...would it be to modify a standard hard drive to work in a near-vacuum?
...there is a small air filter that allows for pressure equalization.
If they're not sealed completely, won't the pressure equalize? Is there anything inside a hard drive that's dependent on atmospheric conditions, aside from crud (friction, etc.)?
Forgive my ignorance, but it doesn't seem like it would matter terribly much.
...industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia.
I wasn't aware that there was a Colombian music cartel. Where can I find it? Colombian um, 'institutions' provide for many of my needs in a very satisfactory way right now - maybe I could get one more taken care of.
Seriously though... . Protects the rights of people who have grown up with access to free forms of culture, via new technologies.
Are you nuts? You bring this up again and again: that people who have grown up with something have some kind of inexplicable 'right' to it. Examine this concept. Why? If I grow up with a $1,000,000 trust fund, do I necessarily have a 'right' to it? If it's the torn and twisted hands of sweatshop children that contributed to it? Would it be better if I'd taken those profits personally? I'm using this analogy because so much of this discussion seems to center on how rich the record companies are, and how they just want to preserve the status quo. Your argument for preserving the culture these kids ostensibly grow up with is the same argument.
The "right" that you're talking about here is in no way a right. It's a comfort level, it's a societal trend (maybe), it's a convenience. It is not a right. Preserving the mp3 sharing 'culture', no matter how much I approve of it and/or take part in it, is not a right. I don't have rights to someone else's property. Period.
In other words, what I do is wrong - but I choose that wrong. If you took the opportunity to acquire mp3's of copyrighted material away from me, I'd be disappointed for many reasons. But I would not have been wronged.
Please cease and desist with the inflammatory language - it will not help your arguments among thinking people inclined to agree with you, and it certainly won't convince hard-line record execs (or the people at Pinkerton, or anyone else with an accountant) that maybe some of your points are credible. I tend to agree with where you're going, but your methods are uninformed. You preach to the choir far too much.
damn right there are a lot of people using/. that want to believe they're smart.
they suck.
now, me: i'm smart. oh yes. very smart.
i'm so smart you wouldn't even be able to understand how smart i am. i'm so smart you'd think "that guy's an idiot," if you met me. don't worry, though. you won't meet me - you're not smart enough.
they keep me in this little box all the time now, just because i'm too smart. believe me, i know smart. that's because i am smart. oh yes.
i suspect you're asking yourself a question right now. "how smart is too smart?" i'm too smart. if i didn't have the vast intellectual ability i do (all utilized, you understand, as i'm busy factoring the billionth prime for fun), i wouldn't be in this box.
Please mod up the above comment - it's an excellent point, and one missed far too often.
As a note, there are interesting aspects to many programs' admission criteria. The admission requirements for the Philosophy/Linguistics graduate program at MIT are one such example. If a school offers an "elite" degree or outstanding facilities, it is most likely a very selective program. It is technically possible (in my understanding) for someone with no formal background to be accepted to the above program. Granted, it's philosophy. On the other hand, philosophy actually has a lot in common with technical fields like computer science - much of your value as a student is derived not from past grades or test scores, but from life experience, personality, and achievement.
If I cannot submit an SAT score or the score is painfully low, I should be able - and encouraged - to compensate for that with demonstrable talent, drive, and education, no matter what the source.
There were no real requirements for admission at the undergraduate college I attended. It's a school that should be notorious for allowing people to gain a degree without completing much rigorous academic work at all. The strong point and the great weakness are the same: you need to learn to motivate yourself and accomplish your own goals to get a good education. I feel that my education was far superior to most, and yet I know that someone familiar with the school I attended could discount my degree and 'transcript' just as easily as they could congratulate me for my college's historical reputation. Both of those possibilities are equally unfair.
If I have a chance to present my work - which exposes my skills, knowledge, talent, and creativity, good or bad - then I have the chance to be evaluated fairly.
A school like ArsDigita U., especially with its stated focus, should realize that the greatest benefit both to students and school will be realized by a rational and fair admissions process... even if the administrative overhead is higher. A word-limited essay, portfolio, and resume/CV would be more accurate than any test score.
The new suit lists 10 "John Doe" defendants that King said could be later identified as "universities that have not blocked Napster or students engaged in copyright violation." -from the article
Which is more likely to work? Which will happen, and which will simply be threatened? This is a relatively straightforward legal issue and a horrendous practical one. The simpler the enforcement, the more likely it is to work; in addition, universities tend to have more money than students.
ert.
Please do not mod this up "Informative," as it is technically redundant. Thank you.
Since Dre can't go after all the users who are actually movin' his music about, he's going after ten (big?) universities that haven't tried to shut down Napster on their networks.
It does make more sense to go after the users from a logical standpoint, but that's both unrealistic and less profitable. I expect the suit against the universities will involve some sort of 'neglect' charge.
Nope. I think you mean exponential. Steep simply comes down to being really difficult in the beginning. Learning curves should take into account the knowledge gained by the user. There's no reason not to make the 'baby steps' easy... that way you can get to (and comprehend) the adult/expert steps sooner.
I am comfortable with this assumption, and I need no proof.
Hm. You espouse your beliefs honestly, at least.
And... I have no interest in such people.
Nice. A major failing of Objectivism. In addition, your rhetoric ("self-immolation") rivals hers - overblown and patently false.
I have no interest in such cultures.
Go read a sociology text, unless you're again just stating personal preference, in which case I just hope I never have a conversation with you. It's arguable that cultures transferring all achievement and blame to individuals are not superior - the problems are simply different.
The extent of the failure of her philosophy is its failure to realize the value of other individuals.
You are in large part correct - it is lamentable that you don't apply this analysis to your own thought.
Main Entry: axiom
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios
worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
On the philosophy side, please note that simply because an axiom (using definitions [1,2] - three is nonsensical in philosophy) is used to construct a theory or 'logical' structure, it is not necessarily prone to truth.
I could take as an axiom, "Objectivism makes sense," but that doesn't make it so - it just makes it an axiom. An unfortunate and mistaken one. If you understand Aristotle, then you should have some kind of inkling of why Objectivism, even as a practical philosophy (as opposed to a logically sound one) won't work.
It is capitalism that protects individuals from the irrational or destructive behavior of others.
Really? And automatic weapons manufacturers should be allowed to sell to anyone they please. Your statement is actually the most irritating, unfounded, ill-informed, rationally indefensible statement I have seen on Slashdot for a long, long time. (I read at 0, by the way.)
Please take a few moments of your time to check into a critical thinking class somewhere.
It's quite easy to tell the difference between between 30 fps and 60 fps. It's also possible to tell the difference between 60 fps and 75 fps - have a look at a computer screen set to 60 Hz refresh rate, then set it to 75 Hz. 60 Hz is annoyingly flickery.
I'm not an expert, but consider this conjecture as a possibility: fps numbers in film don't mean the same thing as they do in video. In video, you're watching the combination of a horizontal and vertical refresh which proceeds in a uniform pattern across the screen (which is also backlit).
In film, you're dealing with an analogue medium - you see a certain number of frames per second, true - but there's no redraw. The individual images appear almost instantaneously, according to perception. That, combined with a visual style that is not controlled (and therefore foreseen) by the user, will allow a lower frame rate to be perceived as realistic. And there is no visible bit-depth... really smooth texture, color, everything: if nothing else, the psychological impact is enough to disguise the frame rate.
I don't think a distributed distribution model and Marx have that much in common. That's like claiming that the internet is a communist idea. It's just strict mathmetics [sic] not social planning.
You haven't read much Marx. Communism could be characterized, in a 'pure' (meaning Marxist) form, as a distributed governmental system. The Internet may not be a communist idea, but as an allegorical model it's useful.
...the horizontal management structure some small to medium sized American corporations. And I doubt you can call them communists.
Well, you can't call them communists because they're capitalists. And a "horizontal management structure" still preserves the corporate heirarchy. On the other hand, the developmental heirarchy is definitely a more socialist construction - each contributes according to ability. It's just that the converse isn't true - each is not rewarded according to need (unless, maybe, you're looking at workstations).
"All people, no matter what financial status, have access."
You missed the point of this quote. "Access" to information is not equal or equivalent to being "in the know."
"Improvments in so-called "intellectual" property can be shared easily among many people without the interference of those in power who would profit by restraining new ideas." :: Then why will people care to invent them? (...) People need some form of incentive besides a pat on the back.
(I removed the rest of that paragraph because it was nonsensical.) I think this statement can be rebuffed (or at least informed) by a cursory examination of the rest of the posts. Your assumptions are assumptions, nothing more.
Beyond that, you missed the point again: that there is a free exchange of information, within context, unlimited by market-based interference. It's like being in a research institution without the politics or the money (which balances, AFAIC) - work on what you want, and take it in the best direction according to your judgement (and through forking or input, that of the community). I think, if you try, you might be able to see the parallel to socialism there, too.
As far as me being scared not likely. Without political power/office communists are just a small contingent of people from liberal arts programs in schools on the West coast. There is no way in hell that anyone like that will ever get power in my country (the United States). In fact one of the sures ways to kill a senate bill is to tack a rider onto it that claims that the communist party will be the only political party in the US.
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. (Merriam-Webster) First- sentence2: you're wrong. No argument. Second- sentence3: part one: don't make assumptions; part two: you're probably right. Let me explain why... Effectively, the idea behind communism was to raise the quality of life level for everyone to the same point, above the previous average. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm comparing a concept and an existing condition here - but there hasn't been a single instance of practiced, national communism that actually deserved the name.) Democracy as practiced in the US preserves the average very effectively. Majority rule in an uninformed and reactionary population is a conservative approach that tends towards mediocrity and 'known evils'. Sure - no way in the immediate future will we be able to consider a third political party as anything but a protest vote. Here's to optimism, though.
Last sentence: I don't know if it's true, but I'll take your word for it. Why? This is the country that harbored and nurtured McCarthyism. Is this a point of pride with you? Do I need to say anything more?
Furthermore, concerning the rest of your post, there was no threat of "real harm" in the original post. None at all, not even implicit. You interpreted it that way because you are an uninformed, reactionary bigot - and this is not a reactionary statement, as you've demonstrated quite enough of your knowledge and willingness to learn. As for your statement that there is no chance for communism to actually work, I again state that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to pretend you may, and you can do it in a public forum, but please remember that you expose your mind as soon as you start typing. Try to do this wisely. Others would appreciate it.
Every act of cooperation and assistance is not a communist idea. True enough. Every time someone says, "hey, this sort of resembles communism, which I like," it's not necessarily the raving of a lunatic. But... every communist idea should be an act of cooperation and assistance.
Ok... enough of this stuff. The idea of taking The Golden Mean when faced with a range of choices dates (in 'published' form) from Aristotle, who expounded at great length on this concept and its validation as a method.
(Yes, this counts as "a long time ago.")
The Golden Mean was developed from the Socratic dialectic , a concept which is probably more useful.
Disclaimer: haven't used it myself, but please keep reading.
I have a few friends (independent filmmakers) who use AVID, and while the results are incredible and the power seems to be there, at least until recently there's been one major problem: not all AVIDs can exchange data with each other. I'm uninformed, yes, but look into this if you're considering buying one and may need to edit your work on a different machine at some point.
One of their projects was set back about a month and a half because the data wasn't readable by a machine they thought they'd be able to use.
He is discussing the honeypot idea as a way to learn about the existing vulnerabilities in his production systems. The article has nearly nothing to do with any kind of legal action. He wants to make his production systems more secure, so he's basically allowing others to analyze the security of his real systems without putting them in danger.
The only legal issue is whether his honeypot can be used to exploit external systems.
Face it, the only solution to Africa's problems are (a) Outside world recolonizes the place and imposes capable government. Ain't gonna happen or (b) After long enough the locals finally give up their various stupid ideas and come up with a workable system of government.
Whew. Glad you included that second point... will try not comment on the first (unsuccessfully, i'm sure.)
...locals finally give up their various stupid ideas... uh, just for some perspective, let's not forget that their "various stupid ideas" are in many cases a combination of their ideas and the ideas of those who colonized them, which judging by the tone of your post, could probably be called "our stupid ideas." your solution (a) to Africa's problems (which are in general highly variable by locality) is refuted well by historical data. i'm not saying nothing's changed since the dutch and the french and the english decided they could "help" (and turn a tidy profit too), not to mention the various missonary groups (jesuits, etc.), but i'd hold off on the idea that someone else could solve 'their' problems better than they can. help, yes. solve, no. no way... just more confusion - the 'fix' needs to be internal.
it also needs to avoid the influx of 'our' stupid ideas, which include (for example) the british trying to convince the people living in the area that has become kenya that terracing crops was a good idea, the only way to go to get high enough food production. part of kenyatta's rise to power was based on the (overwhelming, inarguably correct) assertion that the land could not support terraced crops and that 'native' agriculture was the way it was for a very good reason.
now, just to be on-topic, it would be interesting to do a little historical analysis of the 'net in the same way as physical space (ie africa, northern ireland, whatever) is analyzed - no, scratch that. way too easy to manipulate towards an end.
I agree that a technical solution to this particular problem is probably going to be a long time coming, in development and especially in wide implementation.
But... As I see it, the problem is not so much within the "computer community" of IT professionals (whatever) and educated users, it's the problem of the network - everybody. Uneducated users, especially those that like powerful toys, are the ones that need attention. It's wrong to simply prosecute people for being ignorant of systems they were told 'would make them work better, faster,' etc. Marketing is reality for many people, and we're even farther from changing that than we are from a magic bullet for DDoS attacks.
How about a sort of 'three-strikes' (ugh) style warning program, combined with a mandatory educational element? When your box is implicated as an accessory to a DDoS (or other remote) attack, you are informed, and immediately sent some material on why you need good, working security. If it happens multiple times, then you are liable for damages, because it is a clear case of negligence. Maybe the FBI could do this, since they want to get involved.
One option is to take a taxi from the airport to the Providence MBTA station, and take the train into Boston. This may be significantly cheaper than renting a car (and also possible for those under the age of 25) - you also avoid driving on I-95. check http://www.mbta.com for the cost of that train ticket... I can't help on the cab fare.
Sorry about the lack of specifics in my previous post. I'll start with your last point first.
Yes, 'we' (USA - woo!) are the ones with the 'smart' weapons. This is my point. For all those who have been trying to figure out a way to resolve their regional (armed) conflicts regionally (and not peacefully), here's something to work on. 'They' don't have the disadvantage being discussed here. 'Their' portable surface-to-air missile launchers are not remotely managed.
Back to your first point, now that we've laid some groundwork. The US / NATO have the 'smart' weapons. Fine. So what? Cheers to all those who don't. Now those on the receiving end can get out their commercially available toys and do their best to switch the friendly/foe signifiers or whatnot and have the F-18's attacking them suddenly abort their missions, due to Jet_1's missiles heading suddenly and inexplicably (at the moment) towards Jet_2.
One hope for where this could go, if the beloved Pentagon can't close those security holes - and they begin to be exploited?
Noe of those "take control" of the immediate system in question, but they sure would take control of any engagement situation.
C. one could trick the Friend Or Foe signal data so that friendlies appear to be hostiles.
If that's not useful on a military level, I don't know what. You wouldn't even need any artillery if you could have your enemy's 'smart' weapons chase them home...
I don't see how IBM can say that they're a rival to Microsoft since they basically let OS/2 hang for such a long time.
IBM is a rival to Microsoft because it has the resources (hardware manufacturing and development, massive internal software development capabilities, etc.) and the motivation (no explanation needed) to both push its own hardware and to push linux (or any other OS) on that hardware. IBM's business strategy of late looks a lot like this - make your competitors work for you. IBM wants to make a profit from Win2k. IBM can make more profit and better mindshare from linux. (They can also offer better systems that way, and that's good for the reputation.) They not only have their big in-house development staff to work with, they have the entire linux community too.
Linux is what IBM was looking for when they were trying to sell OS2, from a business standpoint. It's arguable that what killed OS2 was its compatibility with Windows - why develop ports for OS2 when you can just write the code once and have it run both ways? Lotus developed for OS2. Anyone else? Many, many people are developing for Linux... (That, and a statistically respectable number of people within IBM use linux as their primary OS - I saw a pie chart a couple months ago.)
Their real rivals are the Dells and the Gateways.
Not really - IBM just figured out that it is SO big, and has so much R&D, entrenched market share, etc., etc., that the best bet is to do what no one else really can: attack the entire market, broadside. Software, hardware, and above all, services - all on as many fronts as possible. Who can keep up with that? They can influence the hardware and software markets by porting to Linux. They can influence Linux development by the same token, and popularize it on their hardware by supporting it and using it within their "solutions."
IBM is the only Huge player that can play all these games at once, and it's a miracle for their bottom line that they've figured it out. It's a little frightening, actually. Whether this will be Good for Open Sourcetm remains to be seen.
Disclaimer- I work at IBM. Nothing I say is at all official or quoteable, probably has nothing to do with company position, or is even remotely related to what I do. I'm a temp. Whee.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're not sealed completely, won't the pressure equalize? Is there anything inside a hard drive that's dependent on atmospheric conditions, aside from crud (friction, etc.)?
Forgive my ignorance, but it doesn't seem like it would matter terribly much.
but i'm thooo thirthty.....
I need to know.
I'm thirsty. And sober.
I wasn't aware that there was a Colombian music cartel. Where can I find it? Colombian um, 'institutions' provide for many of my needs in a very satisfactory way right now - maybe I could get one more taken care of.
Seriously though...
. Protects the rights of people who have grown up with access to free forms of culture, via new technologies.
Are you nuts? You bring this up again and again: that people who have grown up with something have some kind of inexplicable 'right' to it. Examine this concept. Why?
If I grow up with a $1,000,000 trust fund, do I necessarily have a 'right' to it? If it's the torn and twisted hands of sweatshop children that contributed to it? Would it be better if I'd taken those profits personally? I'm using this analogy because so much of this discussion seems to center on how rich the record companies are, and how they just want to preserve the status quo. Your argument for preserving the culture these kids ostensibly grow up with is the same argument.
The "right" that you're talking about here is in no way a right. It's a comfort level, it's a societal trend (maybe), it's a convenience. It is not a right. Preserving the mp3 sharing 'culture', no matter how much I approve of it and/or take part in it, is not a right. I don't have rights to someone else's property. Period.
In other words, what I do is wrong - but I choose that wrong. If you took the opportunity to acquire mp3's of copyrighted material away from me, I'd be disappointed for many reasons. But I would not have been wronged.
Please cease and desist with the inflammatory language - it will not help your arguments among thinking people inclined to agree with you, and it certainly won't convince hard-line record execs (or the people at Pinkerton, or anyone else with an accountant) that maybe some of your points are credible. I tend to agree with where you're going, but your methods are uninformed. You preach to the choir far too much.
they suck.
now, me: i'm smart. oh yes. very smart.
i'm so smart you wouldn't even be able to understand how smart i am. i'm so smart you'd think "that guy's an idiot," if you met me. don't worry, though. you won't meet me - you're not smart enough.
they keep me in this little box all the time now, just because i'm too smart. believe me, i know smart. that's because i am smart. oh yes.
i suspect you're asking yourself a question right now. "how smart is too smart?" i'm too smart. if i didn't have the vast intellectual ability i do (all utilized, you understand, as i'm busy factoring the billionth prime for fun), i wouldn't be in this box.
help me.
As a note, there are interesting aspects to many programs' admission criteria. The admission requirements for the Philosophy/Linguistics graduate program at MIT are one such example. If a school offers an "elite" degree or outstanding facilities, it is most likely a very selective program. It is technically possible (in my understanding) for someone with no formal background to be accepted to the above program. Granted, it's philosophy. On the other hand, philosophy actually has a lot in common with technical fields like computer science - much of your value as a student is derived not from past grades or test scores, but from life experience, personality, and achievement.
If I cannot submit an SAT score or the score is painfully low, I should be able - and encouraged - to compensate for that with demonstrable talent, drive, and education, no matter what the source.
There were no real requirements for admission at the undergraduate college I attended. It's a school that should be notorious for allowing people to gain a degree without completing much rigorous academic work at all. The strong point and the great weakness are the same: you need to learn to motivate yourself and accomplish your own goals to get a good education. I feel that my education was far superior to most, and yet I know that someone familiar with the school I attended could discount my degree and 'transcript' just as easily as they could congratulate me for my college's historical reputation. Both of those possibilities are equally unfair.
If I have a chance to present my work - which exposes my skills, knowledge, talent, and creativity, good or bad - then I have the chance to be evaluated fairly.
A school like ArsDigita U., especially with its stated focus, should realize that the greatest benefit both to students and school will be realized by a rational and fair admissions process... even if the administrative overhead is higher. A word-limited essay, portfolio, and resume/CV would be more accurate than any test score.
Which is more likely to work? Which will happen, and which will simply be threatened? This is a relatively straightforward legal issue and a horrendous practical one. The simpler the enforcement, the more likely it is to work; in addition, universities tend to have more money than students.
ert.
Please do not mod this up "Informative," as it is technically redundant. Thank you.
That's what he's doing... universities are being attacked for this. Please reread the article.
It does make more sense to go after the users from a logical standpoint, but that's both unrealistic and less profitable. I expect the suit against the universities will involve some sort of 'neglect' charge.
Nope. I think you mean exponential. Steep simply comes down to being really difficult in the beginning. Learning curves should take into account the knowledge gained by the user. There's no reason not to make the 'baby steps' easy... that way you can get to (and comprehend) the adult/expert steps sooner.
I am comfortable with this assumption, and I need no proof.
Hm. You espouse your beliefs honestly, at least.
And...
I have no interest in such people.
Nice. A major failing of Objectivism. In addition, your rhetoric ("self-immolation") rivals hers - overblown and patently false.
I have no interest in such cultures.
Go read a sociology text, unless you're again just stating personal preference, in which case I just hope I never have a conversation with you. It's arguable that cultures transferring all achievement and blame to individuals are not superior - the problems are simply different.
The extent of the failure of her philosophy is its failure to realize the value of other individuals.
You are in large part correct - it is lamentable that you don't apply this analysis to your own thought.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: axiom
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios
worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
On the philosophy side, please note that simply because an axiom (using definitions [1,2] - three is nonsensical in philosophy) is used to construct a theory or 'logical' structure, it is not necessarily prone to truth.
I could take as an axiom, "Objectivism makes sense," but that doesn't make it so - it just makes it an axiom. An unfortunate and mistaken one. If you understand Aristotle, then you should have some kind of inkling of why Objectivism, even as a practical philosophy (as opposed to a logically sound one) won't work.
It is capitalism that protects individuals from the irrational or destructive behavior of others.
Really? And automatic weapons manufacturers should be allowed to sell to anyone they please. Your statement is actually the most irritating, unfounded, ill-informed, rationally indefensible statement I have seen on Slashdot for a long, long time. (I read at 0, by the way.)
Please take a few moments of your time to check into a critical thinking class somewhere.
Aside from that, just tell me you're a troll.
I see your Eagle wagon and raise you one AMC Pacer hatchback with ...wait, that doesn't need elaboration. It's blue.
I'm not an expert, but consider this conjecture as a possibility: fps numbers in film don't mean the same thing as they do in video. In video, you're watching the combination of a horizontal and vertical refresh which proceeds in a uniform pattern across the screen (which is also backlit).
In film, you're dealing with an analogue medium - you see a certain number of frames per second, true - but there's no redraw. The individual images appear almost instantaneously, according to perception. That, combined with a visual style that is not controlled (and therefore foreseen) by the user, will allow a lower frame rate to be perceived as realistic. And there is no visible bit-depth... really smooth texture, color, everything: if nothing else, the psychological impact is enough to disguise the frame rate.
You haven't read much Marx. Communism could be characterized, in a 'pure' (meaning Marxist) form, as a distributed governmental system. The Internet may not be a communist idea, but as an allegorical model it's useful.
Well, you can't call them communists because they're capitalists. And a "horizontal management structure" still preserves the corporate heirarchy. On the other hand, the developmental heirarchy is definitely a more socialist construction - each contributes according to ability. It's just that the converse isn't true - each is not rewarded according to need (unless, maybe, you're looking at workstations).
"All people, no matter what financial status, have access."
You missed the point of this quote. "Access" to information is not equal or equivalent to being "in the know."
"Improvments in so-called "intellectual" property can be shared easily among many people without the interference of those in power who would profit by restraining new ideas."
::
Then why will people care to invent them? (...) People need some form of incentive besides a pat on the back.
(I removed the rest of that paragraph because it was nonsensical.) I think this statement can be rebuffed (or at least informed) by a cursory examination of the rest of the posts. Your assumptions are assumptions, nothing more.
Beyond that, you missed the point again: that there is a free exchange of information, within context, unlimited by market-based interference. It's like being in a research institution without the politics or the money (which balances, AFAIC) - work on what you want, and take it in the best direction according to your judgement (and through forking or input, that of the community). I think, if you try, you might be able to see the parallel to socialism there, too.
As far as me being scared not likely. Without political power/office communists are just a small contingent of people from liberal arts programs in schools on the West coast. There is no way in hell that anyone like that will ever get power in my country (the United States). In fact one of the sures ways to kill a senate bill is to tack a rider onto it that claims that the communist party will be the only political party in the US.
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. (Merriam-Webster)
First- sentence2: you're wrong. No argument.
Second- sentence3: part one: don't make assumptions; part two: you're probably right. Let me explain why... Effectively, the idea behind communism was to raise the quality of life level for everyone to the same point, above the previous average. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm comparing a concept and an existing condition here - but there hasn't been a single instance of practiced, national communism that actually deserved the name.) Democracy as practiced in the US preserves the average very effectively. Majority rule in an uninformed and reactionary population is a conservative approach that tends towards mediocrity and 'known evils'. Sure - no way in the immediate future will we be able to consider a third political party as anything but a protest vote. Here's to optimism, though.
Last sentence: I don't know if it's true, but I'll take your word for it. Why? This is the country that harbored and nurtured McCarthyism. Is this a point of pride with you? Do I need to say anything more?
Furthermore, concerning the rest of your post, there was no threat of "real harm" in the original post. None at all, not even implicit. You interpreted it that way because you are an uninformed, reactionary bigot - and this is not a reactionary statement, as you've demonstrated quite enough of your knowledge and willingness to learn. As for your statement that there is no chance for communism to actually work, I again state that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to pretend you may, and you can do it in a public forum, but please remember that you expose your mind as soon as you start typing. Try to do this wisely. Others would appreciate it.
Every act of cooperation and assistance is not a communist idea. True enough. Every time someone says, "hey, this sort of resembles communism, which I like," it's not necessarily the raving of a lunatic. But... every communist idea should be an act of cooperation and assistance.
Thanks for your time.
Ok... enough of this stuff. The idea of taking The Golden Mean when faced with a range of choices dates (in 'published' form) from Aristotle, who expounded at great length on this concept and its validation as a method.
(Yes, this counts as "a long time ago.")
The Golden Mean was developed from the Socratic dialectic , a concept which is probably more useful.
I have a few friends (independent filmmakers) who use AVID, and while the results are incredible and the power seems to be there, at least until recently there's been one major problem: not all AVIDs can exchange data with each other. I'm uninformed, yes, but look into this if you're considering buying one and may need to edit your work on a different machine at some point.
One of their projects was set back about a month and a half because the data wasn't readable by a machine they thought they'd be able to use.
Read The Article!
He is discussing the honeypot idea as a way to learn about the existing vulnerabilities in his production systems. The article has nearly nothing to do with any kind of legal action. He wants to make his production systems more secure, so he's basically allowing others to analyze the security of his real systems without putting them in danger.
The only legal issue is whether his honeypot can be used to exploit external systems.
Whew. Glad you included that second point... will try not comment on the first (unsuccessfully, i'm sure.)
uh, just for some perspective, let's not forget that their "various stupid ideas" are in many cases a combination of their ideas and the ideas of those who colonized them, which judging by the tone of your post, could probably be called "our stupid ideas." your solution (a) to Africa's problems (which are in general highly variable by locality) is refuted well by historical data. i'm not saying nothing's changed since the dutch and the french and the english decided they could "help" (and turn a tidy profit too), not to mention the various missonary groups (jesuits, etc.), but i'd hold off on the idea that someone else could solve 'their' problems better than they can. help, yes. solve, no. no way... just more confusion - the 'fix' needs to be internal.
it also needs to avoid the influx of 'our' stupid ideas, which include (for example) the british trying to convince the people living in the area that has become kenya that terracing crops was a good idea, the only way to go to get high enough food production. part of kenyatta's rise to power was based on the (overwhelming, inarguably correct) assertion that the land could not support terraced crops and that 'native' agriculture was the way it was for a very good reason.
now, just to be on-topic, it would be interesting to do a little historical analysis of the 'net in the same way as physical space (ie africa, northern ireland, whatever) is analyzed - no, scratch that. way too easy to manipulate towards an end.
I agree that a technical solution to this particular problem is probably going to be a long time coming, in development and especially in wide implementation.
But... As I see it, the problem is not so much within the "computer community" of IT professionals (whatever) and educated users, it's the problem of the network - everybody. Uneducated users, especially those that like powerful toys, are the ones that need attention. It's wrong to simply prosecute people for being ignorant of systems they were told 'would make them work better, faster,' etc. Marketing is reality for many people, and we're even farther from changing that than we are from a magic bullet for DDoS attacks.
How about a sort of 'three-strikes' (ugh) style warning program, combined with a mandatory educational element? When your box is implicated as an accessory to a DDoS (or other remote) attack, you are informed, and immediately sent some material on why you need good, working security. If it happens multiple times, then you are liable for damages, because it is a clear case of negligence. Maybe the FBI could do this, since they want to get involved .
Wait, there has to be a better way. I'm sorry.
One option is to take a taxi from the airport to the Providence MBTA station, and take the train into Boston. This may be significantly cheaper than renting a car (and also possible for those under the age of 25) - you also avoid driving on I-95. check http://www.mbta.com for the cost of that train ticket... I can't help on the cab fare.
Yes, 'we' (USA - woo!) are the ones with the 'smart' weapons. This is my point. For all those who have been trying to figure out a way to resolve their regional (armed) conflicts regionally (and not peacefully), here's something to work on. 'They' don't have the disadvantage being discussed here. 'Their' portable surface-to-air missile launchers are not remotely managed.
Back to your first point, now that we've laid some groundwork. The US / NATO have the 'smart' weapons. Fine. So what? Cheers to all those who don't. Now those on the receiving end can get out their commercially available toys and do their best to switch the friendly/foe signifiers or whatnot and have the F-18's attacking them suddenly abort their missions, due to Jet_1's missiles heading suddenly and inexplicably (at the moment) towards Jet_2.
One hope for where this could go, if the beloved Pentagon can't close those security holes - and they begin to be exploited?
Maybe we could get some real diplomacy.
Probably not.
C. one could trick the Friend Or Foe signal data so that friendlies appear to be hostiles.
If that's not useful on a military level, I don't know what. You wouldn't even need any artillery if you could have your enemy's 'smart' weapons chase them home...
IBM is a rival to Microsoft because it has the resources (hardware manufacturing and development, massive internal software development capabilities, etc.) and the motivation (no explanation needed) to both push its own hardware and to push linux (or any other OS) on that hardware. IBM's business strategy of late looks a lot like this - make your competitors work for you. IBM wants to make a profit from Win2k. IBM can make more profit and better mindshare from linux. (They can also offer better systems that way, and that's good for the reputation.) They not only have their big in-house development staff to work with, they have the entire linux community too.
Linux is what IBM was looking for when they were trying to sell OS2, from a business standpoint. It's arguable that what killed OS2 was its compatibility with Windows - why develop ports for OS2 when you can just write the code once and have it run both ways? Lotus developed for OS2. Anyone else? Many, many people are developing for Linux... (That, and a statistically respectable number of people within IBM use linux as their primary OS - I saw a pie chart a couple months ago.)
Their real rivals are the Dells and the Gateways.
Not really - IBM just figured out that it is SO big, and has so much R&D, entrenched market share, etc., etc., that the best bet is to do what no one else really can: attack the entire market, broadside. Software, hardware, and above all, services - all on as many fronts as possible. Who can keep up with that? They can influence the hardware and software markets by porting to Linux. They can influence Linux development by the same token, and popularize it on their hardware by supporting it and using it within their "solutions."
IBM is the only Huge player that can play all these games at once, and it's a miracle for their bottom line that they've figured it out. It's a little frightening, actually. Whether this will be Good for Open Source tm remains to be seen.
Disclaimer- I work at IBM. Nothing I say is at all official or quoteable, probably has nothing to do with company position, or is even remotely related to what I do. I'm a temp. Whee.
terminatorX is mmm-mmm good!
I'd love to see that pile of slick grow into a live performance trend.
(does wav, au, mp3...)