the world 100 years from now be a world with no current public domain as everything will be locked up?
Anyways, back to your comments... The Radeon has been quite surprising to the industry. It came in just behind all of the GeForce-2 cards in Sharky's benchmarks and well above the Voodoo5. My point of contention with them is that their tests seem to be limited to 16-bit color-depth.
As for the stability of their drivers, I don't know where you're coming from. I've personally had no problems with their drivers. Hanging out in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video, I've seen an pretty-much uniform distribution of complaints for all card manufacturers.
Finally, as I'm not a Linux user, so I can't comment on the drivers available for Linux. I've found limited BeOS drivers available, though, and they're stable. Perhaps by your logic BeOS developers are better than Linux developers? Perhaps ATI doesn't forecast enough profit in the Linux sector to justify making in-house drivers? This is spawns a whole 'nother can of worms.
For as long as I can remember, ATI's chips have performed far better in 32-bit color depth tests than 16-bit color-depth tests. Yet, Sharky doesn't seem to show any charts comparing the cards in 32-bit except for the Re-Volt benchmark which they admit is outdated. However, they do state on page 6 of their review that the GeForce-2 cards rule both 16-bit and 32-bit.
Did I miss something?
Anyways, it seems that the Radeon is only a few FPS behind the GeForce-2 cards, and I imagine that difference is humanly imperceivable except for super-humans. Meanwhile, you gain better DVD playback and other huge multimedia offerings, especially if you look into the always-a-pleasuer All-in-Wonder line from ATI.
So, why did Sharky need to use so many pages to get these points across?
If you haven't already added your comment, it is too late to add it to the article. It's been moved to a discussion forum. Anyways, maybe Hilary will check back and see the real public opinion.
You claim there was a dust bowl in the 1930's. I tell you there was an ice age in the late 1600s and early 1700s. What do you think had a larger impact? My guess is that the global ice age had more impact. But, we survived.
So, Stephen Hawking may think that at the current rate of pollutant production and current state of technology that we're doomed within 1,000 years. But, 1,000 years is a long time for things to change, especially as our technological prowess increases. We could certainly use our increasing powers to destroy ourselves faster. But I submit that human kind has come this far by having a will to survive slightly stronger than our will to destory simply for our convenience.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say Stephen Hawkin was running for office on an environmentalist ticket. Now, I'm all for the environment, but I also think we have to look outside the lifespan of humans to see trends that are "bigger than life". And I think that trend has been that humans and the earth have survived. We are part of nature, not separate from it. We evolve with nature and nature evolves with us.
Not only would humans adapt themselves to a changing environment, we'd take everything else we need along for the ride.
So, I didn't ignore it, I just didn't include it in my scope.
Instead, let's use names like http://wap.slashdot.org.
RichReader version 1.61 can convert PDFs to their format for reading on the PalmOS. I believe other readers can do this as well, but this is the first that came to mind.
Maybe the global warming is even part of a natural cycle that would normally devastate species but our pollutants have stiffled the magnitude of it and stablized the world.
Whatever the case, there are to sides to every story.
that there was a small ice age during the second millenium (I think it was in the 1700's or 1800's).
Look, people haven't gotten this far be being unable to adapt. Next to cockroaches, we're pretty damned flexible.
Worst case scenario is that we are drowing in acid rain, unbreathable air and sweltering heat. So, we wear super-raincoats, generated oxygen supplies and personal air-conditioners. And that's the worst-case scenario.
Come on! If people can live in frigid Alaska and worst, we can survive other extreme conditions on a global scale too.
Something is definately fishy with this whole thing.
In the Sony vs. Betamax case, the judge ruled that even though VCRs could be used for illegal purposes, they were OK because there was substantial legal use.
However, I think if you were to look at guns, you could say that they are primarily used to commit murder. Sure, you see the occasional bit news footage where a citizen defends himself with their own gun, but that is only amongst hundreds of bits of footage where people are robbed and killed with guns.
So, shouldn't guns be illegal by Mr. Valenti's reasoning (and that of many courts)?
Too bad the constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. Also too bad that the AHRA guaranteed us the right to fair use.
Ooops.
There are more than those two reasons, those are just the most tangible ones.
The reason VCR's didn't damage the movie industry is that they were smart enought o adapt to it. They learned that they could defeat pirates by making the movies too cheap (by value, not money) to pirate and increasing merchandising.
Why pirate movie that you could rent for a couple of bucks? Why spend 90 minutes copying a movie when you could just rent it again on your way home from work for a nother couple of bucks? It is a lot of time and effort to use a VCR to steal. It is not a lot of time and effort to watch a movie legally by renting a tape.
That is how the movie industry survived VCRs. In fact, its how they managed to grow after VCRs.
Not to slam law students, but I have a feeling most of them grow up to be lawyers who focus on the existing laws so they can make a living rather than focusing on spirit of the law and underlying constitution so that they could make a better life for all.
Furthermore, they're students, not seasoned lawyers with a lifetime of both personal and professional experience.
Man, around here, a new set of Windows will cost you roughly $3,000 for a whole house. I'm assuming this $1,000 price tag suggestion is for a whole house. Even if it is just for one floor, it's still cheaper.
Could a 3D printer print out a 3D printer?
Wow! I had no idea. So we can't trust Judge Rehnquist. I stand by my statement that the media is looking for senstionalism, though. If they wanted proof that Rehnquist had ethics problems, they should've cited some of the information that AC posted.