For one who is so well versed in the arguments for and against the existence of god, I am sad to see that you have next to no knowledge of the Christian theology you bad mouth with such vigor. This fact implies something even more troubling, the idea that you knowledge of the arguments for God, are only for the purpose of discrediting them. If you reason from such a biased position, no doubt you will find the answer you are searching for.
For example do you honestly think the only reason a Christian behaves himself is out of fear? All to often atheism is just as intellectually dishonest as some Christians can be. That doesn't mean that every Christian is that foolish. That argument is really intellectually dishonest. You are making the mistake of judging the argument based on the person.
Atheism by it nature, is no more, and no less dependent on faith the Christianity or Islam. To hold otherwise is to deceive yourself.
Best regards,
Nate Custer
P.S. for a more well reasoned argument read Does God Exist, by Hans Kung. As both the chief theological advisor for Vatican II, and an author with books on the Vatican's non grata list, he is a qualified and a open minded author.
"If you would rather eliminate all of your uncertainties by simply attributing them to 'God', then that's your choice, but I would rather truly know"
I would remind you of Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are things that are true, that can never be proven true, except if all truth is known. Since all truth is not known you will never be able to remove all uncertainty.
"The use of 'God' to explain everything we don't understand is repugnant to me."
Please, you thrust around intellectual purity like a badge of honor. Yet you don't act with it in the slightest. Prove god doesn't exist. If you can't, don't pretend you can. It is just as mindless to assume God doesn't exist, as it is to assume he does.
First, You mistaken in your idea that books differs MP3s because you don't have to pay for the media with books, while you don't with MP3s. As you yourself state, "all you need is diskspace", you pay for that don't you? Paper costs next to nothing as does disk space, but that does not mean they are without cost.
That being said, you make another statement that is more disturbing because it is not a simple mental skip. You state "For it [the current copyright system] does work very well to protect intellectual rights" Do you really think this? It works well right now?
The Grateful Dead made cash, they allowed free bootlegging and for fans to trade these audio files and with only one top ten single they were fine. The majority of copyright law is based on Lockeian property law. That just doesn't apply in the digital age.
If you want to extend the overall goals of current patent law that is one thing, but the implementation is a very different sector.
When I first read your post I was a confused, code is protected under copyright law right? So I emailed my local IP layer, my dad's girlfriend and asked her to explain this idea. She did help some.
Let me see if I can relate her explanation, it makes does make some sense. As the OSS guys love to say there is a difference, between source code and binaries. Source code tells how to do something, it explains it in detail, but it does not actually do anything. Binaries tell the computer exactly what to do, but not how to do it. In this difference lies the contradiction. when you tell a person how to break into a bank, that is free speech, when you give him a tool whose *specific intent* and *sole purpose* is to break into that same bank, that is criminal.
This is where the break may happen logically (Albeit weak logic), However this does not apply to DeCSS, it is source code not binaries. That makes this post just a touch off topic. Yet, as the question was raised it does deserve an answer.
No! CSS is not about piracy it is simply about the ability to play DVD's. All the CSS code allows you to do is play a DVD without using a player that MPAA has licensed.
A raw bit copy of a DVD with a DVD-R drive will pirate a DVD with no problems you don't need the CSS code to do that.
So why does MPAA want to correct it, they want a monopoly on the players. That is what they are trying to protect. Can you blame them for that? I think so.
" I'm rather curious - what part of Kafka's The Trial did you see as being sci-fi exactly?"
I guess the fact, that it deals with a totalitarian state. And if it has that it must be Sci Fi, right? Yeah, well here is a clue Plato's republic discusses a totalitarian state to, no one calls that Sci Fi.
That being said, it is a great book, well worth a read, even for a 13 year old. Boy I can't wait to see the class discussion from the kid after that.
"Well let me see if I can explain this, you see he doesn't know his crime, no one will tell him"
"Timmy, I you have said this, no one is buying it, just admit you did not do read the book. If you do I will give you a D"
"But I did read the book, I am telling the truth!"
"That's it Timmy, you fail because you lied to me."
"Rather like giving Shakespear to 7th graders, it does nothing but turn them off to it forever."
Hey I read Henry V at 13, it was great. I still remember it: "We few, we merry few, we band of brothers.." It is the best speech Shakespeare wrote.
Maybe the reason many 7th graders can't read Shakespeare is because they don't. (I know that is a tautology) If you are convinced any book is too hard you can't, even if it is Dr. Sues. Let your kid try, Verne he writes good work. If he can't he will stop, but if he can that is great.
I am a huge C.S. Lewis fan. However, if you are going to list it as Sci Fi (Would you call Narnia, a child's book? Or the Great Divorce Fantasy?), list the whole series Paralandra etc.
That being said, I really must read the entire Dune series to the list as well. I read at 13, and I loved it. 6 books in 6 days.
For example would you ban the SAT.org? It clearly "advocates", hell it helps, "the forced separation" (try to get into Harvard with a 400 on the SAT, please) of a group "based on... mental prowess". If you want the feature to turn off hate sites - do that. Go to a human based web site search engine, like Yahoo and ask them. Let the "community standard" (standard used in obscenity cases be applied. If you don't trust the community, you can't trust the standard. You trust Yahoo's definitions now why stop.
In the.xxx point I think you are right, however. Porn can easily be defined under law. It already is. I would be all in favor of it.
Lastly, I would remind you that you made the choice to come on the Internet, and that is where your choice resides.
Honestly, if by education you could say reduce the amount of racists by 70%, you would be against it. There is never a silver bullet, but the more we limit the damage, both by educating those who hate and everyone else about those who do. One cannot argue with that I hope, whatever you position may be.
You correctly noted that sometime it is reliant on faith. I think this is rarely the case often it is motivated by other fears, and faith is simply something to be synthesized into the mind as rationalization.
If true faith is involved the challenge is much simpler. If god is omnipotent he must be perfect; If god is perfect he must be true; If he is true you should search for truth also, since man should strive for perfection. Lastly, irrationality is the exact opposite of someone searching for truth, as is ignorance. If you are ignorant you are doing the wrong thing, Faith tells you so. (Plato on Divine Form)
Once the foundation of their argument has crumbled your only roadblock has been removed, unless their position is correct (I am not saying it is, so not flame), in which the argument ought to be reversed on you.
No, part of the problem is the fact you see the ground moving. Often those, for example, who get sick reading in a car. The problem they have is their peripheral vision moving while they must keep their central focus on a fixed point the book, that is difficult for many. This product however cool could not fix that problem.
That being said, I really want one of these for quake.
A very insightful critique. To play devils advocate (I know bad pun) for a second, Microsoft would respond:
"Well IE is a very important program. It is so useful that we have chosen to integrate it with Win 98 so that we can leverage this brilliant code in all the places we possibly can. As for your comment that you can get IE for Mac IE for x86 is separate from IE for Solaris or IE for the Mac so it has no relevance in this discussion."
I am not saying this is a good argument, simply it is the best I can write for Microsoft.
Here is a quick summary (edited from the table of contents):
I. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove an Unlawful Tying Arrangement in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
__A. Windows 98 Is a Single, Integrated Product
__B. No OEM Has Been Forced To Purchase a Second Distinct Product
__C. The Alleged Tie Does Not Foreclose a Substantial Amount of Sales of the Tied Product
II. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Entered into Unlawful Exclusive Dealing Agreements in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
__A. Plaintiffs Failed To Establish the Requisite Degree of Foreclosure
____1. This Court Has Already Determined the Standard Applicable to Plaintiffs' Exclusive Dealing Claims
____2. The Challenged Agreements Did Not Foreclose Netscape's Access to Users of Web Browsing Software
__B. The Challenged Agreements Did Not Have the Required Anticompetitive Effect
III. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft's OEM License Agreements Constituted an Unlawful Restraint of Trade in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
__A. The Challenged Provisions of Microsoft's OEM License Agreements Simply Restate Microsoft's Rights, as the Holder of Valid Copyrights, To Preserve the Integrity of Its Copyrighted Works
__B. The Challenged Provisions of Microsoft's OEM License Agreements Do Not Unduly Restrict the Opportunities of Competitors
IV. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Unlawfully Attempted To Monopolize the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
__A. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Acted with a Specific Intent To Obtain Monopoly Power in the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software
__B. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That There Is a Dangerous Probability That Microsoft Will Achieve Monopoly Power in the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software
V. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Unlawfully Maintained a Monopoly in "Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems" in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
__A. Microsoft Does Not Possess "Monopoly Power" in a Properly Defined Product Market
____1. The Relevant Product Market in This Case Is Not Restricted to "Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems".
____2. Microsoft Does Not Have the Power To Control Prices or Exclude Competition in the Relevant Market.
__B. Microsoft Did Not Engage in Anticompetitive Conduct That Contributed Significantly to the Maintenance of a Monopoly.
____1. The Integration of Internet Explorer and Windows Was Procompetitive--Not Anticompetitive--Because It Resulted in an Improvement to the Operating System.
____2. Microsoft's Agreements with OEMs, OLSs, ISPs, ICPs and ISVs Were Not Anticompetitive Because They Did Not Result in Substantial Foreclosure.
____3. Microsoft Had No Duty To Predisclose Information about Windows 95 to Netscape Before the Release of the Product.
____4. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove Predatory Pricing.
____5. Plaintiffs Concede That the Remainder of the Alleged Anticompetitve Acts Came to Naught.
__C. Plaintiffs Cannot Make Up for the Shortcomings in Their Monopoly Maintenance Claim by Arguing That "Everything Should Be Taken Together".
____1. Plaintiffs' Claims Should Be Separately Considered in the Context of the Evidence as a Whole.
____2. Plaintiffs Failed To Establish the Requisite Causal Connection Between the Allegedly Anticompetitive Acts and the Maintenance of the Alleged Monopoly.
Hey, if you were them could you write an argument that Microsoft was not a monopoly?
Of course not. Legalese and hair splitting take time. Bending the truth can be done on the spot, be to turn it on its ear takes some time. I especially like the idea that IE is an integral part of 98. It is just as integral to 98 as KDE is to Linux, useful, helpful, nice sometimes. But not required, and definitely not a single product.
I have not had enough experience with the Dreamcast to comment on it. However, I can explain a bit about why I like the N64 controller so much. You hit on, IMHO, the best feature in your complaints. The three legged controller allows the user to customize his own interface a lot more than it contemporaries (i.e. the PS and Saturn). For example in Quake you could have one hand on the joystick and the other on the buttons, or I could have the joystick control my movement, and my pad control my aiming and have much more control.
In any case the pad adapts to me, not me to the pad. That is how UI ought to be.
Nate Custer
Re:but what was he planning on using it for?
on
Linux Port for N64?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe I am not remebering it right, but isn't one of the advatages of OSS that you work on whatever you want? If he finds it fun he should do it.
That being said, assuming he is a good programer, yes you are right.
Thanks much, time to talk to my IP lawyer, I mean Stepmom and get her ruling on it.
Nate Custer
Re:but what was he planning on using it for?
on
Linux Port for N64?
·
· Score: 1
Can you say Beowulf cluster? At $60 a pop you could be doing some cool stuff, at a very cheap price.
Besides the point isn't the use of it, but that it is being done. Whatever happened to using technology for the fun of it? That being said, if this could be applied to say an X-Box (when if comes out) 500 MHz RISC that for $300 kick ass.
Why do you want a keyboard for the N64, if it interfaces with the PC you don't need this. That being said can you imagine a N64 as a controller for your Linux box. The N64 controller is one of the best and most egonamic controller around. I would love to play Q3A with that.
Hey lets be fair here, the judicial system has made a couple of good rulings lately. But if you consider the number of rulings they have to make, and assume a heterozygous distribution of judicial idiocy. Combine it with an increasingly loud/. response to horrendous mistakes. And the increased need for judges to be reelected. Use a chi-square test and it is obvious, they are tossing us a bone. So don't be convinced they have changed yet. A moron can still get a couple right just by guessing.
Hey lets be fair here, the judicial system has made a couple of good rulings lately. But if you consider the number of rulings they have to make, and assume a heterozygous distribution of judicial idiocy. Combine it with an increasingly loud/. response to horrendous mistakes. And the increased need for judges to be reelected. Use a chi-square test and it is obvious, they are tossing us a bone. So don't be convinced they have changed yet. A moron can still get a couple right just by guessing.
I cited the wrong search engine. IBM R&D came up with a search engine that ranks sites by what sites link to them. It is discussed in SciAm. Then adds value to the sites that are linked from with high tier link scores. It repeats this iterative process many times and uses the highest ranking to recommend sites. It is very cool in that manner. I believe it is called Cleaver however I may be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
For one who is so well versed in the arguments for and against the existence of god, I am sad to see that you have next to no knowledge of the Christian theology you bad mouth with such vigor. This fact implies something even more troubling, the idea that you knowledge of the arguments for God, are only for the purpose of discrediting them. If you reason from such a biased position, no doubt you will find the answer you are searching for.
For example do you honestly think the only reason a Christian behaves himself is out of fear? All to often atheism is just as intellectually dishonest as some Christians can be. That doesn't mean that every Christian is that foolish. That argument is really intellectually dishonest. You are making the mistake of judging the argument based on the person.
Atheism by it nature, is no more, and no less dependent on faith the Christianity or Islam. To hold otherwise is to deceive yourself.
Best regards,
Nate Custer
P.S. for a more well reasoned argument read Does God Exist, by Hans Kung. As both the chief theological advisor for Vatican II, and an author with books on the Vatican's non grata list, he is a qualified and a open minded author.
"If you would rather eliminate all of your uncertainties by simply attributing them to 'God', then that's your choice, but I would rather truly know"
I would remind you of Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are things that are true, that can never be proven true, except if all truth is known. Since all truth is not known you will never be able to remove all uncertainty.
"The use of 'God' to explain everything we don't understand is repugnant to me."
Please, you thrust around intellectual purity like a badge of honor. Yet you don't act with it in the slightest. Prove god doesn't exist. If you can't, don't pretend you can. It is just as mindless to assume God doesn't exist, as it is to assume he does.
Nate Custer
First, You mistaken in your idea that books differs MP3s because you don't have to pay for the media with books, while you don't with MP3s. As you yourself state, "all you need is diskspace", you pay for that don't you? Paper costs next to nothing as does disk space, but that does not mean they are without cost.
That being said, you make another statement that is more disturbing because it is not a simple mental skip. You state "For it [the current copyright system] does work very well to protect intellectual rights" Do you really think this? It works well right now?
The Grateful Dead made cash, they allowed free bootlegging and for fans to trade these audio files and with only one top ten single they were fine. The majority of copyright law is based on Lockeian property law. That just doesn't apply in the digital age.
If you want to extend the overall goals of current patent law that is one thing, but the implementation is a very different sector.
Nate Custer
When I first read your post I was a confused, code is protected under copyright law right? So I emailed my local IP layer, my dad's girlfriend and asked her to explain this idea. She did help some.
Let me see if I can relate her explanation, it makes does make some sense. As the OSS guys love to say there is a difference, between source code and binaries. Source code tells how to do something, it explains it in detail, but it does not actually do anything. Binaries tell the computer exactly what to do, but not how to do it. In this difference lies the contradiction. when you tell a person how to break into a bank, that is free speech, when you give him a tool whose *specific intent* and *sole purpose* is to break into that same bank, that is criminal.
This is where the break may happen logically (Albeit weak logic), However this does not apply to DeCSS, it is source code not binaries. That makes this post just a touch off topic. Yet, as the question was raised it does deserve an answer.
But that's just my $.02.
Nate Custer
No! CSS is not about piracy it is simply about the ability to play DVD's. All the CSS code allows you to do is play a DVD without using a player that MPAA has licensed.
A raw bit copy of a DVD with a DVD-R drive will pirate a DVD with no problems you don't need the CSS code to do that.
So why does MPAA want to correct it, they want a monopoly on the players. That is what they are trying to protect. Can you blame them for that? I think so.
Nate Custer
"
I'm rather curious - what part of Kafka's The Trial did you see as being sci-fi exactly?"
I guess the fact, that it deals with a totalitarian state. And if it has that it must be Sci Fi, right? Yeah, well here is a clue Plato's republic discusses a totalitarian state to, no one calls that Sci Fi.
That being said, it is a great book, well worth a read, even for a 13 year old. Boy I can't wait to see the class discussion from the kid after that.
"Well let me see if I can explain this, you see he doesn't know his crime, no one will tell him"
"Timmy, I you have said this, no one is buying it, just admit you did not do read the book. If you do I will give you a D"
"But I did read the book, I am telling the truth!"
"That's it Timmy, you fail because you lied to me."
Give it to him for that alone.
Nate Custer
"Rather like giving Shakespear to 7th graders, it does nothing but turn them off to it forever."
.." It is the best speech Shakespeare wrote.
Hey I read Henry V at 13, it was great. I still remember it: "We few, we merry few, we band of brothers
Maybe the reason many 7th graders can't read Shakespeare is because they don't. (I know that is a tautology) If you are convinced any book is too hard you can't, even if it is Dr. Sues. Let your kid try, Verne he writes good work. If he can't he will stop, but if he can that is great.
Nate Custer
"Out of the Silent Planet"?
I am a huge C.S. Lewis fan. However, if you are going to list it as Sci Fi (Would you call Narnia, a child's book? Or the Great Divorce Fantasy?), list the whole series Paralandra etc.
That being said, I really must read the entire Dune series to the list as well. I read at 13, and I loved it. 6 books in 6 days.
Nate Custer
For example would you ban the SAT.org? It clearly "advocates", hell it helps, "the forced separation" (try to get into Harvard with a 400 on the SAT, please) of a group "based on ... mental prowess". If you want the feature to turn off hate sites - do that. Go to a human based web site search engine, like Yahoo and ask them. Let the "community standard" (standard used in obscenity cases be applied. If you don't trust the community, you can't trust the standard. You trust Yahoo's definitions now why stop.
.xxx point I think you are right, however. Porn can easily be defined under law. It already is. I would be all in favor of it.
In the
Lastly, I would remind you that you made the choice to come on the Internet, and that is where your choice resides.
Nate Custer
Honestly, if by education you could say reduce the amount of racists by 70%, you would be against it. There is never a silver bullet, but the more we limit the damage, both by educating those who hate and everyone else about those who do. One cannot argue with that I hope, whatever you position may be.
You correctly noted that sometime it is reliant on faith. I think this is rarely the case often it is motivated by other fears, and faith is simply something to be synthesized into the mind as rationalization.
If true faith is involved the challenge is much simpler. If god is omnipotent he must be perfect; If god is perfect he must be true; If he is true you should search for truth also, since man should strive for perfection. Lastly, irrationality is the exact opposite of someone searching for truth, as is ignorance. If you are ignorant you are doing the wrong thing, Faith tells you so. (Plato on Divine Form)
Once the foundation of their argument has crumbled your only roadblock has been removed, unless their position is correct (I am not saying it is, so not flame), in which the argument ought to be reversed on you.
That is the real solution.
Nate Custer
No, part of the problem is the fact you see the ground moving. Often those, for example, who get sick reading in a car. The problem they have is their peripheral vision moving while they must keep their central focus on a fixed point the book, that is difficult for many. This product however cool could not fix that problem.
That being said, I really want one of these for quake.
Nate Custer
But what can they pull themselves out of the hole with? They don't have any facts so they are trying to dazzle the judge with BS.
Nate Custer
A very insightful critique. To play devils advocate (I know bad pun) for a second, Microsoft would respond:
"Well IE is a very important program. It is so useful that we have chosen to integrate it with Win 98 so that we can leverage this brilliant code in all the places we possibly can. As for your comment that you can get IE for Mac IE for x86 is separate from IE for Solaris or IE for the Mac so it has no relevance in this discussion."
I am not saying this is a good argument, simply it is the best I can write for Microsoft.
Nate Custer
Here is a quick summary (edited from the table of contents):
I. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove an Unlawful Tying Arrangement in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
__A. Windows 98 Is a Single, Integrated Product
__B. No OEM Has Been Forced To Purchase a Second Distinct Product
__C. The Alleged Tie Does Not Foreclose a Substantial Amount of Sales of the Tied Product
II. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Entered into Unlawful Exclusive Dealing Agreements in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
__A. Plaintiffs Failed To Establish the Requisite Degree of Foreclosure
____1. This Court Has Already Determined the Standard Applicable to Plaintiffs' Exclusive Dealing Claims
____2. The Challenged Agreements Did Not Foreclose Netscape's Access to Users of Web Browsing Software
__B. The Challenged Agreements Did Not Have the Required Anticompetitive Effect
III. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft's OEM License Agreements Constituted an Unlawful Restraint of Trade in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
__A. The Challenged Provisions of Microsoft's OEM License Agreements Simply Restate Microsoft's Rights, as the Holder of Valid Copyrights, To Preserve the Integrity of Its Copyrighted Works
__B. The Challenged Provisions of Microsoft's OEM License Agreements Do Not Unduly Restrict the Opportunities of Competitors
IV. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Unlawfully Attempted To Monopolize the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
__A. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Acted with a Specific Intent To Obtain Monopoly Power in the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software
__B. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That There Is a Dangerous Probability That Microsoft Will Achieve Monopoly Power in the Alleged Market for Web Browsing Software
V. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove That Microsoft Unlawfully Maintained a Monopoly in "Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems" in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
__A. Microsoft Does Not Possess "Monopoly Power" in a Properly Defined Product Market
____1. The Relevant Product Market in This Case Is Not Restricted to "Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems".
____2. Microsoft Does Not Have the Power To Control Prices or Exclude Competition in the Relevant Market.
__B. Microsoft Did Not Engage in Anticompetitive Conduct That Contributed Significantly to the Maintenance of a Monopoly.
____1. The Integration of Internet Explorer and Windows Was Procompetitive--Not Anticompetitive--Because It Resulted in an Improvement to the Operating System.
____2. Microsoft's Agreements with OEMs, OLSs, ISPs, ICPs and ISVs Were Not Anticompetitive Because They Did Not Result in Substantial Foreclosure.
____3. Microsoft Had No Duty To Predisclose Information about Windows 95 to Netscape Before the Release of the Product.
____4. Plaintiffs Failed To Prove Predatory Pricing.
____5. Plaintiffs Concede That the Remainder of the Alleged Anticompetitve Acts Came to Naught.
__C. Plaintiffs Cannot Make Up for the Shortcomings in Their Monopoly Maintenance Claim by Arguing That "Everything Should Be Taken Together".
____1. Plaintiffs' Claims Should Be Separately Considered in the Context of the Evidence as a Whole.
____2. Plaintiffs Failed To Establish the Requisite Causal Connection Between the Allegedly Anticompetitive Acts and the Maintenance of the Alleged Monopoly.
Hey, if you were them could you write an argument that Microsoft was not a monopoly?
Of course not. Legalese and hair splitting take time. Bending the truth can be done on the spot, be to turn it on its ear takes some time. I especially like the idea that IE is an integral part of 98. It is just as integral to 98 as KDE is to Linux, useful, helpful, nice sometimes. But not required, and definitely not a single product.
Nate Custer
I have not had enough experience with the Dreamcast to comment on it. However, I can explain a bit about why I like the N64 controller so much. You hit on, IMHO, the best feature in your complaints. The three legged controller allows the user to customize his own interface a lot more than it contemporaries (i.e. the PS and Saturn). For example in Quake you could have one hand on the joystick and the other on the buttons, or I could have the joystick control my movement, and my pad control my aiming and have much more control.
In any case the pad adapts to me, not me to the pad. That is how UI ought to be.
Nate Custer
Maybe I am not remebering it right, but isn't one of the advatages of OSS that you work on whatever you want? If he finds it fun he should do it.
That being said, assuming he is a good programer, yes you are right.
Nate Custer
What do you expect? At this hour of the night they are so desperate for news they will post anything.
Nate Custer
Thanks much, time to talk to my IP lawyer, I mean Stepmom and get her ruling on it.
Nate Custer
Can you say Beowulf cluster? At $60 a pop you could be doing some cool stuff, at a very cheap price.
Besides the point isn't the use of it, but that it is being done. Whatever happened to using technology for the fun of it? That being said, if this could be applied to say an X-Box (when if comes out) 500 MHz RISC that for $300 kick ass.
Nate Custer
Why do you want a keyboard for the N64, if it interfaces with the PC you don't need this. That being said can you imagine a N64 as a controller for your Linux box. The N64 controller is one of the best and most egonamic controller around. I would love to play Q3A with that.
Nate Custer.
Ignore this post GenCuster
Hey lets be fair here, the judicial system has made a couple of good rulings lately. But if you consider the number of rulings they have to make, and assume a heterozygous distribution of judicial idiocy. Combine it with an increasingly loud /. response to horrendous mistakes. And the increased need for judges to be reelected. Use a chi-square test and it is obvious, they are tossing us a bone. So don't be convinced they have changed yet. A moron can still get a couple right just by guessing.
Nate Custer
Hey lets be fair here, the judicial system has made a couple of good rulings lately. But if you consider the number of rulings they have to make, and assume a heterozygous distribution of judicial idiocy. Combine it with an increasingly loud /. response to horrendous mistakes. And the increased need for judges to be reelected. Use a chi-square test and it is obvious, they are tossing us a bone. So don't be convinced they have changed yet. A moron can still get a couple right just by guessing.
Nate Custer
I cited the wrong search engine. IBM R&D came up with a search engine that ranks sites by what sites link to them. It is discussed in SciAm. Then adds value to the sites that are linked from with high tier link scores. It repeats this iterative process many times and uses the highest ranking to recommend sites. It is very cool in that manner. I believe it is called Cleaver however I may be wrong.
Sorry Again,
Nate Custer