But I remained fixated on the idea that there is no Regulon in the
Semiosphere, no natural barrier to the endless flow and reproduction of
electronic information. We have no way to keep CNN, weatherman,
flamers, spammers, Web site designers, e-do gooders and nit-picking
coders, pundits, zealots, smart-asses and grumps in check. Each is
breeding information and media. We can't stem or steer the natural
proliferation of movies, TV shows, books, songs, poems, pitches, spins,
videogames, junk mail, ads, Washington talk shows and radio hosts.
I am serious:
Turn off the computer.
Turn off the TV.
Turn off the radio.
Turn off the cell phone.
There, you're the "Regulon". Isn't free will marvelous?
Oh wait: you had these things on because you liked them! Well, then there isn't a problem, is there?
Regarding the proposal to create a bacterium, I just have to ask: what ethical issue is there? Or more clearly, what is there about synthesizing a bacterium that raises any new ethical issues?
"Creating life?" Where, specifically, is the ethical issue? Why is it any different to line up some bacterial genes in a cell than, say, inject a cell with a nucleus that is created from living animals? That's how cloning works. And that's how some fertility treatments work, too. And how is synthesizing a genome significantly different than randomly cutting out bits and/or adding them? We can do this now, too, and it is done routinely to bacteria to see how they work.
"Will it be a horrid monster capable of destroying humanity?" Answer: no. But in any case, this issue is already present: biological weapons. We are already routinely deploying biological weapons, not to mentions other weapons of mass destruction. Even if it is ethically wrong to do so, then the ethical issue is about imposing risks on others, not engineering. And we have dealt with this: imposing danger on others is OK up to a certain level, and practically speaking "national security" seems to justify a very high level.
"It is OK to kill it?" Answer: yes. We kill off entire species every day, no sweat. And indeed, some are almost certainly better off dead: consider smallpox.
It started in England. Liberal Democratic capitalism: government strong enough to ensure the smooth operation of the market, but not so strong as to dominate the people and lead to tyranny and thence the destruction of the market and capitalism. This system is phenomenally productive.
However, there is a catch: nearby agrarian societies get the products of capitalism, including those which alter the demographics of the society: medicine. Their death rate plunges. Suddenly, all the children they were having just to ensure two or three live to adulthood survive. Suddenly the adults are not dying from tooth infections. The agrarian society swells drastically beyond its carrying capacity.
All these "extra" people must do something. Some of them emigrate, either to unfilled land (i.e. America circa 1800), or into the liberal capitalist society, where labor is highly rewarded due to all the capital accumulating there. However, many more stay, leading to overpopulation: the incredible misery as labor prices drop below sustenance. Liberal memes from the capitalist society infiltrate the population. The combination is volatile. Revolution happens, replacing the old order with liberal democracy.
Thus, the process of modernization spreads along the trade routes, sweeping from society to society as they each modernize in turn. First England, then the UK, then the continental powers... each time causing mass displacement, war, struggle, and masses of people yearning to be free coming to America. (English, Scots, Welshmen, then Germans, Dutch, and Frenchmen.) Then the same thing here, in the eastern cities, leading to further masses of population pushing west. And the flame burning into the middle of Europe as the 19th century wore on. Russia, Italy, Hungary, poland, etc. -- and those are the immigrants to America at the start of this century.
Then a big pause, as the world experimented with new types of government made possibly by the bounty of capitalism: communism and fascism. Wars results, but the productivity of the liberal democracies prevail. And even then, societies at the edge of the conflict ignite: the Asian tigers.
1999: transportation and communication have improved so much that the entire world is touching the flame. And they are changing, being changed. Again, the modern immigrants to America fit the pattern: Hispanics and Asians. Soon, these places too will join the "west".
Finally, in the next 50 years or so, the last places will burn: Africa mainly. And we will see massive African immigration then.
Now what is the consequence of this dynamic? One is a continual entry of unskilled labor into the global labor pool. As capitalism takes over societies, they start at the bottom. But prices also equalize, as emigrants move to the places with higher labor prices. Thus, the price of unskilled labor will remain low until the last traditional society is destroyed and absorbed.
What is the correlary of that? If you want your children to enjoy the same standard of living as you have, they have to achieve very significant education. Skilled western workers are capital intensive. That is why we have so few: they are expensive. All societies have socialized part of the cost of raising children, but not a significantly large portion so that people are having children as freely as they might like.
Note, though, that as the final traditional societies get snuffed in the next 50 years, an interesting thing will happen: labor prices will rise across the board, skilled and unskilled. When that happens, societies which encourage women to produce children will gradually outcompete those that do not. And that will mean that in the long run, the human race will keep growing. Of course, there may well be an adjustment for back to a billion or two pop before the equilibrium is reached.
Any projection based on trend lines like those in this article fail to take into account that people are intelligent and respond to changes in their circumstances with changes in their memes, at the level of individuals, groups, and even whole societies.
-Leonard
Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."
how much of an impact do you think Linux would have made as a non-open source operating system?
... Would the open source movement even be that big without Linux backing it up?
Linux would be nothing had it not been open source. There was a huge gaping hole at the time Linus hacked up the first kernel; all those lovely GNU tools, basically an entire system were out there. The last thing needed for a fully functional system was the OS. FSF had thrown its chips down on the Hurd, which was (with 20/20 hindsight) a mistake -- it was too big of a project all at once. A reimplemented, free Unix was going to win. Linux happened to be there first, and surfed that wave. But if Linux had not, some other *n*x would have. BSD, certainly, if nothing earlier had erupted. But perhaps there was some other Linus-like geek back then hacking up a little free Unix that was just behind Linus and abandoned his when Linus released Linux.
As to where the open source movement would be... its position would be little or no different. The same itches would have itched geeks in the ensuing years, and they would have scratched the same way. Albeit on top of BSD or whatever.
History is full of innovations that are made at almost the same time by two or more inventors. A free operating system, in this analysis, is no different than many other innovations in the past.
Slashdot is its own special interest group, with no particular claim on the truth.
This is true, but it is hardly a "fatal" flaw. All it means is that/. readers, like other people, are human. Or do you think that there is some group out there somewhere with a valid claim on the Truth? Who?
Given that we are all humans, the only way we have to get at the truth is in the use of social processes that seem to have a good track record in producing the truth with few errors. And we have one in hand: peer review. (Science is another, but it doesn't really apply here; the topic being journalism.) Further, there is a new social organization for truth production here on/. that may or may not stand the test of time, but which is certainly interesting: metareview; the reviewing of the reviews (by moderation) and even the reviewing of the reviewing of the reviews (metamoderation). This is something new under the sun, as it allows the expertise to self-organize.
As to the libertarian orientation of/.: so what? Any group is going to have political orientations that don't necessarily pertain to its primary focus. Ours is tech; I am not surprised at all to see libertarians disproportionate readers. But is this a problem? Or is it rather an opportunity?
I suggest two thoughts in response. First, perhaps the fact that the "best" techies (as determined by/.) are libertarian in flavor is an indication that there is more to their ideas than you think. After all, people that are right about one thing are often right about others. That's why people rightly or wrongly like to know what scientists, authors, and even artists think about social issues.
Second, if it really is a problem, then there is room for a competing left-wing version of/.; let's call it dotbackslash (leaning left, ya know.) Slashdot is not mandatory, and if the.\ers can produce better results in terms of interesting coverage of tech, then techies will go there instead. Indeed, there is not even really a reason why there is a need to compete with/. in terms of stories. Consider this: you start.\ running Taco's code. Same look and feel. You pick the same set of stories that run here, of course writing your own summary/comments to lead them. Eh? Surely that is a possibility? So left-wing techies who nonetheless want the/. experience can just come to your site and be sure to stay up with their libertarian brethren, but they need not read the libertarian drivel that you object to. Instead they can post their own left-wing drivel in response to the stories, and the community forming on.\ would moderate up the lefties and squelch the libs.
Where would I be without my imperfections? I would be another boring person slogging away through this world, not standing out from the herd.
I hate to be a spoiler here, but we humans (at least those in rich western nations) are already in the business of correcting our imperfections.
Where would I be with my imperfections?
I would be unable to drive, unable to work almost, very limited in what I can do. I am both nearsighted and astigmatic. Both conditions corrected since the age of 4 or so, via glass then plastic lenses that were engineered for me by the optical technicians my parents and I hired.
I would have severe dental problems, from crooked teeth to lost teeth, gum infections, etc. Instead, my teeth have been maintained constantly from an early age by dental technicians my parents and I hired.
I would be dead, most likely, from a burst appendix at the age of 15. My parents hired a surgeon to intervene and remove the damn thing before it could get me.
Get a grip, people. Genetic engineering is a big step, yes, but engineering our bodies is nothing new. We do it all the time right now. At least, we rich westerners do... and you know what? We feel good about it! In fact, we have come to the point in most western countries where medical care, dental care, and vision correction are not even seen as luxuries, but rather, rights. (Again, for citizens only -- poor Mexicans don't have rights, do they? At least, not as good as our rights. At least, not it if means that I have to pay anything.)
So, for those that want to be worried about genetic engineering: don't worry about whether or not it will happen -- it will, because we will want it desperately. Worry about the social effect that that desire will have. Such as, say, rounding up all the Mexicans, aetheists, drug-users, geeks, red-heads and other undesirables that are leeching on our God-given rights, and sending them back to where they belong. Don't think it can't happen here.
You have the right of free association. I assume the contract you signed with the ISP allowed you to terminate it. So that is the first option.
Your ISP has the right of free association. If they want to kick off the accounts with porn, and did not contract not to do so with the relevant individuals, that would be one solution. Another would be to kick you off! I doubt either solution is possible, though, contractually. That is in large part what the contracts were for.
You have the right to cease association with your headhunter, assuming again you did not contract away that right. There are lots of headhunters in the world. Trust me. Get one which trusts its employees; I hardly see that as a great strain on you.
Cyber Patrol has the right to block your ISP's address. They have the right to block whoever they want. They could block just you, simply because they don't like your eye color. Tough luck, isn't it? Freedom is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to make mistakes, or to do the wrong thing.
If you signed a contract with your ISP requiring them to make sure your pages are visible even past Cyber Patrol, then you should feel free to sue. Otherwise, caveat emptor. Somehow I doubt such a clause will be there. It is not possible that they can guarantee that everybody, everywhere can see your pages at all times. Since they control the last of those, they may make some guarantee about it. But they would be fools to guarantee the others, since those are outside their control.
Bottom line here: you are suffering just the slightest amount from unfair discrimination, based on your second-hand association with some porn sites. Not very nice, but that is one of the prices you pay for freedom. Perhaps you might consider how lucky you are, if that is the worst discrimination you have ever faced. Some people face discrimination more hurtful than your little problem every day of their lives.
I disagree with those decrying this decision. If it is was it appears to be, the propertarization of domain names, it is a good thing. The trademark issue is not relevant; read the article. It merely states that given a trademark dispute which had already been judged, and a plaintiff awarded damages, that said damages could include the seizure of domain names as property. So, property is the issue; specifically, should domain names be treated as property or not?
Generally, things which can only be sensibly used exclusively are best treated legally as property. Ownership of a thing means that the owner will reap the full fruits of developing it, and thus, has the correct incentive to develop as fully as is economic. For example, if you want to build a house, you buy the property where you are going to build first. Otherwise, you are just going to hand a nice house over to whoever you lease the property from.
The same applies to domain names. The one obvious reason to want to own is so that all the hard work you put into a site is not lost when the "landlord", noticing that you have improved the place, kicks you out. Of course, it is possible to write a lease with renewal clauses for this reason. Owning a domain name differs from renting it from the government, in two main ways.
First, it means that your domain cannot be taken from you without due process, etc. Perhaps the two year fee will remain, as a tax. There is no practical difference monetarily, but a world of difference legally. A lease, for instance, can often be revoked at the pleasure of the leaser.
This difference then induces the second major difference. Things that are owned by the government are generally managed, censored, repressed etc., in the "public interest" (whatever that is). This has two effects. First, it chills the speech involved, if it is a medium of expression. Second, it cuts off the technical incentive for more effecient economic uses.
A perfect example is radio frequencies. These are (at least in the US), owned by the public, generally, and only licensed to radio stations. As a result, the speech on radio is chilled; stations are afraid to broadcast "obscenity" for good reason: they can lose their licence, they can be fined millions ala Howard Stern, or they can merely be rejected when their licence comes up for renewal. Radio, as a result, is relatively bland. Compare, for example, the uncensored, and privately owned, paper media. That is the chilling effect, in action. The second aspect, also relevant to geeks, in the uneconomic use that has resulted. The radio spectrum is, or rather, could be a gold mine. There is plenty of spectrum for everyone to have a radio station, using modern spread spectrum techniques. Now, not everyone wants to broadcast records, but probably anyone reading this would not mind a wireless 1M connection to the net, eh? Technically feasible even now; problem is, most of the good spectrum is taken. The only way to get it is via a polical process, convincing the real owner, the FCC, to lease it for uses other than radio stations. But they are not interested in small users; said do not contribute any serious sums to Democrats or Republicans.
Let us extend this example to domain names. Consider the CDA. Congress is stupid; had they been on the ball, they did not need to explicitly censor the net. What they could have done, and could still do (unless domain names are property), is make the renewal process automatically disallow the renewal of any domain name which is deemed "obscene". Just like radio. Bingo -- censorship, with none of the hassles, since you have created the incentive for the domain owners to self-censor in fear!
The real turning point for the free software movement was the realization that the existing body of intellectual property rights law -- copyright -- could be adapted to the new medium in a novel way: GPL. The popularization of the GPL (and also the LGPL) opened the third way between normal copyright usage and public domain software. As far as I know, RMS is the originator of the copyleft, though it seems very likely something similar predates his usage. Certainly, he got lawyers to nail it down, popularized it, and most importantly used it in two incredibly useful pieces of software. IMO he deserves recognition on that basis even more than the particular merits of gcc and emacs.
It is ironic that RMS apparently does not believe in copyright, at least for software, when copyright is the powerful legal tool he used to implement his vision.
btw: Katz, get a spell checker, proof reader, and non-Microsoft text editor. It is painful to read such a sloppy production from a "professional" writer.
Aren't the Celeron 300A and 366 on similar dies? Why does the 300A do so much better than the 366 o/c'd? I mean, everything else makes sense because the dies are different, but no that.
Yes, the 300A and 366 are essentially identical. The only difference is the (fixed) bus speed multiplier used in the cache and core. For the 300A, it is 4.5; for the 366, 5.5.
The reason this difference strongly affects the overclockability is that the fundamental speed limit of the P2 line is around 450MHz. Most P2s and Celerons can do that, or around it -- some higher: up to 500 or so fairly common (20%?); 550, possible but almost none. Lower is occasionally the case as well, with some of the 300As unable to get up to 450 (maybe, 20%). I have a 300A that does 450 stably (2.1v required), but it just will not do 464. A fine demonstration of the limit.
Given that limit, the 300A is usually the champ. You raise the bus speed to 100Mhz, and it goes 450 -- 80% of them do, anyway. With the 366, the 100Mhz bus would yield 550Mhz core -- but almost none of them can actually run stable (or at all, really) at that speed. So, you can try using intermediate speed, 75Mhz or 83Mhz bus. These will most likely work, at least as far as the CPU is concerned. The problem here, especially with the 83Mhz bus, is that it yields a PCI bus at 41MHz -- too fast for many peripherals; 33Mhz is the spec they are built for. (At 100, the PCI bus gets a 1/3 multiplier, keeping it perfectly in spec.)
So. Chip makers are in a huge price war. Prices collapse. Jobs are moved to places with cheap labor.
Who loses? (1) The chip makers, who lose their monopoly profits (Intel). Maybe AMD and Cyrix too. Stockholders in losing chip makers. (2) The tiny minority of people who lose their high-paying, first world jobs. (Why is this a lose? Because they would not have stayed working for the chip maker unless it was better for them that way.)
Who wins? (1) The tiny minority of people who gain low-paying, third world jobs. (Why a win? Because they would not have taken the job unless it was better that way for them.) (2) Everyone who buys a computer, cheap or not. Price drops at the bottom have dragged down prices up and down the line.
The cost/benefit of who profits from the labor is a wash... everyone wants jobs, and it is hard to say that it is better to pay an American $20/hour to do the same thing that a Malayan will do for $1, if that means the Malayan and her family will starve.
So the reality is this is a matter of corporate profits, versus the savings of consumers -- those consumers being you and I.
Sengan makes this sound like a problem. It is not.
Property values will fall as stores close, "creating a glut of retail space and falling rents as Internet sales represent transactions not made in stores." Thousands of jobs would evaporate with them, along with state and municipal budgets, deprived of sales tax revenues.
Wow. This sounds very hopeful, actually. Jobs evaporate all the time -- guess what, there are other jobs. The real good part is part where the net economy deprives governments of tax revenue. That part is real enough -- just look at the way that big manufacturers, for instance, play off states and locales looking for the best tax break package, bribes, etc. in order to move there.
If most commerce moves to the net, it still needs physical warehouses in real places, staffed by real people. Potential tax base. But these will be moveable in a way that your local Walmart isn't. And that means cash starved governments. A good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Turn off the computer.
Turn off the TV.
Turn off the radio.
Turn off the cell phone.
There, you're the "Regulon". Isn't free will marvelous?
Oh wait: you had these things on because you liked them! Well, then there isn't a problem, is there?
Regarding the proposal to create a bacterium, I just have to ask: what ethical issue is there? Or more clearly, what is there about synthesizing a bacterium that raises any new ethical issues?
"Creating life?" Where, specifically, is the ethical issue? Why is it any different to line up some bacterial genes in a cell than, say, inject a cell with a nucleus that is created from living animals? That's how cloning works. And that's how some fertility treatments work, too. And how is synthesizing a genome significantly different than randomly cutting out bits and/or adding them? We can do this now, too, and it is done routinely to bacteria to see how they work.
"Will it be a horrid monster capable of destroying humanity?" Answer: no. But in any case, this issue is already present: biological weapons. We are already routinely deploying biological weapons, not to mentions other weapons of mass destruction. Even if it is ethically wrong to do so, then the ethical issue is about imposing risks on others, not engineering. And we have dealt with this: imposing danger on others is OK up to a certain level, and practically speaking "national security" seems to justify a very high level.
"It is OK to kill it?" Answer: yes. We kill off entire species every day, no sweat. And indeed, some are almost certainly better off dead: consider smallpox.
So? Where's the beef?
It started in England. Liberal Democratic capitalism: government strong enough to ensure the smooth operation of the market, but not so strong as to dominate the people and lead to tyranny and thence the destruction of the market and capitalism. This system is phenomenally productive.
However, there is a catch: nearby agrarian societies get the products of capitalism, including those which alter the demographics of the society: medicine. Their death rate plunges. Suddenly, all the children they were having just to ensure two or three live to adulthood survive. Suddenly the adults are not dying from tooth infections. The agrarian society swells drastically beyond its carrying capacity.
All these "extra" people must do something. Some of them emigrate, either to unfilled land (i.e. America circa 1800), or into the liberal capitalist society, where labor is highly rewarded due to all the capital accumulating there. However, many more stay, leading to overpopulation: the incredible misery as labor prices drop below sustenance. Liberal memes from the capitalist society infiltrate the population. The combination is volatile. Revolution happens, replacing the old order with liberal democracy.
Thus, the process of modernization spreads along the trade routes, sweeping from society to society as they each modernize in turn. First England, then the UK, then the continental powers... each time causing mass displacement, war, struggle, and masses of people yearning to be free coming to America. (English, Scots, Welshmen, then Germans, Dutch, and Frenchmen.) Then the same thing here, in the eastern cities, leading to further masses of population pushing west. And the flame burning into the middle of Europe as the 19th century wore on. Russia, Italy, Hungary, poland, etc. -- and those are the immigrants to America at the start of this century.
Then a big pause, as the world experimented with new types of government made possibly by the bounty of capitalism: communism and fascism. Wars results, but the productivity of the liberal democracies prevail. And even then, societies at the edge of the conflict ignite: the Asian tigers.
1999: transportation and communication have improved so much that the entire world is touching the flame. And they are changing, being changed. Again, the modern immigrants to America fit the pattern: Hispanics and Asians. Soon, these places too will join the "west".
Finally, in the next 50 years or so, the last places will burn: Africa mainly. And we will see massive African immigration then.
Now what is the consequence of this dynamic? One is a continual entry of unskilled labor into the global labor pool. As capitalism takes over societies, they start at the bottom. But prices also equalize, as emigrants move to the places with higher labor prices. Thus, the price of unskilled labor will remain low until the last traditional society is destroyed and absorbed.
What is the correlary of that? If you want your children to enjoy the same standard of living as you have, they have to achieve very significant education. Skilled western workers are capital intensive. That is why we have so few: they are expensive. All societies have socialized part of the cost of raising children, but not a significantly large portion so that people are having children as freely as they might like.
Note, though, that as the final traditional societies get snuffed in the next 50 years, an interesting thing will happen: labor prices will rise across the board, skilled and unskilled. When that happens, societies which encourage women to produce children will gradually outcompete those that do not. And that will mean that in the long run, the human race will keep growing. Of course, there may well be an adjustment for back to a billion or two pop before the equilibrium is reached.
Any projection based on trend lines like those in this article fail to take into account that people are intelligent and respond to changes in their circumstances with changes in their memes, at the level of individuals, groups, and even whole societies.
-Leonard
Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."
As to where the open source movement would be... its position would be little or no different. The same itches would have itched geeks in the ensuing years, and they would have scratched the same way. Albeit on top of BSD or whatever.
History is full of innovations that are made at almost the same time by two or more inventors. A free operating system, in this analysis, is no different than many other innovations in the past.
-Leonard
Given that we are all humans, the only way we have to get at the truth is in the use of social processes that seem to have a good track record in producing the truth with few errors. And we have one in hand: peer review. (Science is another, but it doesn't really apply here; the topic being journalism.) Further, there is a new social organization for truth production here on
As to the libertarian orientation of
I suggest two thoughts in response. First, perhaps the fact that the "best" techies (as determined by
Second, if it really is a problem, then there is room for a competing left-wing version of
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
-Leonard
I hate to be a spoiler here, but we humans (at least those in rich western nations) are already in the business of correcting our imperfections.
Where would I be with my imperfections?
- I would be unable to drive, unable to work almost, very limited in what I can do. I am both nearsighted and astigmatic. Both conditions corrected since the age of 4 or so, via glass then plastic lenses that were engineered for me by the optical technicians my parents and I hired.
- I would have severe dental problems, from crooked teeth to lost teeth, gum infections, etc. Instead, my teeth have been maintained constantly from an early age by dental technicians my parents and I hired.
- I would be dead, most likely, from a burst appendix at the age of 15. My parents hired a surgeon to intervene and remove the damn thing before it could get me.
Get a grip, people. Genetic engineering is a big step, yes, but engineering our bodies is nothing new. We do it all the time right now. At least, we rich westerners do... and you know what? We feel good about it! In fact, we have come to the point in most western countries where medical care, dental care, and vision correction are not even seen as luxuries, but rather, rights. (Again, for citizens only -- poor Mexicans don't have rights, do they? At least, not as good as our rights. At least, not it if means that I have to pay anything.)So, for those that want to be worried about genetic engineering: don't worry about whether or not it will happen -- it will, because we will want it desperately. Worry about the social effect that that desire will have. Such as, say, rounding up all the Mexicans, aetheists, drug-users, geeks, red-heads and other undesirables that are leeching on our God-given rights, and sending them back to where they belong. Don't think it can't happen here.
-Leonard
You have the right of free association. I assume the contract you signed with the ISP allowed you to terminate it. So that is the first option.
Your ISP has the right of free association. If they want to kick off the accounts with porn, and did not contract not to do so with the relevant individuals, that would be one solution. Another would be to kick you off! I doubt either solution is possible, though, contractually. That is in large part what the contracts were for.
You have the right to cease association with your headhunter, assuming again you did not contract away that right. There are lots of headhunters in the world. Trust me. Get one which trusts its employees; I hardly see that as a great strain on you.
Cyber Patrol has the right to block your ISP's address. They have the right to block whoever they want. They could block just you, simply because they don't like your eye color. Tough luck, isn't it? Freedom is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to make mistakes, or to do the wrong thing.
If you signed a contract with your ISP requiring them to make sure your pages are visible even past Cyber Patrol, then you should feel free to sue. Otherwise, caveat emptor. Somehow I doubt such a clause will be there. It is not possible that they can guarantee that everybody, everywhere can see your pages at all times. Since they control the last of those, they may make some guarantee about it. But they would be fools to guarantee the others, since those are outside their control.
Bottom line here: you are suffering just the slightest amount from unfair discrimination, based on your second-hand association with some porn sites. Not very nice, but that is one of the prices you pay for freedom. Perhaps you might consider how lucky you are, if that is the worst discrimination you have ever faced. Some people face discrimination more hurtful than your little problem every day of their lives.
I disagree with those decrying this decision. If it is was it appears to be, the propertarization of domain names, it is a good thing. The trademark issue is not relevant; read the article. It merely states that given a trademark dispute which had already been judged, and a plaintiff awarded damages, that said damages could include the seizure of domain names as property. So, property is the issue; specifically, should domain names be treated as property or not?
Generally, things which can only be sensibly used exclusively are best treated legally as property. Ownership of a thing means that the owner will reap the full fruits of developing it, and thus, has the correct incentive to develop as fully as is economic. For example, if you want to build a house, you buy the property where you are going to build first. Otherwise, you are just going to hand a nice house over to whoever you lease the property from.
The same applies to domain names. The one obvious reason to want to own is so that all the hard work you put into a site is not lost when the "landlord", noticing that you have improved the place, kicks you out. Of course, it is possible to write a lease with renewal clauses for this reason. Owning a domain name differs from renting it from the government, in two main ways.
First, it means that your domain cannot be taken from you without due process, etc. Perhaps the two year fee will remain, as a tax. There is no practical difference monetarily, but a world of difference legally. A lease, for instance, can often be revoked at the pleasure of the leaser.
This difference then induces the second major difference. Things that are owned by the government are generally managed, censored, repressed etc., in the "public interest" (whatever that is). This has two effects. First, it chills the speech involved, if it is a medium of expression. Second, it cuts off the technical incentive for more effecient economic uses.
A perfect example is radio frequencies. These are (at least in the US), owned by the public, generally, and only licensed to radio stations. As a result, the speech on radio is chilled; stations are afraid to broadcast "obscenity" for good reason: they can lose their licence, they can be fined millions ala Howard Stern, or they can merely be rejected when their licence comes up for renewal. Radio, as a result, is relatively bland. Compare, for example, the uncensored, and privately owned, paper media. That is the chilling effect, in action. The second aspect, also relevant to geeks, in the uneconomic use that has resulted. The radio spectrum is, or rather, could be a gold mine. There is plenty of spectrum for everyone to have a radio station, using modern spread spectrum techniques. Now, not everyone wants to broadcast records, but probably anyone reading this would not mind a wireless 1M connection to the net, eh? Technically feasible even now; problem is, most of the good spectrum is taken. The only way to get it is via a polical process, convincing the real owner, the FCC, to lease it for uses other than radio stations. But they are not interested in small users; said do not contribute any serious sums to Democrats or Republicans.
Let us extend this example to domain names. Consider the CDA. Congress is stupid; had they been on the ball, they did not need to explicitly censor the net. What they could have done, and could still do (unless domain names are property), is make the renewal process automatically disallow the renewal of any domain name which is deemed "obscene". Just like radio. Bingo -- censorship, with none of the hassles, since you have created the incentive for the domain owners to self-censor in fear!
The real turning point for the free software movement was the realization that the existing body of intellectual property rights law -- copyright -- could be adapted to the new medium in a novel way: GPL. The popularization of the GPL (and also the LGPL) opened the third way between normal copyright usage and public domain software. As far as I know, RMS is the originator of the copyleft, though it seems very likely something similar predates his usage. Certainly, he got lawyers to nail it down, popularized it, and most importantly used it in two incredibly useful pieces of software. IMO he deserves recognition on that basis even more than the particular merits of gcc and emacs.
It is ironic that RMS apparently does not believe in copyright, at least for software, when copyright is the powerful legal tool he used to implement his vision.
btw: Katz, get a spell checker, proof reader, and non-Microsoft text editor. It is painful to read such a sloppy production from a "professional" writer.
GNU -- propaganda by deed
The reason this difference strongly affects the overclockability is that the fundamental speed limit of the P2 line is around 450MHz. Most P2s and Celerons can do that, or around it -- some higher: up to 500 or so fairly common (20%?); 550, possible but almost none. Lower is occasionally the case as well, with some of the 300As unable to get up to 450 (maybe, 20%). I have a 300A that does 450 stably (2.1v required), but it just will not do 464. A fine demonstration of the limit.
Given that limit, the 300A is usually the champ. You raise the bus speed to 100Mhz, and it goes 450 -- 80% of them do, anyway. With the 366, the 100Mhz bus would yield 550Mhz core -- but almost none of them can actually run stable (or at all, really) at that speed. So, you can try using intermediate speed, 75Mhz or 83Mhz bus. These will most likely work, at least as far as the CPU is concerned. The problem here, especially with the 83Mhz bus, is that it yields a PCI bus at 41MHz -- too fast for many peripherals; 33Mhz is the spec they are built for. (At 100, the PCI bus gets a 1/3 multiplier, keeping it perfectly in spec.)
So. Chip makers are in a huge price war. Prices collapse. Jobs are moved to places with cheap labor.
Who loses?
(1) The chip makers, who lose their monopoly profits (Intel). Maybe AMD and Cyrix too. Stockholders in losing chip makers.
(2) The tiny minority of people who lose their high-paying, first world jobs. (Why is this a lose? Because they would not have stayed working for the chip maker unless it was better for them that way.)
Who wins?
(1) The tiny minority of people who gain low-paying, third world jobs. (Why a win? Because they would not have taken the job unless it was better that way for them.)
(2) Everyone who buys a computer, cheap or not. Price drops at the bottom have dragged down prices up and down the line.
The cost/benefit of who profits from the labor is a wash... everyone wants jobs, and it is hard to say that it is better to pay an American $20/hour to do the same thing that a Malayan will do for $1, if that means the Malayan and her family will starve.
So the reality is this is a matter of corporate profits, versus the savings of consumers -- those consumers being you and I.
Sengan makes this sound like a problem. It is not.
Good analysis.
Wow. This sounds very hopeful, actually. Jobs evaporate all the time -- guess what, there are other jobs. The real good part is part where the net economy deprives governments of tax revenue. That part is real enough -- just look at the way that big manufacturers, for instance, play off states and locales looking for the best tax break package, bribes, etc. in order to move there.
If most commerce moves to the net, it still needs physical warehouses in real places, staffed by real people. Potential tax base. But these will be moveable in a way that your local Walmart isn't. And that means cash starved governments. A good thing.