Emulating a G3 at 80% might be within the realm of possibility if I was on LSD. However, saying you can do a G4 (which implies AltiVec) is just not possible. Seriously. That'd be like emulating SSE3 on a G5. Ain't gonna happen.
That would only matter for apps that use AltiVec. I could imagine G4 speeds for non-AltiVec apps.
(actually, my BS meter is off the charts regarding this program, but if it did work, my point would stand)
You're denying the owner the monetary compensation they deserve in return for you getting a copy of their software, so yes it is theft. You're not stealing the object, you are stealing the profit.
So if I download OS X, my bank account grows by $129?
1. Download OS X 2. 3. Profit!
Face the facts, copyright violation is not theft, it's an imaginary crime. Society (er, I mean an increasingly un-social Congress) has decided that this imaginary crime should be deterred. Regardless, nothing, whatsoever, has been actually "stolen".
If you look at it deeper, the crime isn't that you've stolen something. The crime is that you've threatened to undermine an economic system which depends on artificially restricting duplication. Apple, and copyright holders in general, aren't all that worried over someone copying a disc that they might not have purchased anyway. What they are concerned with is if this copying was so common that they'd only sell one disc which would be distributed to everyone else for free.
The person who made the distinction between "bad" and "theft" was trying to make a point that you've clearly missed. If you treat a fork like a spoon, you might be fine if you are eating jell-o, but if you try to eat tomato soup, you're gonna have a problem. Likewise, if you treat copyright infringement like theft, you are partially right (according to the current model) in that you will punish violators, but you will also enable the injustice of jailing someone who copies a CD. After all, if you equate the crimes, why shouldn't you equate the punishments?
Seeking Presidential Candidate who's not afraid to speak his mind, but afraid to change it. Must be willing to "break a few eggs" even when not making an omelet. Firm grasp of the English language not required. Aversion to science a plus. Must be staunchly pro-life before birth, but somewhat anti-life after birth.
Would like to share beautiful sunsets with said candidate, and have heard that sunset through nuclear fallout is sublime. Into kinky sex involving hoods, restraints and more than a little rough handling.
Popularity not required.
Are you my candidate? Call off the election today and tell me for it's my own good, and I'll be yours forever.
Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's viability was proved years ago?. Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?
Two reasons that come to mind regarding your "scientific" solution:
1. Trapping CO2 in the ocean means eventually it will fill to capacity, unable to absorb any more CO2 (which itself could prove disastrous, as fish tend to prefer oxygen rich water). When that happens, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise, and the trapped CO2 will naturally leak as well.
Isn't the effect of consuming the oil as fuel the same (on a global scale) as lighting the well itself? I realize some oil goes into plastic and fertilizer, etc., so there's that as a plus. Also, fumes from a car are nowhere near as horrible as the plume from a burning well (but the exhaust from a car really should add all of the pollution from the intermediate steps from oil well to the gas tank). In that vein, a lot of energy goes into processing the oil, and not all of it comes from oil. Additionally, I'd assume that not all of the oil gushing from a flaming well is consumed by the fires.
A sobering thought that simply lighting every oil well on fire might be less polluting than consuming the oil the way we do.
Is that what Bush means when he says the terrorists only have to be right once? As bad as 9/11 was, there's only been one (and I'm sure there'll eventually be another one, if the terrorists are angry enough), but since then, we've been continuously defeating ourselves without another shot being fired from the enemy.
Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell, documents are easy to duplicate and this will only make the terrorists spend a couple more bucks at their local document "manufacturer". Which is no problem at all for them considering they have thousands in their bank accounts.
While I don't support the cards, your reasoning is terribly flawed.
Each additional obstacle, even if it's trivial to circumvent decreases the odds of a successful action.
If you have to forge an ID, the FBI could catch a whole batch of terrorists if they uncover an ID fakery operation. Or the forged IDs might be flawed in some way that catches them at the terminal, or the process itself might be the deciding factor between a terrorist who goes through with the action and one who doesn't. You can't know, but you can know that it's a form of resistance to a successful terrorist attack.
Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone here), I don't see the extra benefits worth the potential big brother aspect. That's because the resistance factor works the other way too. While the government can already track you in every way that the ID card will allow, it's usually just not worth their effort. But if the card is enacted, it will be just that much easier for them. I'm not a Bad Guy(tm), and I'm not really expecting some pending mass civil rights atrocity to result from this (but then, I *am* an optimist), but I don't want to make it easier for a mistake or a random act of poor judgment to ruin my day (or my life, as happens to innocents already--see Guantanamo for more info). The gains in security aren't worth the loss in civil liberties.
You can't have it both ways. Had the FBI (or whatever US agency it was that intervened) not been involved, the action would not have taken place the way it did.
That means, the FBI (if that's the correct agency) *was* involved. Your other points are valid, but they do not somehow magically make the FBI's involvement unhappen.
To believe one thing (that the US Gov. was not involved in any way at all whatsoever), then immediately believe a directly conflicting thing (that the FBI took part in the process of the server take down) is called "doublethink". Even though I've encountered doublethink before, I'm still somewhat shocked when I see it in action.
Hmm, I notice that "worldwide" means "North America, South America and Europe"...:-/
Yeah, that is confusing. I thought sometime around the '30s/'40s we no longer counted South America as part of "The World". I guess my American Imperial Handbook must be out of date.
If a message isn't commercially viable enough to get people to simply tune in and listen, what makes you think that somehow one dude on every city block will invest in a transmitter and the upkeep necessary to re-broadcast a singal they're receiving?
Given the assumption that such grass roots community actions are seen as a good thing, what makes you think they will come about if you don't try?
Yeah, this project might fail--in fact, odds are it will take off in a big way. But even just this single slashdot story has caused people to think about something in a more enlightened way, and that, if nothing else comes of this, is a success. And I do expect some localized successes. There will be two avid hackers who communicate with each other on the same block, there will be an apartment building that is covered by revolutionary anti-corporate messages, there will be a college dorm that is covered by alternative news and music, etc.
But remember, the slashdot story itself is a success.
I've got a radio astronomy background. The electromagnetic spectrum is an incredibly valuable resource, and is heavily regulated for a bloody good reason. Don't mess with it.
What does radio astronomy have to do with fascism (the combination of corporate and government power)?
As for your other point, I'd rather have a free society with rough edges than a technically flawless society that oppresses the people.
This is exemplified by the fact that the technical shortcomings of the proposed system (which aren't as fatal as you're implying) are a result of faulty regulation. It's like Linux vs Windows. Linux is (liberty-wise & socially) superior to Windows, and technically superior to Windows. The main drawbacks come from MS exerting exclusive control over vast domains of operation (such as protocols and technologies that Linux (and free software that make up a Linux distro) are not allowed to include).
The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed. And, on top of that, the ONLY reason the FBI was involved
Brilliant! The FBI had "absolutely nothing" to do with it... then you explain that they in fact *did* have something to do with it.
Sorry, I didn't quite follow. The Nazis aren't left or right (in the American sense), but even so, they are leftists?
The two things that made the Nazis evil (and whenever you talk about the Nazis, any subtlety is overwhelmed by their evil actions) are their repression, slavery, torture and murder of classes of people deemed 'inferior' and their belligerent nationalism/militarism.
Those actions were justified and enabled by appealing to the traditional conservative values of the German people, by appealing to national interests and to people's sense of national pride in the world dominating role they believed was divinely granted to their nation.
While both parties have, at times, utilized means, goals, and rhetoric similar to the Nazis, right now, one party is really starting to approach comparison with the pre-holocaust Nazis.
Learn from history before the present becomes history.
No see, I don't, because if they say they don't have it, I can say, then I don't want either of those two. I'm out a pop, but they are out my money.
Way to miss the analogy, Spock. If you don't vote in an election, do you just not get a President? Nope, you still get one.
Either that, or it makes them wonder what they *could* do to get me to vote for them.
Yeah, which usually means either lying to you or marginalizing you.
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm a Libertarian, I want to GET RID OF those government services.
Libertarians take a virtue pair (liberty and property rights) and elevate it above all others (like life, safety, comfort, prosperity). The end result of the Libertarian Party is anarchy. Completely fucking stupid. Out of anarchy comes gangsters, comes dictators, comes the need to fight all over again for freedom and democracy.
Name your favorite federal program and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
Well, brilliant. *Any* and *every* thing in the Universe has a negative side. No matter what program I mention (btw, did I say it was only federal programs I was talking about?), you can just mention its drawbacks.
I respect the desire for personal liberty, but to make it the sole political ideal is just plain dumb.
I'd switch from a Mac running OS X to an x86 PC running OS X, which is exactly why Apple won't release an x86 version of OS X unless there are a few dramatic changes in Apple's market.
Someone told me the other day my vote on a 3rd party candidate was wasted. Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose and may very well determine the election this year. How is a vote that *didn't* go to one of the two major candidates a wasted vote when it's precisely the votes they pay attention to the most?
It's 'wasted' in that you didn't get to vote for anyone with an actual chance of winning. It's the exact same, in terms of determining the winner, as if you hadn't voted.
When the guy behind the counter asks you, "Coke or Pepsi", and you reply "Jolt Cola, please," you just have to sit back and take what you get. It's the system that's screwed, but we're all subject to the system. The fight that should be fought is the one to change the system. Do that and we'll respect you. If you want to act like an asshole about (essentially) not voting, then don't be surprised in being treated like one.
If you want to talk about the third party vote tipping the scales, the non-voter is even more effective. If everyone in the US voted, the world would be a better place today.
Voting should be mandatory in the US. If you don't vote, you are ineligible for any public/government services. So that you can get back in good favor with the government, all you'd have to do is re-register to vote. (ie: there'd be no jail time or financial fee (although some nations have a ~10 cent fine, for similar effect)).
For a healthy democracy, we need a strong, independent media, an informed electorate, a voting public and full choice in candidates (with a ballot system that doesn't lock in two (or very rarely three) candidates). Without those, you have (at best) a oligarchy. We don't even have *one* of those things.
Slashdot Mirror
What a perversion.... I'm going back to getting my Cuisenart to run Debian. - B
I like that idea.
Next time I run out of salsa:
apt-get install tomatoes onions hot_peppers
Emulating a G3 at 80% might be within the realm of possibility if I was on LSD. However, saying you can do a G4 (which implies AltiVec) is just not possible. Seriously. That'd be like emulating SSE3 on a G5. Ain't gonna happen.
That would only matter for apps that use AltiVec. I could imagine G4 speeds for non-AltiVec apps.
(actually, my BS meter is off the charts regarding this program, but if it did work, my point would stand)
I know you were just being a smartass, a time-honored tradition around here, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be informative.
You misspelled 'pedantic'.
You're denying the owner the monetary compensation they deserve in return for you getting a copy of their software, so yes it is theft. You're not stealing the object, you are stealing the profit.
So if I download OS X, my bank account grows by $129?
1. Download OS X
2.
3. Profit!
Face the facts, copyright violation is not theft, it's an imaginary crime. Society (er, I mean an increasingly un-social Congress) has decided that this imaginary crime should be deterred. Regardless, nothing, whatsoever, has been actually "stolen".
If you look at it deeper, the crime isn't that you've stolen something. The crime is that you've threatened to undermine an economic system which depends on artificially restricting duplication. Apple, and copyright holders in general, aren't all that worried over someone copying a disc that they might not have purchased anyway. What they are concerned with is if this copying was so common that they'd only sell one disc which would be distributed to everyone else for free.
The person who made the distinction between "bad" and "theft" was trying to make a point that you've clearly missed. If you treat a fork like a spoon, you might be fine if you are eating jell-o, but if you try to eat tomato soup, you're gonna have a problem. Likewise, if you treat copyright infringement like theft, you are partially right (according to the current model) in that you will punish violators, but you will also enable the injustice of jailing someone who copies a CD. After all, if you equate the crimes, why shouldn't you equate the punishments?
Seeking Presidential Candidate who's not afraid to speak his mind, but afraid to change it. Must be willing to "break a few eggs" even when not making an omelet. Firm grasp of the English language not required. Aversion to science a plus. Must be staunchly pro-life before birth, but somewhat anti-life after birth.
Would like to share beautiful sunsets with said candidate, and have heard that sunset through nuclear fallout is sublime. Into kinky sex involving hoods, restraints and more than a little rough handling.
Popularity not required.
Are you my candidate? Call off the election today and tell me for it's my own good, and I'll be yours forever.
Signed,
Ms. Informed
Men covered in blue bodypaint with techno music?
That's blue body paint? Oh, but I thought...
Why haven't we begun a program using iron oxide spread on the ocean to trap and remove CO2? It's viability was proved years ago?. Why are environmentalist opposed to a scientific solution?
Two reasons that come to mind regarding your "scientific" solution:
1. Trapping CO2 in the ocean means eventually it will fill to capacity, unable to absorb any more CO2 (which itself could prove disastrous, as fish tend to prefer oxygen rich water). When that happens, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise, and the trapped CO2 will naturally leak as well.
2. You end up with a rust-covered ocean.
One mega-tsunami, as requested.
Your head must be in the sand too then, as you are using a computer. Not the most eco-friendly device around.
:-))
Maybe (s)he's using RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers?
(would make for an interesting twist on the slashdot effect
Isn't the effect of consuming the oil as fuel the same (on a global scale) as lighting the well itself? I realize some oil goes into plastic and fertilizer, etc., so there's that as a plus. Also, fumes from a car are nowhere near as horrible as the plume from a burning well (but the exhaust from a car really should add all of the pollution from the intermediate steps from oil well to the gas tank). In that vein, a lot of energy goes into processing the oil, and not all of it comes from oil. Additionally, I'd assume that not all of the oil gushing from a flaming well is consumed by the fires.
A sobering thought that simply lighting every oil well on fire might be less polluting than consuming the oil the way we do.
Is that what Bush means when he says the terrorists only have to be right once? As bad as 9/11 was, there's only been one (and I'm sure there'll eventually be another one, if the terrorists are angry enough), but since then, we've been continuously defeating ourselves without another shot being fired from the enemy.
Some people might exclaim that it is a genuine attempt by the government to shed and protect the US public from terrorists and if everyone followed the rules, sure it would. Terrorists follow the rules? No chance in hell, documents are easy to duplicate and this will only make the terrorists spend a couple more bucks at their local document "manufacturer". Which is no problem at all for them considering they have thousands in their bank accounts.
While I don't support the cards, your reasoning is terribly flawed.
Each additional obstacle, even if it's trivial to circumvent decreases the odds of a successful action.
If you have to forge an ID, the FBI could catch a whole batch of terrorists if they uncover an ID fakery operation. Or the forged IDs might be flawed in some way that catches them at the terminal, or the process itself might be the deciding factor between a terrorist who goes through with the action and one who doesn't. You can't know, but you can know that it's a form of resistance to a successful terrorist attack.
Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone here), I don't see the extra benefits worth the potential big brother aspect. That's because the resistance factor works the other way too. While the government can already track you in every way that the ID card will allow, it's usually just not worth their effort. But if the card is enacted, it will be just that much easier for them. I'm not a Bad Guy(tm), and I'm not really expecting some pending mass civil rights atrocity to result from this (but then, I *am* an optimist), but I don't want to make it easier for a mistake or a random act of poor judgment to ruin my day (or my life, as happens to innocents already--see Guantanamo for more info). The gains in security aren't worth the loss in civil liberties.
You can't have it both ways. Had the FBI (or whatever US agency it was that intervened) not been involved, the action would not have taken place the way it did.
That means, the FBI (if that's the correct agency) *was* involved. Your other points are valid, but they do not somehow magically make the FBI's involvement unhappen.
To believe one thing (that the US Gov. was not involved in any way at all whatsoever), then immediately believe a directly conflicting thing (that the FBI took part in the process of the server take down) is called "doublethink". Even though I've encountered doublethink before, I'm still somewhat shocked when I see it in action.
Hmm, I notice that "worldwide" means "North America, South America and Europe" ... :-/
Yeah, that is confusing. I thought sometime around the '30s/'40s we no longer counted South America as part of "The World". I guess my American Imperial Handbook must be out of date.
If a message isn't commercially viable enough to get people to simply tune in and listen, what makes you think that somehow one dude on every city block will invest in a transmitter and the upkeep necessary to re-broadcast a singal they're receiving?
Given the assumption that such grass roots community actions are seen as a good thing, what makes you think they will come about if you don't try?
Yeah, this project might fail--in fact, odds are it will take off in a big way. But even just this single slashdot story has caused people to think about something in a more enlightened way, and that, if nothing else comes of this, is a success. And I do expect some localized successes. There will be two avid hackers who communicate with each other on the same block, there will be an apartment building that is covered by revolutionary anti-corporate messages, there will be a college dorm that is covered by alternative news and music, etc.
But remember, the slashdot story itself is a success.
I've got a radio astronomy background. The electromagnetic spectrum is an incredibly valuable resource, and is heavily regulated for a bloody good reason. Don't mess with it.
What does radio astronomy have to do with fascism (the combination of corporate and government power)?
As for your other point, I'd rather have a free society with rough edges than a technically flawless society that oppresses the people.
This is exemplified by the fact that the technical shortcomings of the proposed system (which aren't as fatal as you're implying) are a result of faulty regulation. It's like Linux vs Windows. Linux is (liberty-wise & socially) superior to Windows, and technically superior to Windows. The main drawbacks come from MS exerting exclusive control over vast domains of operation (such as protocols and technologies that Linux (and free software that make up a Linux distro) are not allowed to include).
The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed. And, on top of that, the ONLY reason the FBI was involved
Brilliant! The FBI had "absolutely nothing" to do with it... then you explain that they in fact *did* have something to do with it.
Look up the word "doublethink".
"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
Democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting on not letting the wolf eat the sheep.
Too bad we don't have democracy here. Instead we've got three sheep and a wolf, and the wolf gets to decide what's for dinner.
I think i'd prefer it if there WAS some "oceania" out there we could be at perpetual war with
Dude, we are Oceania.
Sorry, I didn't quite follow. The Nazis aren't left or right (in the American sense), but even so, they are leftists?
The two things that made the Nazis evil (and whenever you talk about the Nazis, any subtlety is overwhelmed by their evil actions) are their repression, slavery, torture and murder of classes of people deemed 'inferior' and their belligerent nationalism/militarism.
Those actions were justified and enabled by appealing to the traditional conservative values of the German people, by appealing to national interests and to people's sense of national pride in the world dominating role they believed was divinely granted to their nation.
While both parties have, at times, utilized means, goals, and rhetoric similar to the Nazis, right now, one party is really starting to approach comparison with the pre-holocaust Nazis.
Learn from history before the present becomes history.
No see, I don't, because if they say they don't have it, I can say, then I don't want either of those two. I'm out a pop, but they are out my money.
Way to miss the analogy, Spock. If you don't vote in an election, do you just not get a President? Nope, you still get one.
Either that, or it makes them wonder what they *could* do to get me to vote for them.
Yeah, which usually means either lying to you or marginalizing you.
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm a Libertarian, I want to GET RID OF those government services.
Libertarians take a virtue pair (liberty and property rights) and elevate it above all others (like life, safety, comfort, prosperity). The end result of the Libertarian Party is anarchy. Completely fucking stupid. Out of anarchy comes gangsters, comes dictators, comes the need to fight all over again for freedom and democracy.
Name your favorite federal program and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
Well, brilliant. *Any* and *every* thing in the Universe has a negative side. No matter what program I mention (btw, did I say it was only federal programs I was talking about?), you can just mention its drawbacks.
I respect the desire for personal liberty, but to make it the sole political ideal is just plain dumb.
I'd switch from a Mac running OS X to an x86 PC running OS X, which is exactly why Apple won't release an x86 version of OS X unless there are a few dramatic changes in Apple's market.
Someone told me the other day my vote on a 3rd party candidate was wasted. Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose and may very well determine the election this year. How is a vote that *didn't* go to one of the two major candidates a wasted vote when it's precisely the votes they pay attention to the most?
It's 'wasted' in that you didn't get to vote for anyone with an actual chance of winning. It's the exact same, in terms of determining the winner, as if you hadn't voted.
When the guy behind the counter asks you, "Coke or Pepsi", and you reply "Jolt Cola, please," you just have to sit back and take what you get. It's the system that's screwed, but we're all subject to the system. The fight that should be fought is the one to change the system. Do that and we'll respect you. If you want to act like an asshole about (essentially) not voting, then don't be surprised in being treated like one.
If you want to talk about the third party vote tipping the scales, the non-voter is even more effective. If everyone in the US voted, the world would be a better place today.
Voting should be mandatory in the US. If you don't vote, you are ineligible for any public/government services. So that you can get back in good favor with the government, all you'd have to do is re-register to vote. (ie: there'd be no jail time or financial fee (although some nations have a ~10 cent fine, for similar effect)).
For a healthy democracy, we need a strong, independent media, an informed electorate, a voting public and full choice in candidates (with a ballot system that doesn't lock in two (or very rarely three) candidates). Without those, you have (at best) a oligarchy. We don't even have *one* of those things.
No.
When Bush says "they hate us for our freedom," he doesn't mean "our" freedom, he means his and Halliburton's freedom.
I thought he made that perfectly clear.