The entire point of granting a patent is to give someone a monopoly. It would be odd for the US government to both grant monopoly privileges to Verizon and prosecute them for exercising those privileges.
As far as I can tell, the point of Creative Commons is to provide a convenient way to signal others (with a logo and maybe a short descriptive phrase) that they have certain rights with respect to your work. That's it. Contrary to what Dvorak seems to be saying, there's no requirement that you prohibit others from using your work for commercial purposes. I don't understand why Dvorak thinks Creative Commons involves paperwork or permission, and I don't see how it undermines copyright law.
Rarely have I seen a columnist miss the point so completely. It's unfortunate that the Creative Commons people didn't respond to his email, as they might have saved him considerable embarassment.
You don't have to recompile the kernel to use Linux effectively.
Yes, you do, sometimes--for example, if you want to use hardware that isn't supported by the binary kernel(s) you have.
Of course you can if you want to, the choice is yours.
And if you do, you will find many kernel options are undocumented. That was SuperBanana's point.
Well FUDed my man.
Are you saying you think SuperBanana's intention was to scare people away from using Linux by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you think no one could sincerely believe the Linux kernel is poorly documented?
"[T]he board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students."
If the board is actually trying to minimize costs without considering benefits to students at all, then their decision is simple: they shouldn't buy any software for students.
My guess is that the "anonymous reader" was just engaging in rhetoric, and doesn't really mean what he wrote.
I have a graphics card that uses the NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400 chipset. I gather that XFree86 doesn't support it. There's an official NVIDIA driver for FreeBSD 4.7. Will it work with 5.0? I don't care about 3D graphics.
If you could capture a person's mental state on paper, would you consider that a real mind? A representation of information, whether electronic or otherwise, is not ipso facto something that is conscious and has a self.
A solution requiring less miraculous technology would be to slice up the brain and map out the synapse connection patterns and strengths to load into a computer-emulated brain.
I see two problems with that approach.
A computer simulation of a mind is not a real mind. At least, we have no reason to believe it is.
What you describe would simply be making a copy of someone; the original would still be, shall we say, garbage-collected. What's needed is a way to pass a mind from a person to a computer by reference, not by value.:-)
Even if nanotech pans out. Dead tissue is dead tissue.
Until, perhaps, the nanobots repair it at a molecular level. Or do you think there's some elan vital independent of biochemistry? We don't know enough to say for sure, but that's not the way I'd bet.
And nanotechnology won't be the only technology in the future.
Personally, I believe that the cycle of life is the only thing that drives social and technological evolution. The greatest mistake we could make as a species would be to short-circuit this cycle for the sake of our own greedy, short-sighted interests.
You go ahead and sacrifice yourself to the holy cause of "social and technological evolution." I'd rather survive.
"Greedy?" "Short-sighted?" I don't know what meaning to read into those accusations, except that you're upset with the idea of people doing what they want to do instead of doing what you want them to do.
If nanotechnology pans out, and scientists acquire a better understanding of the brain, who knows if it might work? And who knows what technologies will be available in the distant future?
And even if it were to become possible, just who, I wonder, is supposed to go to the (undoubtedly great) effort and expense of thawing their sorry asses?
Their families, perhaps. Or historians. Or people looking to claim a cash reward. (I think some cryonics buffs are lobbying for changes in law that would allow perpetual trusts. Hard to say if enough money can be kept safe for as long as it takes, though.)
The future is admittedly uncertain for cryonauts. But on the other hand, who is supposed to go through the effort and expense of bringing you back from the dead after you've been buried or cremated? Oh, wait...
First, any possibility of future revival is speculative at best. Second, we know that freezing a body at these temperatures causes immense damage to the tissue. (This is why we don't have "deep-freeze" suspended animation.) Third, the financial viability of these firms is questionable, leaving one to wonder what happens to the remains if the company goes under.
You act like no one's ever given these issues any thought before you. Why don't you try reading the Alcor FAQ?
Cryonics is obviously a long shot, but the alternative isn't any more promising.
According to Stan Lee, Steve Ditko design the Spider-Man costume:
"I have always considered Steve Ditko to be Spider-Man's co-creator," Stan Lee wrote in 1999. "Steve's illustrated version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and his coterie of supporting characters was more compelling and dramatic than I had dared hoped it would be... Also, it goes without saying that Steve's costume design was an actual masterpiece of imagination. Thanks to Steve Ditko, Spidey's costume has become one of the world's most recognizable visual icons."
That quote comes from a story in the National Post:
With spam, my consent is considered irrelavent by the spammers. They are sending me material, without my consent or my desire to see it. It costs me money to receive their spam, as the ISP is going to pass on the cost of their bandwidth utilization to me in the form of higher fees.
I have a few comments:
All email utilizes bandwidth, and hence imposes costs on your ISP and (indirectly) you. Should it be illegal for anyone else using your ISP to receive email?
A lot of non-commercial email is sent without the recipient's prior consent. Suppose a friend gives me a girl's email address because he thinks we might hit it off. I send the girl a short note introducing myself. Should that be illegal? Should the girl be able to sue me?
You can always avoid the costs of spam by not using email. If you choose to use email, you are doing so with the knowledge that you are going to bear the costs of spam. It would be nice if we lived in a world where those costs didn't exist, but we should consider the costs of achieving a world without spam. Lawyers and government officials always have their own agendas, and they care only about what they can get away with, not about the intentions behind anti-spam laws. Anti-spam laws would create legal risks for email senders and ISPs, and we'd all end up paying more when ISPs passed the cost of legal insurance to their customers. Personally, I'd rather just spend some time deleting junk email.
"Observations of human behavior, the opinions of criminals themselves, simple facts about crime and punishment and sophisticated statistical studies all indicate that what matters most to prospective criminals is the certainty and severity of punishment. In other words, negative incentives matter in the business of crime."
Slashdot Mirror
The entire point of granting a patent is to give someone a monopoly. It would be odd for the US government to both grant monopoly privileges to Verizon and prosecute them for exercising those privileges.
As far as I can tell, the point of Creative Commons is to provide a convenient way to signal others (with a logo and maybe a short descriptive phrase) that they have certain rights with respect to your work. That's it. Contrary to what Dvorak seems to be saying, there's no requirement that you prohibit others from using your work for commercial purposes. I don't understand why Dvorak thinks Creative Commons involves paperwork or permission, and I don't see how it undermines copyright law.
Rarely have I seen a columnist miss the point so completely. It's unfortunate that the Creative Commons people didn't respond to his email, as they might have saved him considerable embarassment.
tarquin_fim_bim wrote:
Yes, you do, sometimes--for example, if you want to use hardware that isn't supported by the binary kernel(s) you have.
And if you do, you will find many kernel options are undocumented. That was SuperBanana's point.
Are you saying you think SuperBanana's intention was to scare people away from using Linux by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you think no one could sincerely believe the Linux kernel is poorly documented?
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Nice to know the ACLU is there to defend de Raadt's Constitutional right to taxpayer money.
"[T]he board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students."
If the board is actually trying to minimize costs without considering benefits to students at all, then their decision is simple: they shouldn't buy any software for students.
My guess is that the "anonymous reader" was just engaging in rhetoric, and doesn't really mean what he wrote.
I have a graphics card that uses the NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400 chipset. I gather that XFree86 doesn't support it. There's an official NVIDIA driver for FreeBSD 4.7. Will it work with 5.0? I don't care about 3D graphics.
If you could capture a person's mental state on paper, would you consider that a real mind? A representation of information, whether electronic or otherwise, is not ipso facto something that is conscious and has a self.
I see two problems with that approach.
Until, perhaps, the nanobots repair it at a molecular level. Or do you think there's some elan vital independent of biochemistry? We don't know enough to say for sure, but that's not the way I'd bet.
And nanotechnology won't be the only technology in the future.
Skyshadow wrote:
You go ahead and sacrifice yourself to the holy cause of "social and technological evolution." I'd rather survive.
"Greedy?" "Short-sighted?" I don't know what meaning to read into those accusations, except that you're upset with the idea of people doing what they want to do instead of doing what you want them to do.
If nanotechnology pans out, and scientists acquire a better understanding of the brain, who knows if it might work? And who knows what technologies will be available in the distant future?
Their families, perhaps. Or historians. Or people looking to claim a cash reward. (I think some cryonics buffs are lobbying for changes in law that would allow perpetual trusts. Hard to say if enough money can be kept safe for as long as it takes, though.)
The future is admittedly uncertain for cryonauts. But on the other hand, who is supposed to go through the effort and expense of bringing you back from the dead after you've been buried or cremated? Oh, wait...
Yes, because only an egomaniac would love life and fear death.
You act like no one's ever given these issues any thought before you. Why don't you try reading the Alcor FAQ?
Cryonics is obviously a long shot, but the alternative isn't any more promising.
I bought an iBook last year, partly to help me tutor computer programming. Sometimes my iBook was the only computer available during a session.
I had to buy a USB floppy drive so that I could debug students' code without typing everything in.
That quote comes from a story in the National Post:
"Action Is His Reward", by Jeet Heer
The fact that you can cite flaws in Windows security proves that Windows security is imperfect, not that Windows is less secure than Linux.
I think you mean:
BTW, the statement "return 0;" is actually optional (if you don't type it, it's implicit). It is arguably good style to include it.
I have a few comments:
You can always avoid the costs of spam by not using email. If you choose to use email, you are doing so with the knowledge that you are going to bear the costs of spam. It would be nice if we lived in a world where those costs didn't exist, but we should consider the costs of achieving a world without spam. Lawyers and government officials always have their own agendas, and they care only about what they can get away with, not about the intentions behind anti-spam laws. Anti-spam laws would create legal risks for email senders and ISPs, and we'd all end up paying more when ISPs passed the cost of legal insurance to their customers. Personally, I'd rather just spend some time deleting junk email.
mlc wrote:
No, the facts are reported by the National Center for Policy Analysis. Their sources are listed in the endnotes.
They favor free markets, but I don't think that makes them "conservative." But that's a minor quibble
If you know of any studies that conclude criminals are not deterred by expected punishment, please cite them.
Here are the facts on punishment and deterrence:
"Does Punishment Deter?"
http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg148.html