Both of the big parties will probably support the RIAA, the big movie studios, and other large companies...
Because studio executives donate big steaming piles of soft money to both parties. If the EFF would establish a PAC, they'd be able to grab some ears?
The Democrats, I think, are only slightly more likely to work on solving this problem.
You need to ease up on the crack pipe. Neither party will do anything about DMCA. That's what the courts are for. Because of the number of supreme court justices that will be appointed by the next president, this election is EXTREMELY important. Do you want judges to be independant minded or do you want justices to pass a few litmus tests before they're appointed?
Therefore I stand by my statement - donating money to the EFF will make more of a difference than voting.
You could make and then stand by the statement that your feet smell like peaches. That doesn't make it any more or less true.
I think the real point is that we only have 2 candidates for president that have any real chance of winning, and they are both crappy choices.
Point 1. The Presidential election isn't the only one this november. Have you ever heard of a little thing called the SENATE?
Point 2. There is a world of difference between the two major party's candidates for president. Didn't you know that one of them invented the internet?
Unless you're running, there will never be a politicial that agrees with you on 100% of the issues 100% of the time, but you have to vote for whomever is closest sometimes.
When I ran my board I had to approve every file before a user got credit.
When I ran my Hotline server though, I left it up and running with leech access enabled and I had something like 500 d/ls with 0 u/ls over a 4 hour period. I then had to switch to an account based system. So few people uploaded anything that after a few weeks I took the server down. I was using an ISDN line and it wasn't worth wasting my monthly hours for people to leech off of me.
You use the term "special interest groups" like it's dirty. What do you think that the EFF is? The EFF is a special interest group. Just because they stand for something that many of us happen to believe in doesn't change that.
Just because I care about keeping the internet from becoming a giant infomercial doesn't mean that I don't care about other issues. Just because we care about technology doesn't mean that there are no other issues which are more important.
why do you think that all of these big corporations have been able to get laws favoring them through congress (eg DMCA)?
Soft money. Lots of donations to the both parties. Increasing the value of the portfolios of big wigs who then in turn give big piles of money to the major parties. Spielberg and Tom Hanks being good friends with the president doesn't hurt either.
That single act will probably provide more benefit to the future of the United States than voting this fall.
WHAT???? By the greatest stretch of the imagniation I can see how one could think that joining the EFF could be as important as voting, but definately not more important.
The DMCA, Crypto, Napster et all may be important but for most of us who live in the real world, there are many other issues which are more important.
When I began my career in grade school, I was one of the "popular" kids. (Yeah, Yeah I know, in 2nd grade, 'popular' doesn't mean much, but hear me out) After 2nd grade something happened to me, the Atari 2600. I spend that entire summer in my living room playing Yar's Revenge, Combat, Haunted House, Combat, Kangaroo, Donkey Kong, and the like. I gained fair bit of weight. My mother used to call it my AB (Atari Belly). At the end of that summer, I started 3rd grade. In my former school district 3rd grade is where the "Gifted" kids were separated for a few hours per week and given things to do to keep them from getting bored.
I learned to program in BASIC on a TI-99 and an Apple][e. Overnight, I was a nerd. At the time, I hated being different. So, I tried to be what I thought that people expected of me, I goofed off. I got loud in class. I still got accepetable grades, but I didn't stand out. In Jr. High, I got even worse. I was the first one to get into a fight because people thought that they could pick on me because I was a nerd. One time I got into a fight, while serving 3 days of in-school suspension which I had gotten for fighting.
It took me years to be able to wear my nerdiness/geekhood as a badge of honor instead of treating it like a curse.
On the 2600 web page I saw something along the lines of "If we're forced to stop linking to the DeCSS source, then we'll link to other people's lists of DeCSS sources. If the judge orders us not to do that, then we'll host a text file that contains links to DeCSS mirrors. We'll keep finding ways until the judge is forced to leave us alone or sompletely gut out first amendment rights." or something of that nature.
Is your client going to engage in civil disobedience like that or are they going to give up?
you can't create laws that conflict with the constitutional dogma...
Why is it that you seem to have a problem with the constitution? Even though it's no longer respected by our lawmakers, the constitution was intended to be a leash to keep our government from taking too much power out of the hands of the people.
Just in case you hadn't realized it, our constitution would forbid it if some law maker wanted to make it a crime to criticize a politician and make anal rape the penalty.
I have dual feelings on Altivec. First I think it's strange that AIM switched to Altivec on a RISC chip because, I thought that the point of RISC was to reduce the number of instructions in order to pack more transistors onto the chip and increase performance, but then to ADD more instructions seems counter productive.
On the other hand my distributed net keyrate jumped when I switched one of the clients from a G3/400 to a G4/400 with altivec. The DNEC client has a portion that was written in assembly for Altivec.
I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but unless I learn of a performance impedement I don't have a problem with it.
I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable in the arena of election laws, but I definately have feelings on this topic.
If you're clueless enough to sell your vote for $10-$50, you're precisely the type of moron who SHOULD NOT BE VOTING.
If it would take less money to buy your vote than it takes to go to a ticketmaster promoted concert, your vote would be meaningless anyway.
This year for example, It would take no less than 1 million dollars to buy my vote. Is this hypocritical of me? I don't think so. Why? Because that amount of money could assure that I could donate enough to help get things done about the issues that are important to me.
So, sure I'd vote for cantidate X but I'd give several hundred thousand to group Y, so that they can fight for issue Z.
Now the appathetic US public doesn't have to get their collectively lazy ass off the couch and donate blood.
If you don't like your neighbors, you can leave at any time.
I know for a fact that lots of older (over 40) people stopped donatig blood regularly when the blood banks stopped extending the free blood to the families of donors.
If, for example, most early CompSci was done by the Japanese many things which are US centric would most likely be different.
Where we have object oriented languages as a relatively recent phenom, I think that if the Japanese had created the languages they would have been done that way from the start.
With C/++ you have structs and classes, I think that if Japanese had created the languages you'd see things like teams. My idea for a team is an object which instead of attributes and functions would be made up of members with either abilities or data.
Take the STL string class for example. As I see it the string team would consist of two parts. The "string" portion of it would be a stand alone unit, maybe similar to a linked list of characters, with a member that consists of all of the string manipulation routines.
Since I speak very, VERY little Japanese, and can read/write NONE of it, I couldn't even guess as to what the Japanese names would be.
I'd rather hear "Hey, you can't marry another man." than "Hey, you can't own that vehicle!".
What would you rather deal with "Five years of welfare and you're cut off." or "We're taking at least 50% of your income, and if you complain about it, you're just a selfish bastard who doesn't care about his fellow man!"?
translucent color case of the visor might be cool for kids, but the plastic breaks easier and the buttons are crappy
In case you didn't notice, you can get a visor in plain old black plastic. I just happen to have one in my pocket right now. Granted, titanium or polished aluminum would be cooler, I haven't had a problem with the plastic yet.
I didn't say he thought it was murder. I said he doesn't like it.
Not liking it isn't good enough. I don't like the fact that we have homeless people, I would not be willing to double everyone's taxes to prevent it from happening though.
The problem with all this is that the most important part of the country to defend -- it's people -- would have been left exposed to an extremely barbaric occupant.
Also an extremely cowardly occupent. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto kept them at bay for nearly two weeks with a few cheap pistols.
As a matter of fact, I have often wondered if "well-regulated militias" in the US constitution couldn't possibly mean something like the Swiss Army (please bear in mind that my knowledge of american history is verry limited).
This confusion is understandable, in fact some people intentionally champion that idea with the intent of confusing people. At the time the US constitution was written, militia meant every man who could show up with a musket in his hand.
I think that firearms training and safety courses should be mandatory for every child in a publicly funded high school. When you see first hand what a firearm can do if in the wrong hands, you gain a whole new respect for the responsibility that you take on when you own one.
Yes, but the point of fact is that while you vehemently oppose aborting technically "alive" fetuses you have no qualms about murder of innocent people who perform operations you yourself have deemed acceptable (pre-"life" abortions).
Point 1. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that.
Point 2. Just because I refuse to mourn the loss of human debris doesn't mean that I think that anyone should be murdered.
And apparently "Thou shalt not murder" has "no meaning" to you, murder no inherent "wrong" associated with it, besides your anti-abortion stance.
I've never murdered anyone. I've never paid for the contract killing of another human being. I've never given solace, or support to anyone for murdering someone.
It might help the women who will die if they give birth--and I happen to know one, so I don't want to hear any shit.
Red Herring! Who have you heard speak of forbidding women to have abortions when one is needed to save her life?
What I really don't understand is how you can justify your gas-guzzling environment-destroying SUV and then claim you want to protect unborn children.
There is no conclusive proof that the vehicle that I choose to drive has any negative effect on the environment. My Jimmy is more fuel efficient that the big, long, lincolns and cadillacs of 15 years ago. Which would you rather see? People driving 85 Sevilles or 95 Blazers?
Why have children if they're going to enter an unliveable world?
Those of us who live in this world (and not one of make believe) have no problem doing so.
I suppose it is ok for you to support the christian foundation of republican morals, yet not be phased by "thou shalt not kill".
I'm not a Christian, or a Jew. The 10 commandments have no meaning for me. However, if translated directly from the hebrew, that would read "Thou shalt not murder." Hebrew, to Greek, To English, a little of the meaning can get lost.
Apparently to you two wrongs make a right.
Not at all. If you commit a crime you go to jail. If you murder someone, you risk facing execution. Now I suppose that we can get into the discussion of whether or not your intent is to commit murder if you think that you're trying to save someone else's life.
Well, I'm satisfied that you, like Keyes, reach you're conclusions through a series of rational observations, trumped at the very end by your hypocrisy and unwillingness to believe that what goes for you, goes for everybody.
I promise you that I'll never murder any of my children. Not even while they're still in utero.
yet on the other hand you support extremists which violently and consciencelessly injure and *murder* innocent people?
I assume that you mean men like Paul Hill. I'll never shed a tear for David Gunn or Barnett Slepian. Men like these are far from innocent. I can't agree with using violence to solve problems when there are other means available, but when one bad guy kills another bad guy, I find it easier just to stay out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Both of the big parties will probably support the RIAA, the big movie studios, and other large companies...
Because studio executives donate big steaming piles of soft money to both parties. If the EFF would establish a PAC, they'd be able to grab some ears?
The Democrats, I think, are only slightly more likely to work on solving this problem.
You need to ease up on the crack pipe. Neither party will do anything about DMCA. That's what the courts are for. Because of the number of supreme court justices that will be appointed by the next president, this election is EXTREMELY important. Do you want judges to be independant minded or do you want justices to pass a few litmus tests before they're appointed?
Therefore I stand by my statement - donating money to the EFF will make more of a difference than voting.
You could make and then stand by the statement that your feet smell like peaches. That doesn't make it any more or less true.
LK
I think the real point is that we only have 2 candidates for president that have any real chance of winning, and they are both crappy choices.
Point 1. The Presidential election isn't the only one this november. Have you ever heard of a little thing called the SENATE?
Point 2. There is a world of difference between the two major party's candidates for president. Didn't you know that one of them invented the internet?
Unless you're running, there will never be a politicial that agrees with you on 100% of the issues 100% of the time, but you have to vote for whomever is closest sometimes.
LK
When I ran my board I had to approve every file before a user got credit.
When I ran my Hotline server though, I left it up and running with leech access enabled and I had something like 500 d/ls with 0 u/ls over a 4 hour period. I then had to switch to an account based system. So few people uploaded anything that after a few weeks I took the server down. I was using an ISDN line and it wasn't worth wasting my monthly hours for people to leech off of me.
You use the term "special interest groups" like it's dirty. What do you think that the EFF is? The EFF is a special interest group. Just because they stand for something that many of us happen to believe in doesn't change that.
Just because I care about keeping the internet from becoming a giant infomercial doesn't mean that I don't care about other issues. Just because we care about technology doesn't mean that there are no other issues which are more important.
why do you think that all of these big corporations have been able to get laws favoring them through congress (eg DMCA)?
Soft money. Lots of donations to the both parties. Increasing the value of the portfolios of big wigs who then in turn give big piles of money to the major parties. Spielberg and Tom Hanks being good friends with the president doesn't hurt either.
LK
That single act will probably provide more benefit to the future of the United States than voting this fall.
WHAT???? By the greatest stretch of the imagniation I can see how one could think that joining the EFF could be as important as voting, but definately not more important.
The DMCA, Crypto, Napster et all may be important but for most of us who live in the real world, there are many other issues which are more important.
LK
When I began my career in grade school, I was one of the "popular" kids. (Yeah, Yeah I know, in 2nd grade, 'popular' doesn't mean much, but hear me out) After 2nd grade something happened to me, the Atari 2600. I spend that entire summer in my living room playing Yar's Revenge, Combat, Haunted House, Combat, Kangaroo, Donkey Kong, and the like. I gained fair bit of weight. My mother used to call it my AB (Atari Belly). At the end of that summer, I started 3rd grade. In my former school district 3rd grade is where the "Gifted" kids were separated for a few hours per week and given things to do to keep them from getting bored.
I learned to program in BASIC on a TI-99 and an Apple][e. Overnight, I was a nerd. At the time, I hated being different. So, I tried to be what I thought that people expected of me, I goofed off. I got loud in class. I still got accepetable grades, but I didn't stand out. In Jr. High, I got even worse. I was the first one to get into a fight because people thought that they could pick on me because I was a nerd. One time I got into a fight, while serving 3 days of in-school suspension which I had gotten for fighting.
It took me years to be able to wear my nerdiness/geekhood as a badge of honor instead of treating it like a curse.
LK
If I were talking about just buying votes directly from undecideds, you'd have a point.
I'm talking about donating money to groups for use to pay lawyers to fight against certain laws.
If I had it to give, I'd donate a BIG FAT pile of money to any lawyers who could get FACE declared unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade reversed.
Lawyers and advertising campaigns are expensive.
LK
Himalaya == Highest mountains in the world.
Highest Mountains in the world == Above everyone else's heads.
LK
If you've got the $999,999 right now, I'll take that. By election time I'd have more than $1 in interest.
:)
Where is the "extra value" in your vote that justifies the $1M price?
My principle's can't be purchased cheaply.
What monetary amount, donated appropriately, would you estimate is about equal in efficacy to your one vote?
Good question, I have no answer.
LK
the spirit or the decision of the ruling?
On the 2600 web page I saw something along the lines of "If we're forced to stop linking to the DeCSS source, then we'll link to other people's lists of DeCSS sources. If the judge orders us not to do that, then we'll host a text file that contains links to DeCSS mirrors. We'll keep finding ways until the judge is forced to leave us alone or sompletely gut out first amendment rights." or something of that nature.
Is your client going to engage in civil disobedience like that or are they going to give up?
LK
you can't create laws that conflict with the constitutional dogma...
Why is it that you seem to have a problem with the constitution? Even though it's no longer respected by our lawmakers, the constitution was intended to be a leash to keep our government from taking too much power out of the hands of the people.
Just in case you hadn't realized it, our constitution would forbid it if some law maker wanted to make it a crime to criticize a politician and make anal rape the penalty.
LK
I have dual feelings on Altivec. First I think it's strange that AIM switched to Altivec on a RISC chip because, I thought that the point of RISC was to reduce the number of instructions in order to pack more transistors onto the chip and increase performance, but then to ADD more instructions seems counter productive.
On the other hand my distributed net keyrate jumped when I switched one of the clients from a G3/400 to a G4/400 with altivec. The DNEC client has a portion that was written in assembly for Altivec.
I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but unless I learn of a performance impedement I don't have a problem with it.
LK
I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable in the arena of election laws, but I definately have feelings on this topic.
If you're clueless enough to sell your vote for $10-$50, you're precisely the type of moron who SHOULD NOT BE VOTING.
If it would take less money to buy your vote than it takes to go to a ticketmaster promoted concert, your vote would be meaningless anyway.
This year for example, It would take no less than 1 million dollars to buy my vote. Is this hypocritical of me? I don't think so. Why? Because that amount of money could assure that I could donate enough to help get things done about the issues that are important to me.
So, sure I'd vote for cantidate X but I'd give several hundred thousand to group Y, so that they can fight for issue Z.
LK
Now the appathetic US public doesn't have to get their collectively lazy ass off the couch and donate blood.
If you don't like your neighbors, you can leave at any time.
I know for a fact that lots of older (over 40) people stopped donatig blood regularly when the blood banks stopped extending the free blood to the families of donors.
from Aliens. Bishop was a much better android than Ash. Primarily becaus Lance Henricksen(Hendricksen) kicks boo tay as an actor.
LK
If, for example, most early CompSci was done by the Japanese many things which are US centric would most likely be different.
Where we have object oriented languages as a relatively recent phenom, I think that if the Japanese had created the languages they would have been done that way from the start.
With C/++ you have structs and classes, I think that if Japanese had created the languages you'd see things like teams. My idea for a team is an object which instead of attributes and functions would be made up of members with either abilities or data.
Take the STL string class for example. As I see it the string team would consist of two parts. The "string" portion of it would be a stand alone unit, maybe similar to a linked list of characters, with a member that consists of all of the string manipulation routines.
Since I speak very, VERY little Japanese, and can read/write NONE of it, I couldn't even guess as to what the Japanese names would be.
LK
"The man is the king of interplanetary funk."
-Moles(PCU)
I'd rather hear "Hey, you can't marry another man." than "Hey, you can't own that vehicle!".
What would you rather deal with "Five years of welfare and you're cut off." or "We're taking at least 50% of your income, and if you complain about it, you're just a selfish bastard who doesn't care about his fellow man!"?
It's not a difficult question in my mind.
LK
translucent color case of the visor might be cool for kids, but the plastic breaks easier and the buttons are crappy
In case you didn't notice, you can get a visor in plain old black plastic. I just happen to have one in my pocket right now. Granted, titanium or polished aluminum would be cooler, I haven't had a problem with the plastic yet.
I didn't say he thought it was murder. I said he doesn't like it.
Not liking it isn't good enough. I don't like the fact that we have homeless people, I would not be willing to double everyone's taxes to prevent it from happening though.
LK
The problem with all this is that the most important part of the country to defend -- it's people -- would have been left exposed to an extremely barbaric occupant.
Also an extremely cowardly occupent. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto kept them at bay for nearly two weeks with a few cheap pistols.
As a matter of fact, I have often wondered if "well-regulated militias" in the US constitution couldn't possibly mean something like the Swiss Army (please bear in mind that my knowledge of american history is verry limited).
This confusion is understandable, in fact some people intentionally champion that idea with the intent of confusing people. At the time the US constitution was written, militia meant every man who could show up with a musket in his hand.
I think that firearms training and safety courses should be mandatory for every child in a publicly funded high school. When you see first hand what a firearm can do if in the wrong hands, you gain a whole new respect for the responsibility that you take on when you own one.
Yes, but the point of fact is that while you vehemently oppose aborting technically "alive" fetuses you have no qualms about murder of innocent people who perform operations you yourself have deemed acceptable (pre-"life" abortions).
Point 1. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that.
Point 2. Just because I refuse to mourn the loss of human debris doesn't mean that I think that anyone should be murdered.
And apparently "Thou shalt not murder" has "no meaning" to you, murder no inherent "wrong" associated with it, besides your anti-abortion stance.
I've never murdered anyone. I've never paid for the contract killing of another human being. I've never given solace, or support to anyone for murdering someone.
That just boggles me.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
LK
It might help the women who will die if they give birth--and I happen to know one, so I don't want to hear any shit.
Red Herring! Who have you heard speak of forbidding women to have abortions when one is needed to save her life?
What I really don't understand is how you can justify your gas-guzzling environment-destroying SUV and then claim you want to protect unborn children.
There is no conclusive proof that the vehicle that I choose to drive has any negative effect on the environment. My Jimmy is more fuel efficient that the big, long, lincolns and cadillacs of 15 years ago. Which would you rather see? People driving 85 Sevilles or 95 Blazers?
Why have children if they're going to enter an unliveable world?
Those of us who live in this world (and not one of make believe) have no problem doing so.
LK
I suppose it is ok for you to support the christian foundation of republican morals, yet not be phased by "thou shalt not kill".
I'm not a Christian, or a Jew. The 10 commandments have no meaning for me. However, if translated directly from the hebrew, that would read "Thou shalt not murder." Hebrew, to Greek, To English, a little of the meaning can get lost.
Apparently to you two wrongs make a right.
Not at all. If you commit a crime you go to jail. If you murder someone, you risk facing execution. Now I suppose that we can get into the discussion of whether or not your intent is to commit murder if you think that you're trying to save someone else's life.
Well, I'm satisfied that you, like Keyes, reach you're conclusions through a series of rational observations, trumped at the very end by your hypocrisy and unwillingness to believe that what goes for you, goes for everybody.
I promise you that I'll never murder any of my children. Not even while they're still in utero.
LK
yet on the other hand you support extremists which violently and consciencelessly injure and *murder* innocent people?
I assume that you mean men like Paul Hill. I'll never shed a tear for David Gunn or Barnett Slepian. Men like these are far from innocent. I can't agree with using violence to solve problems when there are other means available, but when one bad guy kills another bad guy, I find it easier just to stay out of it.
LK