Ignorance is curable. Retardation is not one's fault (except when a side effect of earlier stupidity). Stupidity, however, is a patent refusal to learn despite having the capacity to do so.
But, yes, stupidity is that rampant: I am constantly amazed (and dismayed) at the number of people with Computer Science degrees that couldn't bubble sort their way out of a paper bag. Sheesh, <crotchety old man voice>in my day, that was a BASIC 101 programming homework assignment in 9th grade </crotchety old man voice>.
Since I started we've had three "it'll never happen" situations with (potentially extremely profitable) users using different browsers or OSes, and happily the site's worked perfectly for them.
Hollan's Law: the likelihood of something happening is directly proportional to the degree of insistence that it won't.
We've also had one "it'll never happen" situation where I did actually give in...
... and likely got shit for it.
Look, your job is to make it work, the way you were told. If it doesn't, it is your fault. That's why he's the boss and you aren't: if you are in a "right to work" state, you can be fired for any reason, including the boss's stupidity. It is best to try to find a better job and quit before this happens. Been there, done that.
Never disobey your boss on technical matters, even when he has no fucking clue what he's babbling about. That's how you get fired.
No, you will get fired if it doesn't work. With a moron for a boss, you are in a no-win situation. Leave, or at least plan to leave. It is better to leave on your terms than his.
unlike the lawyers, business executives, and other criminals that make one million dollar yearly salaries.
They cheat, lie, and steal their way to the top.
Really? All of them? Every single one? Gee, that's a damn wide brush you've got. I personally know several multimillionaires that do not fit that description.
My Mom was told by an a judge (you know, one of those greasy ex-lawyer types?!?),...
...Ad hominem attacks do not garner much respect for your argument...
, in a court of law, that just because she was in the right didn't mean that she still shouldn't pay the opposing party damages.
Methinks you are confused. The victor in a legal case does not pay damages. Methinks instead that just because she may not have been responsible (and that not yet found by the court), it would be more prudent to settle a nuisance suit than fight it because the risk of a loss would be unbearable. Of course, she could've/should've sought a better attorney to represent her on a contingency basis in her subsequent claim of barratry. Many of those multimillionaires settle such nuisance suits on a monthly basis.
Why? To save time for the court! In the judges words, "sometimes, you can still be completely in the right, and it still makes sense to 'settle'". She doesn't have $30,000 to pay the lawyers to defend her case; so she might have to pay "damages" for something she didn't do.
And the judge was correct in his/her advise (it does not sound like a ruling). She could have relieved her attorney, secured another one, and continued. If this was a civil case, the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence". Thus, if the counterparty had greater evidence to back their case, they would win. I suspect the judge saw this in the discovery phase.
Her former lawyer completely misrepresented her case in her case file; there's evidence to suggest collusion between him and the prosecuting side, but nothing she could prove in court, even if she could afford to sue an attorney (which few honest people can ever afford to do!).
Well, either you can prove it or you can't. Which is it? My house was vandalized recently, and I know who did it, but without solid evidence or witnesses, I am unable to effectively press charges. Boo hoo for me. Too bad I wasn't in Texas -- could've blown the bastards' nostrils out the back of their heads with appropriate firepower.
Sometimes this is frustrating, but heresay does not evidence make. And, be thankful for that.
That's two cases of corruption of the highest order, and it's endemic in business and in the legal system. My ex-boss physically threatening the staff for daring to suggest that they'ld quit! Sexual harassment by the managers towards the working girls. Exploitatation of foreign workers. Blatant violations of health and safety code: I once working in a warehouse full of paper, which caught fire. They put it out, and we continued working in the same conditions as before.
So? Document, file complaints, and quit.
The existence of wealthy assholes does not make everyone who is wealty an asshole.
The people who make it rich are the people who commit and profit from treating other people like shit, in both legal and illegal ways. I'm unwilling to treat my fellow man that badly. I code because it's means less work done by humans, and more work done by machines, which is as it should be.
As it should be?
Do you realize that your code might cause someone to be replaced by a machine? Do you also realize the folly of thinking that no one who is wealthy thinks as you?
Power corrupts, and money can purchase power, but this does not mean that corruption is absolute or endemic.
We all have an obligation to make the world a better place than where we found it: by building systems to automate work, by improving literacy and communications, and to increase our knowledge of science and technology.
If I produce something that I'd just as soon everyone picked up for free, I'd simply leave off any DRM in the source
Except, with trustworthy computing this may be made impossible: only encrypted, signed content, will be viewable, and you won't have a certificate with which to sign.
There is no technical reason it has to be that way, of course, but it certainly can be made to be that way. Imagine a world with effectively zero-cost to disseminate information, but only the right disseminated information could be decoded. That's the threat.
Despite the political incentive for such a world, there is also an economic one: if the means of cheap communication (i.e. end to end distribution channels) are closed to your competition (e.g. independent artists vs. the **AA), it benefits you because your competitors barrier to entry is high compared to yours.
Combine that, with the present trend of money buying law, and the monopolists very quickly wind up in bed with the tyrants. Sounds like fascism to me.
If a platform is closed to the user (for example, it uses secret private keys to decrypt entertainment multimedia content), it can't be extensible in any manner the user likes... and people like their computers to be extensible. Control should *always* remain with the owner unless voluntarily delegated.
Now, that does not have to apply to specific-purpose devices, like TV sets, or set-top boxes, even though they might permit some degree of user estensibility (the downloading to authorized code-signed new firmware, for example, where the user can select what, out of a limited selection, firmware enhancements they want).
Let the general purpose computer manage the users' data as users see fit, and let the specific purpose devices decrypt the data when it is not owned by the user. There is nothing illogical or incompatible in having different webs of trust for special and general purpose devices, so long as the user can limit the information they provide to devices that don't trust them.
Along the same theme, there was the Compaq, and a whole slew of "lunchbox" computers, before the clamshell laptop designs, and modern thin laptops. A side branch on that evolutionary tree was the TRS 100, IIRTMC (if I remember the model correctly): a keyboard with small LCD for a display.
But the Osborne and Compaq stood out. (Not to disrespect the Kaypro or anything).
European countries with similar health systems would have similar problems.
No European country has universal health care of the kind Canada has: same level of care for everyone regardless of an ability to pay for more which is illegal for covered services in Canada. Despite a Supreme Court ruling that it is unconsititutional to prevent a patient from paying a doctor for preferential service, Quebec intends to invoke to notwithstanding clause on the Canadian constitution of overrule the court! (Only in Canada, sigh.)
Many European countries have two-tier health care systems, where a different level of service is available to those who can pay and this seams to be more effective.
We know, and (for the most part) willingly pay higher taxes for our social safety net that results in Canada repeatedly placing above the US as one of the best countries to live.
Best for who? Certainly not for me. That's why I left. Best perhaps for those who can not or will not support themselves with the fruits of their own labour.
The bottom line is that I find it far better to risk not having access to health care if I become destitute than to have to wait when I have the money to pay for care that a willing doctor can provide immediately. Willing to take that risk translates into more after-tax dollars that I can, guess what?, save for a day that I might become so destitute.
Others, on either side of the border, are free to disagree.
But, the reason many Canadians become angry with my personal choice is that their "system" depends on people like me to fund it, and we are leaving in drives, because, for us, it offers no value -- it is very poor insurance from a financial perspective. While some income redistribution to help the truely poor might be arguably justified, the inefficiencies and amount of such redistribution in Canada is truely horrific -- a properly run system would find the funds to help the poor by the savings inherent in large economies of scale. Clearly, this has not happened.
Canada relies on brainwashing its productive citizens to become willing tax-slaves. Not this one.
Rare to find an instance wherein the US is more enlightened than Canada!
Actually, no. If you lived in Canada for any length of time, you might find that "Canadian Enlightenment" has many negative undesirable effects. Universal health care, for example, has led to long waits for service and a shortage of qualified doctors.
I'm one of those apparantly rare Canadians that sees the U.S. "way of doing things" as far better than what is done in Canada -- yes I've seen the pros and cons of "both ways" and overall find the U.S. far more enlightned (at least in principle, if not in practice) in realizing that "there is no such thing as a free lunch". Yes, this sometimes leads to bad things. But, the alternative is even worse. Others, on either side of the border, may see things differently.
We do not treat images that could be children, but are not, as child pornography. There was a Federal Law that tried to do so and that law was struck down. The grounds were free speech, but the minour grounds were that if no child was actually being harmed, then there was intent to harm, ergo the images of adults that looked like children were not child pornography and therefore could not be made illegal.
While this may be true in the U.S., it is not true everywhere. I remember a case in Ontario, Canada where an artist was convicted of producing child pornography because of drawings depicting children with their genials in plain view (though, IIRC, there was no overt sexual activity going on). Part of the justification for the conviction was that such materials appealed to a prurient interest and had no redeming artistic value. IOW, they were harmful not to the fictitious children represented therin, but to society in that they would induce others to molest children.
Indeed (and it's been a while so I might misremeber this part), part of the controversy surrounding the case arose because of the artist's use of such drawings as a release mechanism for his own pederastic impulses even though he never molested any children.
Furthermore, depictions of child pornography or molestation are also illegal: it doesn't matter if the model is an adult, if s/he looks under age, the material is pornographic, and thus illegal. The complexities of "looks under age" make this a nightmare for producers of adult pornography who might wish to cater to a market that likes to see young women doing naughty things.
There are even worse implications. There used to be an award winning TV program, "Degrassi Jr. High" which dealt with issues faced by, well, Jr. highschool kids. One episode addressed the subject of child sexual abuse by a teacher, and the question arose whether a depiction of such abuse (toned down enough for network television via use of strong innuendo) violated the decency laws.
The standard in Canada is (or at least was -- I've not kept up with the law) that if something is found obscene by anyone, it *is* obscene. Thus, museums showing classical art have often covered famous nude paintings, lest they offend someone and the directors face criminal charges. This extends to kissing in public: at what point is such a display obscene and flies right in the face of discrimination laws: are a gay couple kissing in public protected by the anti-discrimination laws, whereas a straight couple isn't?
My senior undergrad project (c. 1982) was the writing of a compiler.
My graduate project (c. 1984) was the development of a very low cost CSMA/CD system and network drivers for TSC/Flex. Hardware costs of $50/node were achieved when ethernet interfaces ran around $1000. Of course 125 Kb/s wasn't much, but in those days, it was impressive. Processing was purely interrupt-driven (no DMA), and the novelty was being able to mask the network controller interrupts for the right length of time once it was determined the packet was destined for someone else (or not grin).
The development system for the latter sported a 10 MB hard disk, as opposed to the usual 8" floppy-based systems -- I had written the hard disk drivers for that system in my final undergrad year: having a working HD-based TSC/Flex system was essential to the last course I needed to graduate and it was in danger of not being available, the course cancelled, and me having to wait a semester, so I did what was necessary to make the systems that were required for the course I had to take to teach me how to make such systems so that I might graduate when I expected.
Bewarned that Via has made last minute changes in the Nano-ITX mobo such that the Silverstone LC-07 and LC-08 cases, designed to accomodate it... don't
Last time I checked, Silverstone is retooling to produce modified cases, but the nano-ITX/LC0[7|8] combo will not be silent: Via nixed the option to let Silverstone use the nano-ITX moniker unless their case accomodated a fan and not a heat block (like their original LC-07 and LC-08 designs). (The new LC-07 nd LC-08 cases supposedly will have vent holes in the top -- ugh!).
These specs are subject to change, and should not be considered definitive. Contact Via and or Silverstone yourself if you want to pursue this option.
At one point I left a $100k job in Chicago to take an $85k job in Dallas and bought a new house 50% bigger than the 20 year old one I had for around 80% of what my old one sold for, and had more money to save after living expenses.
Of course, I didn't move to "Bumfuck, Noplace, U.S.A" -- I moved to a place which had a fair amount of local high tech biz taking advantage of the lower cost of living, not quite the rural extreme depicted dependent on a single remote employer.
What tends to happen is that the high-tech people in a rural area with traditional low-tech employment opportunities tend to be the local "rich folk" that stimulate and reinvigurate the local economy.
Dude you just don't get it, no one cares that you hate Canada.
Well, no -- you don't care...
except you really do, because you keep taking the damn bait!
If you love the U.S. so much live, there, shut the hell up and let Canada go its merry way.
You really must care because you want me to be quiet, and go away. Well, I won't. Canada robbed my family and I bloody won't be quiet about it. You have every right and opportunity to not listen, but you just can't do that, can you? Can't stand that someone says Canada sucks. Burtsing your precious illusion of a panacea, am I?
Like I said I don't care where you live, unless it happens to be next to me at which point I would move because you talk like a psycho with a gun fetish.
And just what the fuck is that? Why the heck should you move if I annoy you? If I were breaking the law, you should get a damn restraining order, not move. Fight the fuck back! Geez, that is soooo Canuck: not like things so shutting up about them -- running and hiding. That's what got the country into the mess it's in: people putting up with getting screwed over by the government. Oh, the apathy is classic.
The extent of me caring about this whole waste of time thread was the extent to which you were willing to lie, and worse, obviously lie, about Canada to satiate your obsessive hatred for it.
So, all I have to do is lie and you will care more? Oh, I could tie you up in knots. If I lie, or defame you, file defamation charges, or discredit what I have to say, or ignore me. But, you can't do that can you? Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!.
How's this: "Canada can't deliver the health care it promises." Or just plain insulting, "Canadians are sooo gay: they let the government screw them up the ass but good, and those frenchies in Quebec? They all got cheese breath, from eating all that pootine!".
If Conan O'Brian's "Triumph the Insult Dog" is any indication, that gets a Canuck and/or "Pepsi" real riled. Geez, the skit is always insulting, but Canucks have to get so rightous and self-important about it. You're either living proof or a damn good foreign poster child. The "big boys" aren't so insecure that they have to respond to every slight, you know.
Insults are cheap, and but the effort Canucks expend getting angry about them is good for such a laugh. Hint: you're better off expending your efforts elsewhere, like fixing that damn socialist mess you have.
Get a clue, you live in the U.S. now, get over it and move on before it eats you up more than it obviously already has.
Ah, but I have been slighted, and robbed, and had my family members effectively defrauded and murdered. I intend to have my revenge. I will dig, and knaw, and expose every little crack in that illusion of freedom and prosperity. I want compensation for what was taken from me and my family by fraud. So, no, I will not be silenced and go away. And you know what? Seeing how it riles people is real cheap entertainment.
Now, if you get a clue, your proper response to this rant will either be to ignore it, or a one word epithet: "Asshole!". O.K. You can say "Fucking asshole!", two words. And, it wouldn't bother me one bit.
It is folly to try to restrain greater power, because, by definition, you will lose. One can therefore only seek yet greater power to accomplish this task of restraint, but then one becomes the target of future desired restraint. Add to that the fact that power corrupts, and you have a nasty mix.
The most civilized places are those where restraint comes from within, and not without, or those places where, in extremis, collective restraint can overwhelm concentrated power, by design. This is the whole idea behind the U.S. Constitution's Second Ammendment: the right to bear arms.
No government, not even the U.S. can win a determined guerilla war. And guerillas make lousy governers in the end because their sole power base comes from toppling the enemy -- once accomplished they tend to fight amongst themselves. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Ten million pissed off Americans with AR-15s could easily topple the U.S. government if this was perceived as necessary or desirable -- either that or suffer national suicide as the state employes a scorched earth policy and nukes its own territory.
A nation of arrogant, opinionated, trigger-happy loudmouths (as Americans tend to get stereotyped) is actually a pretty good thing to have when it has elected a powerful tiger and needs to hold on on to its tail.
The founding fathers of the U.S. realized, in their wisdom, that governments grow more powerful and more corrupt over time, and sought to resttrain this corrupting effect while at the same time growing a strong nation. I think they've done a remarkable job.
There are anti-war rallies all over the U.S. an expression of displeasure with the current administration and, by their number and boisterousness a reflection of the opinion of the masses of their administration. When Meech Lake died in Quebec a week before Canada day, there were all sorts of decrees that flying a Canadian flag on Canada day would be considered an incitement to riot. Hell, that kind of decree in the U.S. would be considered a dare, with millions of demonstrators doing just that, peacefully, some waiting to unleash their reserve fire power held in check against any police daring to arrest them -- the state would incite the very riots it would claim to try to prevent.
But, historically, demonstrations where millions show up usually have the desired effect of changing government policy without resorting to widespread chaos and anarchy, always ever possible.
And so, the tiger's tail does get held, though the ride might be wild from time to time.
Uh no, you are delusional to think that I care where you live as long as its not near me.
Uh, no, I asked a question and posited a possible response. It would be delusional to presume that possible response as fact. I've met many Canadians who think that if one ever received any kind of benefit from the government, one is indebted to the state for life, and wondered if you held that view as well.
I'm confident they don't want someone who thinks its cool to shoot trespassers anywhere near Canada. You sound like you are an all American, and would really fit in Texas. Your stars are just totally crossed that you were born Canadian.
That is indeed correct.
As to why I dump on my birthplace so, it's simple: I believe it is run into the ground with its love of socialism and lack of individual rights (damn straight I should have the right to kill a tresspasser: who's property is it?), and this deserves vocal opposition and not simply flight -- if one runs from one's difficulties, they tend to follow, and the trend of many Americans to like the notion of Canadian socialized medicine demonstrates this disturbing pattern. Socialism is an evil that must be fought lest one is enslaved. Canada is a serious threat to a way of life that I cherish.
I fought politically while in Canada, but found deaf ears. So, the best way I could continue fighting, and improve my lot was to leave and stop feeding tax dollars to the socialist government there.
The fact that Canada is far worse, economically, than the U.S. for a significant fraction of it's population is enough for me to deem it a hell on earth in general -- there just should not be that much of a disparity: either it's better or worse than some place else to the same degree for all, more or less. It isn't: the productive are being turned into tax slaves to support social services that aren't being delivered as efficiently as they can be purchased elsewhere.
The fact that one can't spend one's own money for "covered services" healthcare, as deemed a Charter violation by the SCC (and subject to Quebec trotting out the notwithstanding clause) clinches it.
Obviously, because the difference is so vast for someone in my position, I have that much greater incentive to leave.
Would you argue that I have some moral obligation to stay and continue to be a tax slave? I suppose you would. I've already given far, far more in taxes than I ever received in services and am happy to take my chances elsewhere.
I've often found that present-day DRM techniques are bad because they forbid so much of what would otherwise be fair use, not the least of which is making backup copies of content, or compilations of parts of multiple contents. Furthermore, they are far too tied to particular pieces of hardware -- one is SOL if the "authenticated" player breaks.
A DRM technique that (a) I can leverage as much as the "big boys" to protect my own content, (b) preserves more of my fair use rights, is better than one that doesn't.
These techniques, generally involve encrypted content together with decryption keys possessed, but inaccessable to the end-user ("inaccessable" being a matter of effort, of course). In a flexible system, the user would be able, to transfer those keys, or a limited number of copies of them to playback devices, in a secure mechanism -- taking encrypted content to play at a friend's house should not be a hassle, for example.
Of course, given that key possession ultimately means that they can be discovered, to be effective, such a system would require content to be personalized to keys that an end-user already possesses, so cracking one does not crack the system. Given electronic delivery of content, this is not far-fetched.
Where open source DRM shines, though, is the ability to change the access mechanisms that playback or other decrypting devices offer. Fair use is not a static set of rights, but an ever-changing set: VCR-based timeshifting was "new" recognized fair use, for example. When "code is law", and the law is subject to change, it must be possible to change the codew as well.
Naturally, changed code to be loaded on a device that handles encrypted content would have to be signed by an authority the device trusts (or only be available to deal with content encrypted by the device owner), but this would open up community development of DRM code that respects new fair use rights (assuming the rest of the hardware supported them) -- I'm thinking of a fair use right to, for example, decrypted 720p analog video output where the previously permitted resolution was 480p), testing thereof, leaving only signing required to allow its widespread adoption.
The big current weakness in all DRM schemes is that while they may allow for preset fair uses, they can not anticipate and allow for future ones. I'd envisioned that the "DRM Carrot" should come with the "Fair Use Stick" -- manufactures of devices that use DRM should be obliged to modify them to support new fair uses as they are recognised, at their expense, in a timely fashion. Open sourcing the code makes this a lot easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorance is curable. Retardation is not one's fault (except when a side effect of earlier stupidity). Stupidity, however, is a patent refusal to learn despite having the capacity to do so.
But, yes, stupidity is that rampant: I am constantly amazed (and dismayed) at the number of people with Computer Science degrees that couldn't bubble sort their way out of a paper bag. Sheesh, <crotchety old man voice>in my day, that was a BASIC 101 programming homework assignment in 9th grade </crotchety old man voice>.
It's O.K. I do that from time to time as well.
That's why I said "If..."
Hollan's Law: the likelihood of something happening is directly proportional to the degree of insistence that it won't.
We've also had one "it'll never happen" situation where I did actually give in...
Look, your job is to make it work, the way you were told. If it doesn't, it is your fault. That's why he's the boss and you aren't: if you are in a "right to work" state, you can be fired for any reason, including the boss's stupidity. It is best to try to find a better job and quit before this happens. Been there, done that.
Never disobey your boss on technical matters, even when he has no fucking clue what he's babbling about. That's how you get fired.
No, you will get fired if it doesn't work. With a moron for a boss, you are in a no-win situation. Leave, or at least plan to leave. It is better to leave on your terms than his.
They cheat, lie, and steal their way to the top.
Really? All of them? Every single one? Gee, that's a damn wide brush you've got. I personally know several multimillionaires that do not fit that description.
My Mom was told by an a judge (you know, one of those greasy ex-lawyer types?!?),...
, in a court of law, that just because she was in the right didn't mean that she still shouldn't pay the opposing party damages.
Methinks you are confused. The victor in a legal case does not pay damages. Methinks instead that just because she may not have been responsible (and that not yet found by the court), it would be more prudent to settle a nuisance suit than fight it because the risk of a loss would be unbearable. Of course, she could've/should've sought a better attorney to represent her on a contingency basis in her subsequent claim of barratry. Many of those multimillionaires settle such nuisance suits on a monthly basis.
Why? To save time for the court! In the judges words, "sometimes, you can still be completely in the right, and it still makes sense to 'settle'". She doesn't have $30,000 to pay the lawyers to defend her case; so she might have to pay "damages" for something she didn't do.
And the judge was correct in his/her advise (it does not sound like a ruling). She could have relieved her attorney, secured another one, and continued. If this was a civil case, the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence". Thus, if the counterparty had greater evidence to back their case, they would win. I suspect the judge saw this in the discovery phase.
Her former lawyer completely misrepresented her case in her case file; there's evidence to suggest collusion between him and the prosecuting side, but nothing she could prove in court, even if she could afford to sue an attorney (which few honest people can ever afford to do!).
Well, either you can prove it or you can't. Which is it? My house was vandalized recently, and I know who did it, but without solid evidence or witnesses, I am unable to effectively press charges. Boo hoo for me. Too bad I wasn't in Texas -- could've blown the bastards' nostrils out the back of their heads with appropriate firepower.
Sometimes this is frustrating, but heresay does not evidence make. And, be thankful for that.
That's two cases of corruption of the highest order, and it's endemic in business and in the legal system. My ex-boss physically threatening the staff for daring to suggest that they'ld quit! Sexual harassment by the managers towards the working girls. Exploitatation of foreign workers. Blatant violations of health and safety code: I once working in a warehouse full of paper, which caught fire. They put it out, and we continued working in the same conditions as before.
So? Document, file complaints, and quit.
The existence of wealthy assholes does not make everyone who is wealty an asshole.
The people who make it rich are the people who commit and profit from treating other people like shit, in both legal and illegal ways. I'm unwilling to treat my fellow man that badly. I code because it's means less work done by humans, and more work done by machines, which is as it should be.
As it should be?
Do you realize that your code might cause someone to be replaced by a machine? Do you also realize the folly of thinking that no one who is wealthy thinks as you?
Power corrupts, and money can purchase power, but this does not mean that corruption is absolute or endemic.
We all have an obligation to make the world a better place than where we found it: by building systems to automate work, by improving literacy and communications, and to increase our knowledge of science and technology.
You (and I) code because that's the best we can do.
Both. The seven track tape drives were older. Made saving display code and parity easy, of course.
Except, with trustworthy computing this may be made impossible: only encrypted, signed content, will be viewable, and you won't have a certificate with which to sign.
There is no technical reason it has to be that way, of course, but it certainly can be made to be that way. Imagine a world with effectively zero-cost to disseminate information, but only the right disseminated information could be decoded. That's the threat.
Despite the political incentive for such a world, there is also an economic one: if the means of cheap communication (i.e. end to end distribution channels) are closed to your competition (e.g. independent artists vs. the **AA), it benefits you because your competitors barrier to entry is high compared to yours.
Combine that, with the present trend of money buying law, and the monopolists very quickly wind up in bed with the tyrants. Sounds like fascism to me.
Now, that does not have to apply to specific-purpose devices, like TV sets, or set-top boxes, even though they might permit some degree of user estensibility (the downloading to authorized code-signed new firmware, for example, where the user can select what, out of a limited selection, firmware enhancements they want).
Let the general purpose computer manage the users' data as users see fit, and let the specific purpose devices decrypt the data when it is not owned by the user. There is nothing illogical or incompatible in having different webs of trust for special and general purpose devices, so long as the user can limit the information they provide to devices that don't trust them.
But the Osborne and Compaq stood out. (Not to disrespect the Kaypro or anything).
Subject says it all, a portabe computer with a 5" monochrome CRT (16x64, IIRC) and two 5-1/4" full height floppy disk drives running CP/M on a Z80.
... but I have a copy of my Masters' Thesis on a nine-track 1600 bpi mag tape, in a CDC 6/12 character set.
No European country has universal health care of the kind Canada has: same level of care for everyone regardless of an ability to pay for more which is illegal for covered services in Canada. Despite a Supreme Court ruling that it is unconsititutional to prevent a patient from paying a doctor for preferential service, Quebec intends to invoke to notwithstanding clause on the Canadian constitution of overrule the court! (Only in Canada, sigh.)
Many European countries have two-tier health care systems, where a different level of service is available to those who can pay and this seams to be more effective.
We know, and (for the most part) willingly pay higher taxes for our social safety net that results in Canada repeatedly placing above the US as one of the best countries to live.
Best for who? Certainly not for me. That's why I left. Best perhaps for those who can not or will not support themselves with the fruits of their own labour.
The bottom line is that I find it far better to risk not having access to health care if I become destitute than to have to wait when I have the money to pay for care that a willing doctor can provide immediately. Willing to take that risk translates into more after-tax dollars that I can, guess what?, save for a day that I might become so destitute.
Others, on either side of the border, are free to disagree.
But, the reason many Canadians become angry with my personal choice is that their "system" depends on people like me to fund it, and we are leaving in drives, because, for us, it offers no value -- it is very poor insurance from a financial perspective. While some income redistribution to help the truely poor might be arguably justified, the inefficiencies and amount of such redistribution in Canada is truely horrific -- a properly run system would find the funds to help the poor by the savings inherent in large economies of scale. Clearly, this has not happened.
Canada relies on brainwashing its productive citizens to become willing tax-slaves. Not this one.
Actually, no. If you lived in Canada for any length of time, you might find that "Canadian Enlightenment" has many negative undesirable effects. Universal health care, for example, has led to long waits for service and a shortage of qualified doctors.
I'm one of those apparantly rare Canadians that sees the U.S. "way of doing things" as far better than what is done in Canada -- yes I've seen the pros and cons of "both ways" and overall find the U.S. far more enlightned (at least in principle, if not in practice) in realizing that "there is no such thing as a free lunch". Yes, this sometimes leads to bad things. But, the alternative is even worse. Others, on either side of the border, may see things differently.
While this may be true in the U.S., it is not true everywhere. I remember a case in Ontario, Canada where an artist was convicted of producing child pornography because of drawings depicting children with their genials in plain view (though, IIRC, there was no overt sexual activity going on). Part of the justification for the conviction was that such materials appealed to a prurient interest and had no redeming artistic value. IOW, they were harmful not to the fictitious children represented therin, but to society in that they would induce others to molest children.
Indeed (and it's been a while so I might misremeber this part), part of the controversy surrounding the case arose because of the artist's use of such drawings as a release mechanism for his own pederastic impulses even though he never molested any children.
Furthermore, depictions of child pornography or molestation are also illegal: it doesn't matter if the model is an adult, if s/he looks under age, the material is pornographic, and thus illegal. The complexities of "looks under age" make this a nightmare for producers of adult pornography who might wish to cater to a market that likes to see young women doing naughty things.
There are even worse implications. There used to be an award winning TV program, "Degrassi Jr. High" which dealt with issues faced by, well, Jr. highschool kids. One episode addressed the subject of child sexual abuse by a teacher, and the question arose whether a depiction of such abuse (toned down enough for network television via use of strong innuendo) violated the decency laws.
The standard in Canada is (or at least was -- I've not kept up with the law) that if something is found obscene by anyone, it *is* obscene. Thus, museums showing classical art have often covered famous nude paintings, lest they offend someone and the directors face criminal charges. This extends to kissing in public: at what point is such a display obscene and flies right in the face of discrimination laws: are a gay couple kissing in public protected by the anti-discrimination laws, whereas a straight couple isn't?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," er religious epiphany, er, no, magic.
My graduate project (c. 1984) was the development of a very low cost CSMA/CD system and network drivers for TSC/Flex. Hardware costs of $50/node were achieved when ethernet interfaces ran around $1000. Of course 125 Kb/s wasn't much, but in those days, it was impressive. Processing was purely interrupt-driven (no DMA), and the novelty was being able to mask the network controller interrupts for the right length of time once it was determined the packet was destined for someone else (or not grin).
The development system for the latter sported a 10 MB hard disk, as opposed to the usual 8" floppy-based systems -- I had written the hard disk drivers for that system in my final undergrad year: having a working HD-based TSC/Flex system was essential to the last course I needed to graduate and it was in danger of not being available, the course cancelled, and me having to wait a semester, so I did what was necessary to make the systems that were required for the course I had to take to teach me how to make such systems so that I might graduate when I expected.
I guess times have changed.
Last time I checked, Silverstone is retooling to produce modified cases, but the nano-ITX/LC0[7|8] combo will not be silent: Via nixed the option to let Silverstone use the nano-ITX moniker unless their case accomodated a fan and not a heat block (like their original LC-07 and LC-08 designs). (The new LC-07 nd LC-08 cases supposedly will have vent holes in the top -- ugh!).
These specs are subject to change, and should not be considered definitive. Contact Via and or Silverstone yourself if you want to pursue this option.
Of course, I didn't move to "Bumfuck, Noplace, U.S.A" -- I moved to a place which had a fair amount of local high tech biz taking advantage of the lower cost of living, not quite the rural extreme depicted dependent on a single remote employer.
What tends to happen is that the high-tech people in a rural area with traditional low-tech employment opportunities tend to be the local "rich folk" that stimulate and reinvigurate the local economy.
Well, no -- you don't care...
except you really do, because you keep taking the damn bait!
If you love the U.S. so much live, there, shut the hell up and let Canada go its merry way.
You really must care because you want me to be quiet, and go away. Well, I won't. Canada robbed my family and I bloody won't be quiet about it. You have every right and opportunity to not listen, but you just can't do that, can you? Can't stand that someone says Canada sucks. Burtsing your precious illusion of a panacea, am I?
Like I said I don't care where you live, unless it happens to be next to me at which point I would move because you talk like a psycho with a gun fetish.
And just what the fuck is that? Why the heck should you move if I annoy you? If I were breaking the law, you should get a damn restraining order, not move. Fight the fuck back! Geez, that is soooo Canuck: not like things so shutting up about them -- running and hiding. That's what got the country into the mess it's in: people putting up with getting screwed over by the government. Oh, the apathy is classic.
The extent of me caring about this whole waste of time thread was the extent to which you were willing to lie, and worse, obviously lie, about Canada to satiate your obsessive hatred for it.
So, all I have to do is lie and you will care more? Oh, I could tie you up in knots. If I lie, or defame you, file defamation charges, or discredit what I have to say, or ignore me. But, you can't do that can you? Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!.
How's this: "Canada can't deliver the health care it promises." Or just plain insulting, "Canadians are sooo gay: they let the government screw them up the ass but good, and those frenchies in Quebec? They all got cheese breath, from eating all that pootine!".
If Conan O'Brian's "Triumph the Insult Dog" is any indication, that gets a Canuck and/or "Pepsi" real riled. Geez, the skit is always insulting, but Canucks have to get so rightous and self-important about it. You're either living proof or a damn good foreign poster child. The "big boys" aren't so insecure that they have to respond to every slight, you know.
Insults are cheap, and but the effort Canucks expend getting angry about them is good for such a laugh. Hint: you're better off expending your efforts elsewhere, like fixing that damn socialist mess you have.
Get a clue, you live in the U.S. now, get over it and move on before it eats you up more than it obviously already has.
Ah, but I have been slighted, and robbed, and had my family members effectively defrauded and murdered. I intend to have my revenge. I will dig, and knaw, and expose every little crack in that illusion of freedom and prosperity. I want compensation for what was taken from me and my family by fraud. So, no, I will not be silenced and go away. And you know what? Seeing how it riles people is real cheap entertainment.
Now, if you get a clue, your proper response to this rant will either be to ignore it, or a one word epithet: "Asshole!". O.K. You can say "Fucking asshole!", two words. And, it wouldn't bother me one bit.
The most civilized places are those where restraint comes from within, and not without, or those places where, in extremis, collective restraint can overwhelm concentrated power, by design. This is the whole idea behind the U.S. Constitution's Second Ammendment: the right to bear arms.
No government, not even the U.S. can win a determined guerilla war. And guerillas make lousy governers in the end because their sole power base comes from toppling the enemy -- once accomplished they tend to fight amongst themselves. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Ten million pissed off Americans with AR-15s could easily topple the U.S. government if this was perceived as necessary or desirable -- either that or suffer national suicide as the state employes a scorched earth policy and nukes its own territory.
A nation of arrogant, opinionated, trigger-happy loudmouths (as Americans tend to get stereotyped) is actually a pretty good thing to have when it has elected a powerful tiger and needs to hold on on to its tail.
The founding fathers of the U.S. realized, in their wisdom, that governments grow more powerful and more corrupt over time, and sought to resttrain this corrupting effect while at the same time growing a strong nation. I think they've done a remarkable job.
There are anti-war rallies all over the U.S. an expression of displeasure with the current administration and, by their number and boisterousness a reflection of the opinion of the masses of their administration. When Meech Lake died in Quebec a week before Canada day, there were all sorts of decrees that flying a Canadian flag on Canada day would be considered an incitement to riot. Hell, that kind of decree in the U.S. would be considered a dare, with millions of demonstrators doing just that, peacefully, some waiting to unleash their reserve fire power held in check against any police daring to arrest them -- the state would incite the very riots it would claim to try to prevent.
But, historically, demonstrations where millions show up usually have the desired effect of changing government policy without resorting to widespread chaos and anarchy, always ever possible.
And so, the tiger's tail does get held, though the ride might be wild from time to time.
Uh, no, I asked a question and posited a possible response. It would be delusional to presume that possible response as fact. I've met many Canadians who think that if one ever received any kind of benefit from the government, one is indebted to the state for life, and wondered if you held that view as well.
I'm confident they don't want someone who thinks its cool to shoot trespassers anywhere near Canada. You sound like you are an all American, and would really fit in Texas. Your stars are just totally crossed that you were born Canadian.
That is indeed correct.
As to why I dump on my birthplace so, it's simple: I believe it is run into the ground with its love of socialism and lack of individual rights (damn straight I should have the right to kill a tresspasser: who's property is it?), and this deserves vocal opposition and not simply flight -- if one runs from one's difficulties, they tend to follow, and the trend of many Americans to like the notion of Canadian socialized medicine demonstrates this disturbing pattern. Socialism is an evil that must be fought lest one is enslaved. Canada is a serious threat to a way of life that I cherish.
I fought politically while in Canada, but found deaf ears. So, the best way I could continue fighting, and improve my lot was to leave and stop feeding tax dollars to the socialist government there.
The fact that one can't spend one's own money for "covered services" healthcare, as deemed a Charter violation by the SCC (and subject to Quebec trotting out the notwithstanding clause) clinches it.
Obviously, because the difference is so vast for someone in my position, I have that much greater incentive to leave.
Would you argue that I have some moral obligation to stay and continue to be a tax slave? I suppose you would. I've already given far, far more in taxes than I ever received in services and am happy to take my chances elsewhere.
He had the "operation" to become Wendy after Switched-On Bach was produced.
A DRM technique that (a) I can leverage as much as the "big boys" to protect my own content, (b) preserves more of my fair use rights, is better than one that doesn't.
These techniques, generally involve encrypted content together with decryption keys possessed, but inaccessable to the end-user ("inaccessable" being a matter of effort, of course). In a flexible system, the user would be able, to transfer those keys, or a limited number of copies of them to playback devices, in a secure mechanism -- taking encrypted content to play at a friend's house should not be a hassle, for example.
Of course, given that key possession ultimately means that they can be discovered, to be effective, such a system would require content to be personalized to keys that an end-user already possesses, so cracking one does not crack the system. Given electronic delivery of content, this is not far-fetched.
Where open source DRM shines, though, is the ability to change the access mechanisms that playback or other decrypting devices offer. Fair use is not a static set of rights, but an ever-changing set: VCR-based timeshifting was "new" recognized fair use, for example. When "code is law", and the law is subject to change, it must be possible to change the codew as well.
Naturally, changed code to be loaded on a device that handles encrypted content would have to be signed by an authority the device trusts (or only be available to deal with content encrypted by the device owner), but this would open up community development of DRM code that respects new fair use rights (assuming the rest of the hardware supported them) -- I'm thinking of a fair use right to, for example, decrypted 720p analog video output where the previously permitted resolution was 480p), testing thereof, leaving only signing required to allow its widespread adoption.
The big current weakness in all DRM schemes is that while they may allow for preset fair uses, they can not anticipate and allow for future ones. I'd envisioned that the "DRM Carrot" should come with the "Fair Use Stick" -- manufactures of devices that use DRM should be obliged to modify them to support new fair uses as they are recognised, at their expense, in a timely fashion. Open sourcing the code makes this a lot easier.