Woah, can you imagine how the OpenOffice developers must feel after reading that?
If I was working on some huge Linux project and Linus said it was a disaster, I'd feel pretty bad.
Open Office may be a "disaster" from the elegence and interoperative perspective, just as Netscape was a "disaster."
And just like netscape (for all of those years before Mozilla and Konqueror were mature enough to be usable as serious browsers), Open Office is critical to GNU/Linux's usability on the desktop today.
Without Netscape for all those years, as clunky as it was, Linux users would have been forced to use Windows boxes to surf the net and take part in the user-side of the world wide web. Without Open Office Linux users would be forced to use Windows boxes for any number of purposes (mostly having to do with interoperability with Microsoft Excel and Word formats), and while other tools exist to some degree to address this (as Konqueror and Mozilla did prior to their becoming mature applications), none are as useful or as accessible as Open Office is.
The Open Office developers should be proud. They have an office suite that runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and other platforms, one that reads and writes commonly used file formats (e.g M$ crap and PDF) as well as its own excellent, open format. Open Office, for all of its faults, makes Linux a viable, serious desktop platform... Microsoft zealotry and Macintosh enthusiasm to the contrary notwithstanding.
Indeed, Open Office could be the single most important application to facilitating enterprise and individual migration away from Microsoft to Linux or FreeBSD on the desktop, or for supporting heterogeneous desktops in the enterprise that a dependency on Microsoft Office (or Appleworks) would preclude.
On a serious note, I admit that Gentoo is the most well maintained distribution out there, and has the best free support when you consider the forums. However, I find a lot of Gentoo zealots feel like they're more in control of their system because of Gentoo. Control is a function of knowledge, not end user tools.
One of Gentoo's real strenths is that it provides the tools that take the tedium out of dependency resolution and compilation (a form of *BSD 'ports' on steroids), without obfuscating the underlying *NIX configurations and filesystem organization. This allows relative newcomers to learn how to setup a GNU/Linux system step by step, understand its organization and how it all fits together, without getting lost in the quagmire of learning the intricacies of autoconf, make, gcc, python or perl scripting.
People who are in to such things tend to become quite ecstatic when they discover such a platform, and such an implimentation. The rest of us, who like to just get work done with a minimum of fuss, may or may not find it appealing. I personally find it to be the best distro I've used by far (and I've been using Linux since the days before distros of any kind even existed...before X even ran on it)... but I'm sure in the not so distant future something even cooler, from some other quadrant, will come along and surpass it.
People that use Gentoo and know Linux are cool. They don't run around the internet telling everyone about Gentoo, either. There is another type of Gentoo user...I'm honestly very sick of gentoo zealots throwing plugs in completely unrelated topics.
Well, as with any project, there are those few who are rabidly zealous and seem to have an overdeveloped evangelical streak. Debian, Mandrake, and others have had their fair share of overzealous enthusiasts as well (as does Mac OS X and, I fear, Windows...though one never knows how many of the latter aren't simply bought and paid for, at sub-industry wages and without medical benefits, no doubt).
I am glad, however, that they are evangelizing a Linux distro rather than a real-world religious cult a la $cientology or Mormonism. That having been said, it is natural for people who discover something new that really, really rocks in their mind to want to tell others, particularly if they think it might help someone who is having trouble.
An example where I was guilty of this was with 'transcode', a swiss-army knife tool for converting between various audio and video formats, backing up DVDs, and even authoring one's own DVDs from home video footage. It is a bear to compile, having done so myself under Mandrake, Debian, and others. Someone was having an inordinant amount of trouble getting the thing to work under Mandrake (the binaries didn't work properly, and the source dependencies are, well, hellacious to put it mildly). Having been down that road myself under both Debian and Mandrake, and having found it incredibly easy to install under Gentoo, I suggested that the user might want to try out Gentoo as an alternative. He did, got the thing installed with no trouble, and was greatful.
The question is, was that an off-topic bit of gentoo zealotry, or an ontopic suggestion to someone having trouble getting a notoriously difficult-to-install package running? The person I replied to would argue the latter... others in the list, particularly those with strong partisan feelings toward another distribution, would probably argue the former. For me, personally, it is irrelevant, and while I do not go around telling everyone they should run Gentoo (a Knoppix Live CD is a far better thing to give a newbie than a Gentoo Live CD, for obvious reasons... indeed, it is often a better rescue CD for Gentoo systems than a Gentoo LiveCD is), I am certainly not one to apologize for recommending it when I think it will solve someone's problems.
No distro can claim the fact that it has indirectly made thousands of users cringe
Wow, and here I was starting to think I was the only person in the world who read "The Phantom Tollbooth".
Nope, here's at least one other. In later years I always wanted to get a supply of those "subtraction cakes" so I could chow down and lose some weight. Then Atkins comes along, and I discover those subtraction cakes were under my nose the whole time... in the form of steaks, bacon, eggs, and assorted other greasy stuff. Who knew?
The phantom tollbooth as an educational child's fantasy absolutely rocked.
But Fox News is obviously so touchy that if it weren't The Simpsons it'd be someone else. What a bunch of non-joke-taking whiners. Didn't it used to be the liberals who were humorless?
No, it was never "the liberals" any more than it was "those conservatives" (and possibly less so). What we have been witnessing is classic transference: the extreme right (not to be confused with run of the mill, mostly-harmless conservatives) accusing "those dirty liberals" of everything they, themselves, are doing. When John Hannerty or Rush Limbaugh is telling their audience "liberals are trying to silence freedom of speech!", what you are witnessing is akin to a rapist telling the court "she really wanted it bad" (she didn't, he did). Whether it is FOX News (or Revend Fallwell) issuing a lawsuit, Baby Bush intimidating the media in its reporting of the conflict in Iraq, or Mr. O'Reilly shouting down anyone with an opposing point of view on his show, what we are seeing are these people describing themselves, and trying to pin that description on their political or rhetorical opponents.
Witness just about any marital argument and listen to what each side is shouting. You will generally be hearing people describing themselves very accurately, and mischaracterizing the other accordingly as they seek to pin the accusation on the other.
This isn't to say that criticism (of both the left and the right) isn't often warrented, but to point out how often its accuracy is abysmal, particularly among the more shrill pundits of both sides. Indeed, the more shrill they become, the more likely one is to be witnessing transference in action.
Which puts the FOX News v. Simpsons debacle in a very interesting light, wouldn't you agree?
The problem is that Mac and Linux are rather like extreme left and extreme right versus the broad middle-of-the-road Windows world.
I don't think that is either a fair or accurate portrayal of either GNU/Linux or OS X users. I say this as one who uses both.
Mac philosophy and Linux philosophy are on the extreme opposites, while Windows philosophy tries to balance them
Mac and Linux philosophies are different (hell, Mac and FreeBSD philosophies are different, despite OS X being built upon FreeBSD in no small part), that is true. However, they are hardly opposites, and the notion that windows somehow mediates between the two, or finds a middle of the road approach to the two, is laughable.
OS X and Linux are both "hacker" friendly (in the "tinkerer" sense of the word). Windows is not terribly "hacker" friendly (though of course it can be tweaked like anything else).
OS X and Linux are both "cracker" resistent... they both have solid security designs at the foundation, and frequent updates to fix security issues when they arise. Neither depends on obscurity (killing, or at least denigrating, the messenger for publishing expoits, etc.). All of this is in direct contrast to Microsoft and Windows.
Customization is extreme under Linux, and quite doable under both Mac and Windows (though using vastly different approaches, I agree).
Machine lifecycle is one where you may have a point, but that is only one variable amongst a great number.
User friendliness OS X wins hands down. However, IMHO Linux takes the "middle" ground, while Windows loses on this in every respect except USER FAMILIARITY. My mother and my girlfriend are excellent examples of people who have dispaired with their windows machines. In my mother's case, she is a firm Linux convert, finding her KDE desktop more intuitive than her windows XP box at work, and finding Linux's consistent behavior (read: no random reboots, no strange inexplicable changes in behavior due to this or that clobbered dll, stealth malware install, or worm/virus de jour), in my girlfriend's case she is just as enthusiastic an OS X convert. In both cases it was I who showed them the way out of Windows hell.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Windows gives one the "worst" of all worlds, but in truth Windows has things that are worse than either worlds. Security on the Microsoft platform for example is orders of magnitude worse than on any other platform, GNU/Linux and OS X included. Stability, while vastly improved over previous versions of Windows, remains appalling when compared to either OS X or Linux, and the list goes on. I would say that Windows, rather than having "the worst of both worlds" has invented its own appalling badness, independent of either OS X or Linux. Indeed, one might argue that this is the only real Microsoft "innovation" the world has really seen.
I would be more generous. I would argue that the "innovation" we've seen from Microsoft consists more of:
inventing new and elaborate ways for systems to crash of their own accord and mangle data.
inventing new vectors for worms, viruses, and trojans to spread quickly and thoroughly (executable mail extentions, activeX, and other such atrocities)
inventing new ways to restrict what a person can do with their own computer hardware that they own (Palladium, Trusted Computing, DRM, and other "Where the hell do you think you're going today?" technologies) and leveraging their innovations in worm technologies mentioned above to sell it to an otherwise reluctant public
their new, innovative CLI... which as far as I can tell is the only innovation they've ever done that looks like it might actually be beneficial... were it not for the very valid observation others have made that it will almost certainly provide even more vectors for worms, viruses, and other malware to spread... unless, of cour
"In my initial conversations with them, they said they weren't going to fix 10.2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change that," he said.
Such a statement, aparently confirmed by Apple, will keep Mac OS X out of any server applications.
Such as statement was obviously taken out of context, carefully edited for maximum anti-Mac (and by implication pro-Microsoft) effect. As others have pointed out, the security flaw is only applicable to OS X 10.3. 10.1 and 10.2 are not vulnerable, so no patch is required.
Let me repeat. OS X 10.1 and 10.2 are not vulnerable, so no patch is required. Saying "Apple isn't going to release patches for 10.2" without pointing out the fact is dishonest, yellow journalism on steroids, and more indicative of a marketing FUD campaign than any serious technical reporting.
Indeed, the spin and dishonesty in the article is so severe, and the pro-Micorosoft bias in the (mis)reporting of the facts so obvious, that I'm surprised even Intel zealots would buy it outright, hook-line-and-sinker, without even a thought to the contrary. The allegation itself should be setting even the most ardent Microsoft zealot's bullshit alarm off.
And I say this as one who does most if his work on an Intel box, ableit running GNU/Linux (though I do enjoy my Apple Powerbook and OS X as well).
And at 6 UK pounds an hour that adds up after a while. Mandrake 9.2 is the fastest booting linux I have used so far, which is faster than Windows NT so hopefully I can convince them to switch
Yes, but unlike windows, GNU/Linux and FreeBSD machines do not have to be rebooted frequently, if at all.
Of course, you are also ignoring the much greater cost of maintenance, and the number of man hours/machine required to keep a Windows system running, healthy, and as secure as possible (albeit still woefully insecure) compared to that of a Linux or FreeBSD box, which involves much less time and effort.
So, your "analysis" of boot-times as a decisive TCO factor in terms of time and cost clearly show your pro-MS bias, and your ignornance of Linux and FreeBSD, in that you erroneously assume people will be booting their boxes frequently. Such is only true of Microsoft systems, and some laptops which do not store their state on powerdown (Linux does, or at least can if properly configured).
Whatever Billy Boy is paying you to spread this sort of nonsense, it is far too much.
Except that I'm a dork and Sliders was purchased from FOX well before Stargate was destroyed.
And, while FOX had already obliterated Sliders into a "rehash of some movie/novel/other non-original story into a lame episode" final season (remember 'Stoker' ripping off Interview with a Vampire, the undead episode ripping off night of the living dead, etc. ad nauseum?), SciFi finished the job with their introduction of "Mallary", the Quinne/Mallary hybrid jackass who was less likable than your average Kromag. They should have killed Quinne Mallary instead, or had him abducted by Kromags... but creating such an unbelievable hybrid character was the worst of all possible outcomes, and with an infinity of quantum worlds to work with, that is saying a lot.
Sliders was a great series... seeing it die in such a manner was worse than seeing it cancelled outright would have been.
I too reject Godwin's law, but that doesn't mean it isn't insightful on occasion (certainly vis-a-vis a Microsofties compensation for his own inadequacies (both physical, no doubt, and certainly those of his employer^H^H^H^H^H religion, Microsoft, in his comparison of 9/11 terrorists and mass murderers to GNU/Linux volunteers and enthusiasts). Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, after all.
I don't think Godwin's Law was ever meant to apply to non-trivializing comparisons to Hitler.
Godwin's law was never meant to apply to anything. It was a joke, a humorous aside mocking the many flame fests that would arise in USENET discussion groups, particularly those of a political bent. It never was "true" in any real sense (many flame fests never invoked Hitler once, even in passing, and many invocations of the lessons of WW II didn't involve flame fests at all), it was merely a clever characterization of many of the more inane flame fests that arose at the time.
Saying Bill Gates is akin to Hitler runs afoul of Godwin's Law. Saying Pol Pot is akin to Hitler does not.
Comparing Pol Pot to Hitler is certainly legitimate. How about comparing the rise of the radical right in America, and perhaps even their poster child, Bush, to Hitler? The historical timelines are strikingly similiar, and the rhetoric shockingly so... does pointing that out constitute "running afoul of Godwin's law" merely because a great number of Bush's contemporaries would take exceptions (I suspect a great number of Pol Pot's followers would take exception to his comparison as well)?
Or, better yet (and perhaps less ambiguously), lets consider Microsoft and Bill Gates. Bill Gate's comment (or rather, the Microsoft advertisement) of
"One World, One Web, One Program"
bears a striking resemblence to Hitler's famouse
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" catchphrase. (Translation: One People, One Empire, One Leader).
Does noting that similiarity, and drawing parallels between the mentalities that derived such rhetoric, run afoul of Godwin's law? If so, I would argue that Godwin's Law is, at best, humorous (as it was originally intended) and more commonly a terrible negative, as it is being used to blind us to many of the very apropos lessons of history, insuring thereby that said history will repeat itself yet again, this time perhaps in our very own back yard.
At least the files will be MP3. I don't have to buy a friggin $500 player to hear them mobile!
Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
Napster will be releasing music in the proprietary.nap format... unless they've changed their tune, yet again, and chosen an even more restricted format. It is unlikely in the extreme that napster will be offering anything in an uncrippled format, and Apple, while incorporating some mild (yet nevertheless irritating) DRM technology, does allow to store their purchase on relatively robust media (CDR) in open formats (CDDA, MP3) which can be reripped into whatever format one desires (.OGG, whatever).
Contrast this with.nap,.wma, and the other garbage coming from the RIAA/M$ camp, and you do have a winner, of sorts.
Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here?... You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.
Moveon.org was able to get together a very large public outcry against the FCC's recent attempt to further diminish diversity in the American media. Although the fight is not over, this 11th hour effort has managed to get congress to vote overwhelmingly to revoke Baby Powell's attempt to use the FCC as little more than a frontman for the media cartels. It appears likely some (though not all) of Baby Powell's appalling sellout to the media cartels is going to be reversed, in a manner that is extremely rare in Washington.
This was done as a belated reaction to an already done "insider" deal among Washingto Republican Burocrats (the FCC vote was divided precisely along party lines).
We have over a year to get our act together. Doing so would allow us to speek with at least as loud a voice, quite possibly as effectively, but only if people actually GET OFF THEIR ASSES and actually do it. If, on the other hand, everyone follows your advice, nothing will get done and the tyranny of evil, corrupt men will continue to erode our freedom of expression, our freedom of thought, our freedom to innovate, and ultimately our freedom to live, until there is nothing left.
This is what was meant when the founding fathers said "Freedom requires eternal vigilance," and quite frankly, this is the acid test our generation is failing miserably.
The question is really this: will we continue to fail miserably, until there is no freedom left in our lives, or will we stand up and be counted? Given the degree of forwarning we have on this particular issue, any failure to stand up and be counted will be our own, not "the system's" or "those corrupt people over there." No, it will be our apathetic selves who are at fault, and the freedom we would in that event be so unfit for and undeserving of is almost certain to diminish as a result.
If dispirited and demoralized liberals could finally grow a backbone and stand up when the chips were down with the radical right's recent media power grab at the FCC and get congress moving in record time to stop it, surely we technophiles, who transcend such traditional left-right, liberal-conservative, democrat-republican lines should be able to do at least as well... provided we have the will and the sense to try.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind.
I guess that explains why all the synthetic intelligences that don't run amok in star trek (including the ship's own computer) are female (and conversely, why all those that do run amok are male).
Imagine if you were in a retail business, and suddenly all of your suppliers stopped supplying. You are boned. If it's a large retail industry, a lot of people are boned. This is that exact situation. Hopefully it can be fixed in a short time before any serious losses are taken. If it stretches into weeks, then there are going to be lawsuits, I can almost guarantee it.
This problem can be fixed tonight or tommorow, via a very nontechnological route.
The governor can call a special emergency session of the state legislature, who can repeal the idiotic law giving the state a monopoly control of a legal, commodity product and return the marketplace to where it belongs: the private sector.
Of course, this would require a governor with character and a backbone, and a legislature that would put its state's economic needs ahead of its own porkbarrel projects, neither of which is likely.
I say this as someone who is not a libertarian, and most definitely believes the government does have a responsibity to address those areas that capitalism is either incapable, or abysmally subpar, in addressing. Police services, military defense, public roads, public communications infrastructure, and healthcare come to mind immediately. Alcohol, on the other hand, clearly belongs in the private sector, along with legos, computers, automobiles, etc. Regulate it if you like (we do car safety, after all), but don't nationalize ("stateize"?) it for crying out loud.
How many differnt brands of Christianity are there? Only 1 I thought.
Good god, are you really so ignorant of history? No wonder it seems so poised to repeat itself in all its ugly misery.
There are dozens of forms of Christianity, and throughout the 2000 or so years of their ignoble history they have fought wars with one another and killed one another by the tens of thousands.
Orthodox Christians vs. Roman Catholics ca.500 AD.
The 30 years war (reformist Christians vs. traditional Christians, of the Roman Catholic variety)
The 100 years war (Protestants vs. Catholics)
The burning of Nauvoo and the Mormon exodus to Utah.
Northern Ireland (Catholics vs. Protestants)
...and the list goes on, ad nauseum.
(And, while not a war per se, it is certainly true that the Quakers and the Puritans were driven to America by religious oppression by other "Christians." But of course, since there's only 1 Christianity, one group or the other wasn't really Christian by your definition now, was it. So oppressing the non-Christian desbelievers who happen to believe in Christ, but not your way, is okay, isn't it? Perhaps to zealots of today's Christian and Cathloc right-wing, but not to anyone sane enough to want a nation free of religious oppression, and not to our founding fathers).
Then there are the wars they fought with others not of their genre ("heathens," a term akin to "nigger" in religious circles in its derogatory implications).
The Crusades, Parts I, II, III, and IV.
The conquest of Mexico, North and South America.
The holocaust (contrary to Rome's propoganda, Hitler was a devout Catholic, and the Church was deeply involved and colluding in many of the holocaust's worst crimes).
and the list goes on, ad nauseum.
There are multiple Christianities even in America, and if the separation of Church and State this country was founded upon (your despicable revisionist rhetoric notwithstanding) is lost to fools like yourself, you can be assured that the liklihood of your particular brand of Christianity prevailing is very, very small. Much more likely you will find yourself oppressed along with the rest of us, by a version of Christianity that conflicts with your personal beliefs.
This is why people far wiser than you, who founded this country, insisted on the separation of Church and state. and why the radical agenda of people like Tim O'Reilly and yourself to insinuate religion into civil government is so profoundly dangerous... indeed the single greatest threat to our democracy in recent times (and that is saying a lot, as our constitution is under ongoing attack from numerous directions).
I could go on, but what is the point? It is unlikely in the extreme that you are listening, or willing to reevaluate your dogmatic world view. Perhaps, once today's current trends have run their ugly course, you will reevaluate your position. But, given that no one in Northern Ireland (or Ireland proper), or in the Middle East, seems willing to relinquish their notions of Church Ueber Alles despite the obvious and appalling suffering it has caused in those parts, I rather doubt even decades of oppression and deprivation will change the radical right's opinions or agenda in the least.
And why should it? Religion thrives best when people are suffering.
An October 8 article states that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Fine.
If the FCC/Government had a backbone (it doesn't) and wasn't in bed with the cartels (it is), CBS could be required to give back the billions of dollars of public airwaves it was granted virtually free of charge in order to convert to HDTV. Forthwith.
Oops, you've changed your mind and have decided to broadcast HDTV anyway? Wonderful. You can buy back the public airwaves you've foreited in your attempt to flout the law at market value. Thank you for playing.
Oh, you don't want to? Fine. We can see how long you last in the business when all of your competitors are broadcasting in 1920x1080 resolution and you're still stuck in interlaced, 640x480. Particularly after all of the consumer equipment in the future is shipping without support for the archaic format.
Of course, this would all require good governnance, something we are unlikely to see in this ever more rightist, ever more corporate country in our generation.
the irony here being that "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic. An Arabic speaking Christian would not be offended at all...
Or perhaps, the arabaic speaking Christian (probably Assyrian living in a mainly Islamic country) would be deeply offended, understanding the desirability of the separation of church and state far more intimately than his or her American compatriots, having lived on the short end of the religion-in-government stick all his or her life.
I have an Assyrian friend who was born in Iraq, grew up in Iran, then emigrated to the United States. He has stories of political and social oppression that would curl your hair... and is a devout believer in the separation of church and state, and despises the American Christian right for selling out the founding principles of this country in the mistaken belief that it will be their brand of Christianity that will prevail should that separation continue to be eroded.
Indeed, any Christian who gives it any reasonable thought is likely to come to a similiar conclusion: the freedom to practice their religion is dependent on the government NOT EMBRACING ANY RELIGION. There are enough incompatible Christian denominations to make this apparent... throw in the rapidly growing Islamic and Mormon religions (both of which are growing orders of magnitude faster than the fastest growing Christian religion) and the point should become apparent even to the Jerry Falwells of the world. Given those irrefutable statistics, what version of God do they expect their grandchildren to be forced to worship in class, to be promoted by their schools and government? Their tiny minority version, or the ever growing, by-then-much-larger-than-they-minority version adhered to by others?
But of course, this requires rational, reasoned thought... not the historical and constitutional illiteracy coupled with the emotional knee-jerk reactions we have come to expect from that quadrant of our society.
In case you haven't noticed the RIAA is NOT suing customers. The targets of RIAA lawsuits are people who trying to get music WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.
In case you've had your head buried deep within your ass for the last three decades, the same people who share music are the principle purchasers of music. The one not only does not exclude the other, it has been shown time and time again, in study after study, to be tightly correlated. In short, the vast majority of people who share music also purchase music.
This has been true for decades, and remains true, whether the exchange medium is sheet music, cassette tape, CD-R, or mp3. The cartels are in fact suing their customers and are in fact generating a lot more ex-customers as a result than any amount of inappropriate file sharing ever could have.
The whole point of the lawsuits is that no matter how many people the RIAA pisses off, scaring people away from filesharing networks means a hell of a lot more record sales in the long run.
No, it doesn't. It means a hell of a lot of ex-customers, for a number of reasons:
people do take attacks on their lifestyles personally, and rarely forgive. This is one activity that can and does make the most apathetic people angry enough to forgo gratification in favor of thwarting their opponent
Filesharing exposes people to vast amounts of music they never would have considered purchasing otherwise. Without this exposure, sales drop.
This is evidenced with the rise and fall of napster, in which music CD sales rose and fell in startling correlation.
This is further evidenced by the sales records of bands that encourage file sharing, via cassette tape and, more recently, via the internet (The Grateful Dead, Phish, Metallica prior to their sellout, etc.)
People no longer being exposed to new music stop buying music. "Radio offers no new offerings, filesharing networks may be in decline, and I already own all the music I already know and like." In other words, the less sharing of musical taste and ideas, the less demand, i.e. the less sales.
People like to try before they buy. The one-hit wonders may lose sales as people trade an mp3 and listen to it, then delete or discard the file without buying the CD, but sales records prior to the RIAA's attack on the current generation of music consumers show that the most traded music quickly becomes the most sold music (and generally in that order). This was true fifteen years ago when college students were trading cassette tapes, it was true five years ago when we were trading CD-Rs, and it remains true today with those trading mp3s.
The RIAA cartel has not only done the collassally stupid thing in suing their customers (and regardless of what you and their lackeys may try to tell themselves and others, the people they are suing are in fact their customers, and no small percentage of those customers either), they have done an even more collassally stupid thing in drying up their most potent revinue generating stream... free advertising and exposure by word-of-mouth, on demand. No amount of money could have bought the kind of free exposure they have denied themselves, and their sales will almost certainly continue to plummet as a result.
They have, in short, managed to conjure for themselves the worst of all possible market phenomina: boycotts by those enraged by their heavy-handed behavior, enniu by those bored with their current lackluster offerings, disinterest by those seeing no new offerings worth the trouble of buying or listening to, and the wide, very accurate perception that they are out of touch with current technology (and trying to forcefully move the rest of the world back into the twentieth century), out of touch with current musical taste, and out to screw both their customers (the public) and the producers of their product (the musicians). Even a Microsoft-sized PR budget probably wouldn't get them out of this one.
I find it interesting that apparently he has reversed the ages old US doctrine that it would never use nuclear weapons as a first strike (according to an article I read somewhere) and no one seems to be remarking on it. Unless the article was erroneous.
Good Lord!
If this is in fact true, please please please cite the reference!!!
No one here (in the USA) knows this. If what you are saying is true, then our ignorance is a result of our Information Ministers ^H^H^H^H^H media news cartels not seeing fit to report it. Appalling in the extreme. One doesn't expect Fox News (of unfair and unbalanced fame) to report on this, but CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBSes silence is defening. If this is true, and you can cite a responsible source, please get the word (and the reference) out immediately. I will forward it to moveon.org (a large on-line mostly-Democratic political action group).
If this is true, this is something Americans absolutely need to know.
...unless it includes appropriations for NASA sufficient to actually fund said exploration. Mandatory appropriations congress can't later cut, which is highly unlikely with Baby Bush spending the country into bankrupcy with his family's little war in Iraq and his tax cuts for his wealthy buddies.
It is a nice vision, but without adequate funding it is only so much posturing from congress, and frankly, I'm quite sick of windbags who have no intention of following through on their flowery rhetoric with concrete action.
So is the phrase "tyranny of the majority" an oxymoron to you? And was slavery just fine in any state where there were more pro-slavery whites than abolitionists and blacks?
Nice play of the race card, but you ignore that slavery is a form of governance over those enslaved, and that in lacking the consenst of the governened (the enslaved), it is in fact a form of tyranny, and a particulary harsh form at that.
If you're interested in consent, I might suggest that the consent of the people being stolen from is of more value than the consent of people stealing.
Really? And if the government chooses to privatize oxygen, and you insist on breathing without paying your vig to the oxygen cartel, do the rights of the cartel not to be "stolen from" have more value than the consent of the people "stealing" it.
That is exactly analogous to the rights of the copyright cartels. Their "rights" are fictitious creations that have privatized things that were, for the vast majority of human histery, absolutely free. Music, speech, storytelling, poetry, art.
If the majority of our society decides that communism is more appropriate than capitalism, then our society absolutely has the right to define away your "private" property. Your inalienable rights extend to your person and your freedom, they do not include your car or your television, much less your profiteering off your record shop down the road. Those are property rights we've chosen to bestow upon you because the majority believes, correctly or not, that society benefits from such an arrangement. Should that opinion change, then your "private property" will cease to be so, and rightly so.
As for a "tyranny of the majority", that is what inalienable, constitutional rights are designed to protect and keep in check. For example, you do have an inalienable right to bitch and moan about the lack of private property (or the lack of communal property), but nowhere in the constitution does it grant you an inalienable right to have and own private property (beyond that of your physical person). We could, as a society, change our minds on the whole capitalism vs. communism thing if we so chose, without giving up one iota of our democracy, or our constitutional rights, to do so. Not that that is very likely, or desirable IMHO, but it is possible, and it would be a far better thing to do than to force capitalism down everyone's throats against the will of a vast majority.
In other words, the tyranny of a minority, i.e. the few (or the one) is generally much worse than the tyranny of the majority.
So yes, consent of the governed trumps consent of the minority being "stolen" from. Just ask anyone whose ever had their property taken to make way for a railroad or highway.
You should recompile your kernel sometime. Under "General setup" you can enable MCA support if you are so unfortunate as to have a Microchannel computer (I used to back in the day, I feel your pain).
CONFIG_MCA:
MicroChannel Architecture is found in some IBM PS/2 machines and laptops. It is a bus system similar to PCI or ISA. See Documentation/mca.txt (and especially the web page given there) before attempting to build an MCA bus kernel.
Copyright only insures that businesses have an interest in writing, making music, and movies. Music has been made since the dawn of man, almost all of that time before copyrights were imposed by the British Crown as a censorship measure in reaction to the emergence of the printing press. Books were also written, as were plays. Movies post-date the existence of copyright, but the number of free movies available online, whether traditional, animated, or machinima creations, indicate that copyright and the profit motive play little if any role in the creation of many of those works.
Yeah, that'd be great. No one would write books anymore.
Really?
Here is a free book that was written, and would have been without copyright, as the author is releasing it under a GPL-style license. Or perhaps you are confusing laws against plagerism (conviniently missing from the rolls) with laws restricting copying. Almost no one would create art without recognition, so we do need laws that encode academic rules against plagerism to insure an artist or author is given credit for their work. But clearly, many people, myself included, are perfectly happy to create art sans the profit motove the copyright presupposes, and clearly an enormous amount of art, in all kinds of media, was created prior to the existence of copyright in any form.
So then if a majority thinks that it is ok to steal, we shouldn't have any laws making it illegal?
In a word, YES.
Governance must be with the consent of the governed, or it is tyranny. Tyrannies that arise or are propogated for 'moral' reasons (as defined by whome in opposition to whome?) are often the worst forms of tyranny there is. Remember the dark ages beneath the frock of the Catholic Church, or the contemporary excesses of reactionary Islam today?
In any event, it depends on a culture's definition of 'stealing.' If I have a star trek style matter replicator and can instantly manufacture an infinite number of devices, as long as I have the design available in software, am I 'stealing' that car when I borrow a friend's copy of the design and create a car for myself? How about if I don't need the design... a copy of the car and a cheap, comprehensive analyzer tool is sufficient? What if said tool were banned to artifically maintain a scarcity of cars (or car designs)?
Most of our society, with the exception of those who are a part of the publishing and media cartels, would say no, you're not stealing. However, it is entirely likely that, in such a not-so-distant future, I would be violating the copyright of whoever designed the car. Ironically the RIAA has been very successful in getting a large chunk of our culture to buy into the notion that one is "stealing" if one copies a tune in a similiar fashion. Music, something that, until a century or so ago, was free in virtually every sense of the word...certainly for the overwhelming majority of our history as a sapient, music-making species.
If, to get back to your question, a society believed it was OK to take something you need without asking whoever happened to have possession of it (which, by our definition, is "stealing"), then clearly that society views the entire concept of property differently than you and I.
There have been many such societies throughout history that have had such views... most of which have been ruthlessly destroyed by other, more self-centered cultures. So we know that, barring attack and destruction from outside, many such societies that emphesize sharing over hoarding, and cooperation above competition, do in fact succeed and flourish. Whether it is our 'selfishness' that gave us the advantage in exterminating those not of like minds, a stroke of historical luck that could just as easilly have gone the other way, or a feature of our greater cruelty, I do not know, nor do I believe anyone has been able to difinitively answer that question. Certainly there are plenty of folks, like Ayn Rand, who will claim to be able to authoritatively say that a darwinistic, capitalistic society based upon unfettered greed is the best, most free society that can be created, but to my knowledge none of them have been able to back up this claim with any degree of unbiased evidence...nor has the opposing viewpoint been so verified either, to my knowledge.
So, in essence, if a society has a different view of property rights than our current, greed-driven culture, then by all means, that society should sustain its views, however 'communistic' through a set of consistent legal structures. Any other approach will lead to tyranny and, ultimately, either the collapse of the ruling structure through popular revolt, or the destruction of the culture through extreme oppression.
Slashdot Mirror
Woah, can you imagine how the OpenOffice developers must feel after reading that?
... Microsoft zealotry and Macintosh enthusiasm to the contrary notwithstanding.
If I was working on some huge Linux project and Linus said it was a disaster, I'd feel pretty bad.
Open Office may be a "disaster" from the elegence and interoperative perspective, just as Netscape was a "disaster."
And just like netscape (for all of those years before Mozilla and Konqueror were mature enough to be usable as serious browsers), Open Office is critical to GNU/Linux's usability on the desktop today.
Without Netscape for all those years, as clunky as it was, Linux users would have been forced to use Windows boxes to surf the net and take part in the user-side of the world wide web. Without Open Office Linux users would be forced to use Windows boxes for any number of purposes (mostly having to do with interoperability with Microsoft Excel and Word formats), and while other tools exist to some degree to address this (as Konqueror and Mozilla did prior to their becoming mature applications), none are as useful or as accessible as Open Office is.
The Open Office developers should be proud. They have an office suite that runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and other platforms, one that reads and writes commonly used file formats (e.g M$ crap and PDF) as well as its own excellent, open format. Open Office, for all of its faults, makes Linux a viable, serious desktop platform
Indeed, Open Office could be the single most important application to facilitating enterprise and individual migration away from Microsoft to Linux or FreeBSD on the desktop, or for supporting heterogeneous desktops in the enterprise that a dependency on Microsoft Office (or Appleworks) would preclude.
On a serious note, I admit that Gentoo is the most well maintained distribution out there, and has the best free support when you consider the forums. However, I find a lot of Gentoo zealots feel like they're more in control of their system because of Gentoo. Control is a function of knowledge, not end user tools.
... but I'm sure in the not so distant future something even cooler, from some other quadrant, will come along and surpass it.
... others in the list, particularly those with strong partisan feelings toward another distribution, would probably argue the former. For me, personally, it is irrelevant, and while I do not go around telling everyone they should run Gentoo (a Knoppix Live CD is a far better thing to give a newbie than a Gentoo Live CD, for obvious reasons ... indeed, it is often a better rescue CD for Gentoo systems than a Gentoo LiveCD is), I am certainly not one to apologize for recommending it when I think it will solve someone's problems.
One of Gentoo's real strenths is that it provides the tools that take the tedium out of dependency resolution and compilation (a form of *BSD 'ports' on steroids), without obfuscating the underlying *NIX configurations and filesystem organization. This allows relative newcomers to learn how to setup a GNU/Linux system step by step, understand its organization and how it all fits together, without getting lost in the quagmire of learning the intricacies of autoconf, make, gcc, python or perl scripting.
People who are in to such things tend to become quite ecstatic when they discover such a platform, and such an implimentation. The rest of us, who like to just get work done with a minimum of fuss, may or may not find it appealing. I personally find it to be the best distro I've used by far (and I've been using Linux since the days before distros of any kind even existed...before X even ran on it)
People that use Gentoo and know Linux are cool. They don't run around the internet telling everyone about Gentoo, either. There is another type of Gentoo user...I'm honestly very sick of gentoo zealots throwing plugs in completely unrelated topics.
Well, as with any project, there are those few who are rabidly zealous and seem to have an overdeveloped evangelical streak. Debian, Mandrake, and others have had their fair share of overzealous enthusiasts as well (as does Mac OS X and, I fear, Windows...though one never knows how many of the latter aren't simply bought and paid for, at sub-industry wages and without medical benefits, no doubt).
I am glad, however, that they are evangelizing a Linux distro rather than a real-world religious cult a la $cientology or Mormonism. That having been said, it is natural for people who discover something new that really, really rocks in their mind to want to tell others, particularly if they think it might help someone who is having trouble.
An example where I was guilty of this was with 'transcode', a swiss-army knife tool for converting between various audio and video formats, backing up DVDs, and even authoring one's own DVDs from home video footage. It is a bear to compile, having done so myself under Mandrake, Debian, and others. Someone was having an inordinant amount of trouble getting the thing to work under Mandrake (the binaries didn't work properly, and the source dependencies are, well, hellacious to put it mildly). Having been down that road myself under both Debian and Mandrake, and having found it incredibly easy to install under Gentoo, I suggested that the user might want to try out Gentoo as an alternative. He did, got the thing installed with no trouble, and was greatful.
The question is, was that an off-topic bit of gentoo zealotry, or an ontopic suggestion to someone having trouble getting a notoriously difficult-to-install package running? The person I replied to would argue the latter
No distro can claim the fact that it has indirectly made thousands of users cringe
Wow, and here I was starting to think I was the only person in the world who read "The Phantom Tollbooth".
... in the form of steaks, bacon, eggs, and assorted other greasy stuff. Who knew?
Nope, here's at least one other. In later years I always wanted to get a supply of those "subtraction cakes" so I could chow down and lose some weight. Then Atkins comes along, and I discover those subtraction cakes were under my nose the whole time
The phantom tollbooth as an educational child's fantasy absolutely rocked.
But Fox News is obviously so touchy that if it weren't The Simpsons it'd be someone else. What a bunch of non-joke-taking whiners. Didn't it used to be the liberals who were humorless?
No, it was never "the liberals" any more than it was "those conservatives" (and possibly less so). What we have been witnessing is classic transference: the extreme right (not to be confused with run of the mill, mostly-harmless conservatives) accusing "those dirty liberals" of everything they, themselves, are doing. When John Hannerty or Rush Limbaugh is telling their audience "liberals are trying to silence freedom of speech!", what you are witnessing is akin to a rapist telling the court "she really wanted it bad" (she didn't, he did). Whether it is FOX News (or Revend Fallwell) issuing a lawsuit, Baby Bush intimidating the media in its reporting of the conflict in Iraq, or Mr. O'Reilly shouting down anyone with an opposing point of view on his show, what we are seeing are these people describing themselves, and trying to pin that description on their political or rhetorical opponents.
Witness just about any marital argument and listen to what each side is shouting. You will generally be hearing people describing themselves very accurately, and mischaracterizing the other accordingly as they seek to pin the accusation on the other.
This isn't to say that criticism (of both the left and the right) isn't often warrented, but to point out how often its accuracy is abysmal, particularly among the more shrill pundits of both sides. Indeed, the more shrill they become, the more likely one is to be witnessing transference in action.
Which puts the FOX News v. Simpsons debacle in a very interesting light, wouldn't you agree?
I don't think that is either a fair or accurate portrayal of either GNU/Linux or OS X users. I say this as one who uses both.
Mac philosophy and Linux philosophy are on the extreme opposites, while Windows philosophy tries to balance them
Mac and Linux philosophies are different (hell, Mac and FreeBSD philosophies are different, despite OS X being built upon FreeBSD in no small part), that is true. However, they are hardly opposites, and the notion that windows somehow mediates between the two, or finds a middle of the road approach to the two, is laughable.
OS X and Linux are both "hacker" friendly (in the "tinkerer" sense of the word). Windows is not terribly "hacker" friendly (though of course it can be tweaked like anything else).
OS X and Linux are both "cracker" resistent
Customization is extreme under Linux, and quite doable under both Mac and Windows (though using vastly different approaches, I agree).
Machine lifecycle is one where you may have a point, but that is only one variable amongst a great number.
User friendliness OS X wins hands down. However, IMHO Linux takes the "middle" ground, while Windows loses on this in every respect except USER FAMILIARITY. My mother and my girlfriend are excellent examples of people who have dispaired with their windows machines. In my mother's case, she is a firm Linux convert, finding her KDE desktop more intuitive than her windows XP box at work, and finding Linux's consistent behavior (read: no random reboots, no strange inexplicable changes in behavior due to this or that clobbered dll, stealth malware install, or worm/virus de jour), in my girlfriend's case she is just as enthusiastic an OS X convert. In both cases it was I who showed them the way out of Windows hell.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Windows gives one the "worst" of all worlds, but in truth Windows has things that are worse than either worlds. Security on the Microsoft platform for example is orders of magnitude worse than on any other platform, GNU/Linux and OS X included. Stability, while vastly improved over previous versions of Windows, remains appalling when compared to either OS X or Linux, and the list goes on. I would say that Windows, rather than having "the worst of both worlds" has invented its own appalling badness, independent of either OS X or Linux. Indeed, one might argue that this is the only real Microsoft "innovation" the world has really seen.
I would be more generous. I would argue that the "innovation" we've seen from Microsoft consists more of:
I'm sure this is Melinda Gates' least favorite nickname for Bill...
Perhaps she thought it up first? After all, "Microsoft" isn't the double entrendre it once was.
OK, that was a little harsh, even for a world-dominator wannabe like convicted monopolist Billy Gates...
Such a statement, aparently confirmed by Apple, will keep Mac OS X out of any server applications.
Such as statement was obviously taken out of context, carefully edited for maximum anti-Mac (and by implication pro-Microsoft) effect. As others have pointed out, the security flaw is only applicable to OS X 10.3. 10.1 and 10.2 are not vulnerable, so no patch is required.
Let me repeat. OS X 10.1 and 10.2 are not vulnerable, so no patch is required. Saying "Apple isn't going to release patches for 10.2" without pointing out the fact is dishonest, yellow journalism on steroids, and more indicative of a marketing FUD campaign than any serious technical reporting.
Indeed, the spin and dishonesty in the article is so severe, and the pro-Micorosoft bias in the (mis)reporting of the facts so obvious, that I'm surprised even Intel zealots would buy it outright, hook-line-and-sinker, without even a thought to the contrary. The allegation itself should be setting even the most ardent Microsoft zealot's bullshit alarm off.
And I say this as one who does most if his work on an Intel box, ableit running GNU/Linux (though I do enjoy my Apple Powerbook and OS X as well).
And at 6 UK pounds an hour that adds up after a while. Mandrake 9.2 is the fastest booting linux I have used so far, which is faster than Windows NT so hopefully I can convince them to switch
Yes, but unlike windows, GNU/Linux and FreeBSD machines do not have to be rebooted frequently, if at all.
Of course, you are also ignoring the much greater cost of maintenance, and the number of man hours/machine required to keep a Windows system running, healthy, and as secure as possible (albeit still woefully insecure) compared to that of a Linux or FreeBSD box, which involves much less time and effort.
So, your "analysis" of boot-times as a decisive TCO factor in terms of time and cost clearly show your pro-MS bias, and your ignornance of Linux and FreeBSD, in that you erroneously assume people will be booting their boxes frequently. Such is only true of Microsoft systems, and some laptops which do not store their state on powerdown (Linux does, or at least can if properly configured).
Whatever Billy Boy is paying you to spread this sort of nonsense, it is far too much.
If we don't stop these constant barrages from the Sun then the terrorists will win!
The terrorists have already won. It is an X17 solar flare, it's coming our way and there's nothing we can do about it.
Except that I'm a dork and Sliders was purchased from FOX well before Stargate was destroyed.
... but creating such an unbelievable hybrid character was the worst of all possible outcomes, and with an infinity of quantum worlds to work with, that is saying a lot.
... seeing it die in such a manner was worse than seeing it cancelled outright would have been.
And, while FOX had already obliterated Sliders into a "rehash of some movie/novel/other non-original story into a lame episode" final season (remember 'Stoker' ripping off Interview with a Vampire, the undead episode ripping off night of the living dead, etc. ad nauseum?), SciFi finished the job with their introduction of "Mallary", the Quinne/Mallary hybrid jackass who was less likable than your average Kromag. They should have killed Quinne Mallary instead, or had him abducted by Kromags
Sliders was a great series
I too reject Godwin's law, but that doesn't mean it isn't insightful on occasion (certainly vis-a-vis a Microsofties compensation for his own inadequacies (both physical, no doubt, and certainly those of his employer^H^H^H^H^H religion, Microsoft, in his comparison of 9/11 terrorists and mass murderers to GNU/Linux volunteers and enthusiasts). Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, after all.
... does pointing that out constitute "running afoul of Godwin's law" merely because a great number of Bush's contemporaries would take exceptions (I suspect a great number of Pol Pot's followers would take exception to his comparison as well)?
I don't think Godwin's Law was ever meant to apply to non-trivializing comparisons to Hitler.
Godwin's law was never meant to apply to anything. It was a joke, a humorous aside mocking the many flame fests that would arise in USENET discussion groups, particularly those of a political bent. It never was "true" in any real sense (many flame fests never invoked Hitler once, even in passing, and many invocations of the lessons of WW II didn't involve flame fests at all), it was merely a clever characterization of many of the more inane flame fests that arose at the time.
Saying Bill Gates is akin to Hitler runs afoul of Godwin's Law. Saying Pol Pot is akin to Hitler does not.
Comparing Pol Pot to Hitler is certainly legitimate. How about comparing the rise of the radical right in America, and perhaps even their poster child, Bush, to Hitler? The historical timelines are strikingly similiar, and the rhetoric shockingly so
Or, better yet (and perhaps less ambiguously), lets consider Microsoft and Bill Gates. Bill Gate's comment (or rather, the Microsoft advertisement) of
"One World, One Web, One Program"
bears a striking resemblence to Hitler's famouse
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" catchphrase.
(Translation: One People, One Empire, One Leader).
Does noting that similiarity, and drawing parallels between the mentalities that derived such rhetoric, run afoul of Godwin's law? If so, I would argue that Godwin's Law is, at best, humorous (as it was originally intended) and more commonly a terrible negative, as it is being used to blind us to many of the very apropos lessons of history, insuring thereby that said history will repeat itself yet again, this time perhaps in our very own back yard.
At least the files will be MP3. I don't have to buy a friggin $500 player to hear them mobile!
.nap format ... unless they've changed their tune, yet again, and chosen an even more restricted format. It is unlikely in the extreme that napster will be offering anything in an uncrippled format, and Apple, while incorporating some mild (yet nevertheless irritating) DRM technology, does allow to store their purchase on relatively robust media (CDR) in open formats (CDDA, MP3) which can be reripped into whatever format one desires (.OGG, whatever).
.nap, .wma, and the other garbage coming from the RIAA/M$ camp, and you do have a winner, of sorts.
Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
Napster will be releasing music in the proprietary
Contrast this with
Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here? ... You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.
... provided we have the will and the sense to try.
Moveon.org was able to get together a very large public outcry against the FCC's recent attempt to further diminish diversity in the American media. Although the fight is not over, this 11th hour effort has managed to get congress to vote overwhelmingly to revoke Baby Powell's attempt to use the FCC as little more than a frontman for the media cartels. It appears likely some (though not all) of Baby Powell's appalling sellout to the media cartels is going to be reversed, in a manner that is extremely rare in Washington.
This was done as a belated reaction to an already done "insider" deal among Washingto Republican Burocrats (the FCC vote was divided precisely along party lines).
We have over a year to get our act together. Doing so would allow us to speek with at least as loud a voice, quite possibly as effectively, but only if people actually GET OFF THEIR ASSES and actually do it. If, on the other hand, everyone follows your advice, nothing will get done and the tyranny of evil, corrupt men will continue to erode our freedom of expression, our freedom of thought, our freedom to innovate, and ultimately our freedom to live, until there is nothing left.
This is what was meant when the founding fathers said "Freedom requires eternal vigilance," and quite frankly, this is the acid test our generation is failing miserably.
The question is really this: will we continue to fail miserably, until there is no freedom left in our lives, or will we stand up and be counted? Given the degree of forwarning we have on this particular issue, any failure to stand up and be counted will be our own, not "the system's" or "those corrupt people over there." No, it will be our apathetic selves who are at fault, and the freedom we would in that event be so unfit for and undeserving of is almost certain to diminish as a result.
If dispirited and demoralized liberals could finally grow a backbone and stand up when the chips were down with the radical right's recent media power grab at the FCC and get congress moving in record time to stop it, surely we technophiles, who transcend such traditional left-right, liberal-conservative, democrat-republican lines should be able to do at least as well
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind.
I guess that explains why all the synthetic intelligences that don't run amok in star trek (including the ship's own computer) are female (and conversely, why all those that do run amok are male).
Imagine if you were in a retail business, and suddenly all of your suppliers stopped supplying. You are boned. If it's a large retail industry, a lot of people are boned. This is that exact situation. Hopefully it can be fixed in a short time before any serious losses are taken. If it stretches into weeks, then there are going to be lawsuits, I can almost guarantee it.
This problem can be fixed tonight or tommorow, via a very nontechnological route.
The governor can call a special emergency session of the state legislature, who can repeal the idiotic law giving the state a monopoly control of a legal, commodity product and return the marketplace to where it belongs: the private sector.
Of course, this would require a governor with character and a backbone, and a legislature that would put its state's economic needs ahead of its own porkbarrel projects, neither of which is likely.
I say this as someone who is not a libertarian, and most definitely believes the government does have a responsibity to address those areas that capitalism is either incapable, or abysmally subpar, in addressing. Police services, military defense, public roads, public communications infrastructure, and healthcare come to mind immediately. Alcohol, on the other hand, clearly belongs in the private sector, along with legos, computers, automobiles, etc. Regulate it if you like (we do car safety, after all), but don't nationalize ("stateize"?) it for crying out loud.
Good god, are you really so ignorant of history? No wonder it seems so poised to repeat itself in all its ugly misery.
There are dozens of forms of Christianity, and throughout the 2000 or so years of their ignoble history they have fought wars with one another and killed one another by the tens of thousands.
(And, while not a war per se, it is certainly true that the Quakers and the Puritans were driven to America by religious oppression by other "Christians." But of course, since there's only 1 Christianity, one group or the other wasn't really Christian by your definition now, was it. So oppressing the non-Christian desbelievers who happen to believe in Christ, but not your way, is okay, isn't it? Perhaps to zealots of today's Christian and Cathloc right-wing, but not to anyone sane enough to want a nation free of religious oppression, and not to our founding fathers).
Then there are the wars they fought with others not of their genre ("heathens," a term akin to "nigger" in religious circles in its derogatory implications).
There are multiple Christianities even in America, and if the separation of Church and State this country was founded upon (your despicable revisionist rhetoric notwithstanding) is lost to fools like yourself, you can be assured that the liklihood of your particular brand of Christianity prevailing is very, very small. Much more likely you will find yourself oppressed along with the rest of us, by a version of Christianity that conflicts with your personal beliefs.
This is why people far wiser than you, who founded this country, insisted on the separation of Church and state. and why the radical agenda of people like Tim O'Reilly and yourself to insinuate religion into civil government is so profoundly dangerous
I could go on, but what is the point? It is unlikely in the extreme that you are listening, or willing to reevaluate your dogmatic world view. Perhaps, once today's current trends have run their ugly course, you will reevaluate your position. But, given that no one in Northern Ireland (or Ireland proper), or in the Middle East, seems willing to relinquish their notions of Church Ueber Alles despite the obvious and appalling suffering it has caused in those parts, I rather doubt even decades of oppression and deprivation will change the radical right's opinions or agenda in the least.
And why should it? Religion thrives best when people are suffering.
An October 8 article states that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Fine.
If the FCC/Government had a backbone (it doesn't) and wasn't in bed with the cartels (it is), CBS could be required to give back the billions of dollars of public airwaves it was granted virtually free of charge in order to convert to HDTV. Forthwith.
Oops, you've changed your mind and have decided to broadcast HDTV anyway? Wonderful. You can buy back the public airwaves you've foreited in your attempt to flout the law at market value. Thank you for playing.
Oh, you don't want to? Fine. We can see how long you last in the business when all of your competitors are broadcasting in 1920x1080 resolution and you're still stuck in interlaced, 640x480. Particularly after all of the consumer equipment in the future is shipping without support for the archaic format.
Of course, this would all require good governnance, something we are unlikely to see in this ever more rightist, ever more corporate country in our generation.
the irony here being that "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic. An Arabic speaking Christian would not be offended at all...
... and is a devout believer in the separation of church and state, and despises the American Christian right for selling out the founding principles of this country in the mistaken belief that it will be their brand of Christianity that will prevail should that separation continue to be eroded.
... throw in the rapidly growing Islamic and Mormon religions (both of which are growing orders of magnitude faster than the fastest growing Christian religion) and the point should become apparent even to the Jerry Falwells of the world. Given those irrefutable statistics, what version of God do they expect their grandchildren to be forced to worship in class, to be promoted by their schools and government? Their tiny minority version, or the ever growing, by-then-much-larger-than-they-minority version adhered to by others?
... not the historical and constitutional illiteracy coupled with the emotional knee-jerk reactions we have come to expect from that quadrant of our society.
Or perhaps, the arabaic speaking Christian (probably Assyrian living in a mainly Islamic country) would be deeply offended, understanding the desirability of the separation of church and state far more intimately than his or her American compatriots, having lived on the short end of the religion-in-government stick all his or her life.
I have an Assyrian friend who was born in Iraq, grew up in Iran, then emigrated to the United States. He has stories of political and social oppression that would curl your hair
Indeed, any Christian who gives it any reasonable thought is likely to come to a similiar conclusion: the freedom to practice their religion is dependent on the government NOT EMBRACING ANY RELIGION. There are enough incompatible Christian denominations to make this apparent
But of course, this requires rational, reasoned thought
In case you've had your head buried deep within your ass for the last three decades, the same people who share music are the principle purchasers of music. The one not only does not exclude the other, it has been shown time and time again, in study after study, to be tightly correlated. In short, the vast majority of people who share music also purchase music.
This has been true for decades, and remains true, whether the exchange medium is sheet music, cassette tape, CD-R, or mp3. The cartels are in fact suing their customers and are in fact generating a lot more ex-customers as a result than any amount of inappropriate file sharing ever could have.
The whole point of the lawsuits is that no matter how many people the RIAA pisses off, scaring people away from filesharing networks means a hell of a lot more record sales in the long run.
No, it doesn't. It means a hell of a lot of ex-customers, for a number of reasons:
The RIAA cartel has not only done the collassally stupid thing in suing their customers (and regardless of what you and their lackeys may try to tell themselves and others, the people they are suing are in fact their customers, and no small percentage of those customers either), they have done an even more collassally stupid thing in drying up their most potent revinue generating stream
They have, in short, managed to conjure for themselves the worst of all possible market phenomina: boycotts by those enraged by their heavy-handed behavior, enniu by those bored with their current lackluster offerings, disinterest by those seeing no new offerings worth the trouble of buying or listening to, and the wide, very accurate perception that they are out of touch with current technology (and trying to forcefully move the rest of the world back into the twentieth century), out of touch with current musical taste, and out to screw both their customers (the public) and the producers of their product (the musicians). Even a Microsoft-sized PR budget probably wouldn't get them out of this one.
I find it interesting that apparently he has reversed the ages old US doctrine that it would never use nuclear weapons as a first strike (according to an article I read somewhere) and no one seems to be remarking on it. Unless the article was erroneous.
Good Lord!
If this is in fact true, please please please cite the reference!!!
No one here (in the USA) knows this. If what you are saying is true, then our ignorance is a result of our Information Ministers ^H^H^H^H^H media news cartels not seeing fit to report it. Appalling in the extreme. One doesn't expect Fox News (of unfair and unbalanced fame) to report on this, but CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBSes silence is defening. If this is true, and you can cite a responsible source, please get the word (and the reference) out immediately. I will forward it to moveon.org (a large on-line mostly-Democratic political action group).
If this is true, this is something Americans absolutely need to know.
...unless it includes appropriations for NASA sufficient to actually fund said exploration. Mandatory appropriations congress can't later cut, which is highly unlikely with Baby Bush spending the country into bankrupcy with his family's little war in Iraq and his tax cuts for his wealthy buddies.
It is a nice vision, but without adequate funding it is only so much posturing from congress, and frankly, I'm quite sick of windbags who have no intention of following through on their flowery rhetoric with concrete action.
So is the phrase "tyranny of the majority" an oxymoron to you? And was slavery just fine in any state where there were more pro-slavery whites than abolitionists and blacks?
Nice play of the race card, but you ignore that slavery is a form of governance over those enslaved, and that in lacking the consenst of the governened (the enslaved), it is in fact a form of tyranny, and a particulary harsh form at that.
If you're interested in consent, I might suggest that the consent of the people being stolen from is of more value than the consent of people stealing.
Really? And if the government chooses to privatize oxygen, and you insist on breathing without paying your vig to the oxygen cartel, do the rights of the cartel not to be "stolen from" have more value than the consent of the people "stealing" it.
That is exactly analogous to the rights of the copyright cartels. Their "rights" are fictitious creations that have privatized things that were, for the vast majority of human histery, absolutely free. Music, speech, storytelling, poetry, art.
If the majority of our society decides that communism is more appropriate than capitalism, then our society absolutely has the right to define away your "private" property. Your inalienable rights extend to your person and your freedom, they do not include your car or your television, much less your profiteering off your record shop down the road. Those are property rights we've chosen to bestow upon you because the majority believes, correctly or not, that society benefits from such an arrangement. Should that opinion change, then your "private property" will cease to be so, and rightly so.
As for a "tyranny of the majority", that is what inalienable, constitutional rights are designed to protect and keep in check. For example, you do have an inalienable right to bitch and moan about the lack of private property (or the lack of communal property), but nowhere in the constitution does it grant you an inalienable right to have and own private property (beyond that of your physical person). We could, as a society, change our minds on the whole capitalism vs. communism thing if we so chose, without giving up one iota of our democracy, or our constitutional rights, to do so. Not that that is very likely, or desirable IMHO, but it is possible, and it would be a far better thing to do than to force capitalism down everyone's throats against the will of a vast majority.
In other words, the tyranny of a minority, i.e. the few (or the one) is generally much worse than the tyranny of the majority.
So yes, consent of the governed trumps consent of the minority being "stolen" from. Just ask anyone whose ever had their property taken to make way for a railroad or highway.
You should recompile your kernel sometime. Under "General setup" you can enable MCA support if you are so unfortunate as to have a Microchannel computer (I used to back in the day, I feel your pain).
Copyright only insures that businesses have an interest in writing, making music, and movies. Music has been made since the dawn of man, almost all of that time before copyrights were imposed by the British Crown as a censorship measure in reaction to the emergence of the printing press. Books were also written, as were plays. Movies post-date the existence of copyright, but the number of free movies available online, whether traditional, animated, or machinima creations, indicate that copyright and the profit motive play little if any role in the creation of many of those works.
Yeah, that'd be great. No one would write books anymore.
Really?
Here is a free book that was written, and would have been without copyright, as the author is releasing it under a GPL-style license. Or perhaps you are confusing laws against plagerism (conviniently missing from the rolls) with laws restricting copying. Almost no one would create art without recognition, so we do need laws that encode academic rules against plagerism to insure an artist or author is given credit for their work. But clearly, many people, myself included, are perfectly happy to create art sans the profit motove the copyright presupposes, and clearly an enormous amount of art, in all kinds of media, was created prior to the existence of copyright in any form.
So then if a majority thinks that it is ok to steal, we shouldn't have any laws making it illegal?
... a copy of the car and a cheap, comprehensive analyzer tool is sufficient? What if said tool were banned to artifically maintain a scarcity of cars (or car designs)?
... most of which have been ruthlessly destroyed by other, more self-centered cultures. So we know that, barring attack and destruction from outside, many such societies that emphesize sharing over hoarding, and cooperation above competition, do in fact succeed and flourish. Whether it is our 'selfishness' that gave us the advantage in exterminating those not of like minds, a stroke of historical luck that could just as easilly have gone the other way, or a feature of our greater cruelty, I do not know, nor do I believe anyone has been able to difinitively answer that question. Certainly there are plenty of folks, like Ayn Rand, who will claim to be able to authoritatively say that a darwinistic, capitalistic society based upon unfettered greed is the best, most free society that can be created, but to my knowledge none of them have been able to back up this claim with any degree of unbiased evidence...nor has the opposing viewpoint been so verified either, to my knowledge.
In a word, YES.
Governance must be with the consent of the governed, or it is tyranny. Tyrannies that arise or are propogated for 'moral' reasons (as defined by whome in opposition to whome?) are often the worst forms of tyranny there is. Remember the dark ages beneath the frock of the Catholic Church, or the contemporary excesses of reactionary Islam today?
In any event, it depends on a culture's definition of 'stealing.' If I have a star trek style matter replicator and can instantly manufacture an infinite number of devices, as long as I have the design available in software, am I 'stealing' that car when I borrow a friend's copy of the design and create a car for myself? How about if I don't need the design
Most of our society, with the exception of those who are a part of the publishing and media cartels, would say no, you're not stealing. However, it is entirely likely that, in such a not-so-distant future, I would be violating the copyright of whoever designed the car. Ironically the RIAA has been very successful in getting a large chunk of our culture to buy into the notion that one is "stealing" if one copies a tune in a similiar fashion. Music, something that, until a century or so ago, was free in virtually every sense of the word...certainly for the overwhelming majority of our history as a sapient, music-making species.
If, to get back to your question, a society believed it was OK to take something you need without asking whoever happened to have possession of it (which, by our definition, is "stealing"), then clearly that society views the entire concept of property differently than you and I.
There have been many such societies throughout history that have had such views
So, in essence, if a society has a different view of property rights than our current, greed-driven culture, then by all means, that society should sustain its views, however 'communistic' through a set of consistent legal structures. Any other approach will lead to tyranny and, ultimately, either the collapse of the ruling structure through popular revolt, or the destruction of the culture through extreme oppression.