I've used Clearcase in a Linux/Solaris/Win9x/WinNT environment just fine. I think Rational produces this product under the "Rational Clearcase" name.
Be warned, that it is expensive (ca. US$1000 per floating license), and has a fairly steep learning curve (but that's partly because of all the things it lets you do -- various repository views, for example, are cool, but can be a nightmare if not managed properly -- it is easy to shoot yourself in the foot with Clearcase).
Re:Grandpa, tell me 'bout the good old days...
on
Remembering the BBS
·
· Score: 2
Well, I remember the old, old, old hard drives...
...that weighed 300 pounds, were the size of a small beer fridge, and had a 5 megabyte fixed and five megabyte removale 14 inch platter, and, best of all, sounded like a jet engine taking off and dimming the lights when they were spun up.
I'm refering, of course, to CDC Hawk disk drives, c. 1982. I had one in my bedroom, connected to an Alpha Micro computer system, when still living with my parents.
I am not trying to come off as "better than thou", by considering a dedicated firewall/router better than relying on each (or only) user PC to act as a firewall. Economics may dictate that such an external firewall may be unaffordable, but only you can decide what the security of your system is worth.
As for being a network security zealot, I would consider that "stronger security is better" and evaluate security measures on a "security vs. convenience" and "bang for buck" basis. An external firewall/router is not inconvenient, and provides good value (around US$200). I don't go so far as to use encrypted filesystems, though I have considered it.
Finally, the use of a dedicated firewall/router is commonly advocated: I am not alone in this view. In fact, when I got my always-on line, my ISP very strongly reccommended I get one -- the idea being that if I could afford $80/month for a DSL line (I'm so far from the CO that I had to spring for a dedicated dry pair at $15/month), I could certainly afford a $200 firewall/router.
In the scenario presented, securing traffic on the outbound channel may not be possible, without some effort (I envision a dedicated PC acting as a router AND a telephone switch for the modem line -- you could NAT this way too), and SOME firewall is better than none, but I can't help think that any ISP that prevents the use of off-the-shelf solutions for common security problems isn't worth dealing with.
Some of the problem is adults whacking off in libraries looking at porn. We can protect the kids from that by banning porn altogether.
Well, there are existing laws against public lewd behavior (as other posters have noted). But, let's assume that banning porn would solve the problem. The principle here is a dangerous one. Consider it's application in the following situation (warning: this reducto ad absurdum argument may be offensive to some):
Consider: "Some Jews are rapists and murders. By banning Jews (i.e. killing them), we eliminate Jewish rapists and murderers."
Now, there's no flaw in that logic: Genocide does eliminate the negative elements of a particular group. It's horribly frightening that such an argument even carried the day, some 70 years ago. The problem, of course, is that the side effect (killing of innocents) is completely unacceptable.
How is it that the same principle can be applied in the case of pornography? Do we value freedom of expression far less than the lives of innocent people?
Some will no doubt say, "Definately! Free speech matters far less than the right to life". Others (myself among them) would argue that without free speech, particularly unpopular or critical speech, democracy goes to hell because one can't spread ideas critical of the government, and sway opinion at the polls. The right to life is lost as soon as a tyrant comes to power where freedom of speech is already lost.
So, the proposed method of dealing with access to pornography in public libraries is unacceptable. This does not mean that access to such material should not be restricted in some contexts (minors, for example).
When I was growing up, public libraries had two sections, a "childrens'" section and an "adult" section. Minors could use the adult section with permission from their parents, and most did, to research school projects, around the age of 13.
Restricting internet access in a childrens' section of a library might be a reasonable prior restraint, even if it excludes otherwise benign material. However, the adult section, if it provides internet access, should have no blocking software whatever.
Just because something solves a problem, does not mean that the solution isn't worse than the problem solved, nor does it mean that better solutions don't exist.
Erm, uh, perhaps because s/he wants to take advantage of a firewall
>What would prevent this from being done using my solution? Most proxy (internet sharing) softwares comes with some form of protection, and what the packages doesn't come with it is easy enough to download a free firewall that will work WITH the proxy.
Perhaps you trust non-dedicated firewalls (i.e. in the networking stack of the user's PC), but I prefer a dedicated machine for this.
Finally, I don't like the idea of being dependent on a user PC to mediate my network connection -- if the other PC crashes, or becomes busy with someone else's work, my network connection suffers. Of course, as a "poor-man's" approach, it's quite workable.
Erm, uh, perhaps because s/he wants to take advantage of a firewall (built-in to many consumer routers) on the outbound link, lest any nasty packets come back upstream? Of course, if s/he trusts the cable company, this is moot.
Then again, there may be the simple desire to eventually NAT several PCs, though having the inbound and outbound traffic split might make this difficult.
The speed of light is 186,282 mps, or miles per second, not hour, give or take. For those who like nice, round numbers, that's 299,975 km/s, or close enough to 300,000 km/s, for most illustrative purposes.
Of course, that's in a vacuum. It propagates slower in a medium (which is why you have refractive effects at surface bounderies, and optical lenses work).
Oh please! Geez that must be truly worth a patent, I don't think anyone has thought of this before...
I had thought of the idea for a "Portable Electronic Book", with much the same design in mind -- this around 1980-1985. My idea was to have books on CD (having just gotten a portable CD player, and noticing how small it was), in a foldable unit, with one or two LCD display elements (monochrome, lousy resolution at the time, etc.)
I actually tried to raise some $$$ to get the project off the ground, but there was no interest.
No, no! Austin's feet never left the ground! That was the whole idiocy of the thing... he just stood his ground, and pulllllled "real hard" to haul the chopper down.
Heh:-) Strikes me that your brain is so sane that you can't even imagine the non-science in this.
O.K., so not a movie, but a TV series. Well, there was a pilot, but the non-science occured in a TV series episode.
Steve Austin (Lee Majors) a.k.a. the $6m man, prevents a helicopter from taking off by pulling it down. It's clear that it isn't his extra weight that's holding the chopper back, because they play the cheesy "using all his bionic strength" music, and show the chopper being pulled down "in the kind of slow motion that we use to suggest, that yes, he is moving at 60 mph".
That was so implausable that I laughed myself silly when I saw that.
While I generally agree that there is no contract to view commercials, I take exception to your statement, For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.
Now, IANAL, but, for a contract to exist, there must be several things:
0) Offer and Acceptance. Well, DUHH!, though many forget that without acceptance there is no contract. On the other hand, once there is acceptance, the contract is binding on both parties.
1) Consideration. Someone must give something.
2) Performance. Something must be done: property given, access granted, etc.
3) Duration. Contracts have to be met in a specified time. You have to tell when the contract is over, rather than just "pending". This is more important with leases and licenses than with sales, but even here, a "time to perform" (i.e. transfer the property) forms part of the contract.
4) And this is most important, A meeting of minds. All parties must have understood the contract and agreed to it.
Now, (4) is generally established by a signature, or other form of agreement. Contracts can be verbal, or symbolic: agreements don't have to be in writing, and I can buy a candy bar without ever saying a word, just taking the candy bar, and offering the right amout of money. The cashier's presentation of a receipt or a handwave establishes the meeting of minds.
Of course, enforcing such contracts at law is iffy at best because of the difficulty of establishing that a meeting of minds took place. For many contracts to be enforcable at law, certain other conditions have to be met, i.e. be "in writing". So, the wise person will contract for anything of significance in writing.
Many jurisdictions explicitly disallow (by statute) enforcement of "frivolous" contracts. So, If I offer you $10 for your house, and you say, "Sure!", such a contract is not enforcable at law. Similarly, without consideration, there is no contract: if I offer you a candy bar (or something of minor value) for free, and you accept, I can still change my mind because the lack of consideration means there was no contract to begin with. This is why often consideration is "silly". Real estate contracts in Illinois generally provide for the transfer of title to immovables within the home (smoke detectors, appliances, etc.) for consideration of $10, which is never (in practice) demanded (the price of the house, of course, is adjusted accordingly). People in Quebec, Canada, will often demand $1 from new appartment tennants when vacating: the dollar is for any improvements that the tennant may have made that are impractical to remove: carpetting, window blinds, etc. This way, the new tennant owns the improvements and the landlord can not demand that the old tennant remove them (they're now the "problem" of the new tennant). (Oh, and you generally don't want to transfer ownership of your improvements to your landlord, without significant consideration, because then he can raise your rent for the improvements!)
"Exempt" workers in Illinois, at least, have no limits on how many hours a day/week/year they have to work. Couple this with a "right to work" state and you can be fired without cause for having the wrong colour eyes, for example, and trivially so for refusing to work insane hours. About the only things you can't be fired for are federally recognized catagories of discrimination.
Now, there have been cases where so-called "exempt" employees were found to be, in fact, non-exempt, because vacation was accrued on an hourly and not diaily basis (more particularly, it was lost on an hourly basis), but such cases were expensive to litigate. The motive was generally scads of back-overtime.
Having been caught by the local grammar police more than once in my time, usually for a typo that looked like a grammatical error, I thought I'd post in kind.
That should read "for all intents and purposes".
Thus concludes this rare contribution by me to the ranks of the grammar police.
Re:Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
And there is a reasonable chance the company can wiggle out by proving that it was against policy to do that, and the company made a good effort to not use gpl code.
I think Teradyne set the standard on this, thanks, in part, to my efforts, while there: A "good effort", means paying RMS to come and lecture your developers on the GPL, taping the lecture, and using it as a tool for new hires who will work with GPL code.
Now, that cuts both ways: the company may have an excuse if a clueless programmer messes up, but now has no excuse if the company tries to hide it.
I would hardly consider videotaping the exterior of one's property in the same league as covert taping of the interior of one's property.
The problem with the HOA is that they forbid several possible actions within a particular context, leaving other reasonable alternatives available (in this case, while I may not be able to stop trespassers because of an inability to post signage to that effect, I could tape them if they vandalized the property). Then, the state removes even those alternatives, leaving the intersection of two permitted activities as the null set.
Ways around that are to petition your HOA for a rule change...
Easier said than done. No trespassing signs would suggest that trespassing is a problem (which it is, particularly because of vandalism), depressing property values. People here try to hide the problem rather than deal with it. Ironically, the police are more than happy for me to set up video cameras on my property, and help them catch the perps.
..., or move somewhere else.
I wouldn't have moved here if I had known the problem was as bad as it was. Unfortunately, the most recent crime stats were a year old when I was looking at homes, and recent acts of vandalism look like the work of a small group of people who suddenly decided to target this recently built up area.
I may be reading too much in your comment but you seem to be willing to have your HOA curtail what you can do on your own property, but not the federal gov't.
Since I am not a citizen, I have little say in what the government does, though I oppose their interference with what I do on my property as long as it does not harm others. As for the HOA, it is reasonable for them to have a greater say, precisely because the state of my neighbor's property affects the value of mine, and I voluntarily accepted their covenents when I bought the house. Of course, at the time, the proscribtions against signage weren't perceived to be a problem.
I think one possible solution may be to threaten to install motion detectors connected to loudspeakers anouncing "No Trespassing!" loudly enough to be noticed, but not so loudly as to be contrued as disturbing the peace. Surely, signage would be better received than that.
Alternately, an article in the local paper exposing (a) how bad vandalism is (which isn't that much of a secret since the paper prints a local "police blotter" of complaints), and (b) what certain HOAs do to impede fighting this.
The flip side of your argument is that someone who films house guests using the shower could say "I was only trying to protect my property from criminals."
I think that argument would be weak. If house guests are concerned about privacy, they should ask (and sue for fraud if they found out I lied).
This bill would seriously curtail the ability to have surveillance cameras on one's property to catch trespassers and vandals in the act.
I suppose a sign stating that the property is under surveillance would be reasonable (but see below), but one then runs into the defense of "I didn't see the sign."
It's bad enough that I can't stop trespassing because my HOA does not permit signage (other than for sale or rent) on the property -- in Texas, one is not trespassing if no warning (like a "no trespassing" sign) isn't given).
n other words, they wouldn't be able to cancel their local telephone service and use VOIP on their DSL line instead, as cancelling their local telephone service would necessarily shut down their DSL.
Maybe not!
I have a residential line and DSL, but because of my distance to the CO, I had to get a dedicated pair for the DSL service (for $15 a month). If I replaced the existing telco service with local toll, for some $5 a month, I could still have 911 emerency service, service during a power outage, and service to "outlawed" NXXs (why 540 is outlawed, I don't know -- I used to have a 540 residential NXX).
They don't list their toll rates to Quebec, CA, though, and their voice customer service line appears down now (the first slashdotting of a phone line?)
you're chosing for all who disagree with you, to boot
"As you are proposing, as well."
No. I am asserting a negative right, that others may not interfere with me (so long as I don't try to interfere with them), whereas you are asserting a positive right: that, armed with sufficient numbers that agree with you, you can force specific actions on my part.
In particular, I make no claim to restrict you from getting together with a bunch of people wnd voluntarily imposing a system of regulation upon yourselves. It may serve as an example of what kinds of agreements are beneficial for people to enter into.
"I can't include myself a public highway system any more than you can exclude yourself from it."
Sure you can! Form a cooperative, seek rights of way to land you do not own, and levy tolls on non-members. The railroads did this (though toward the end of the so-called "bobber baron" days, they also tried to outlaw other forms of transportation, i.e. coastal shipping, as "dangerous" -- it is worth investigating how much of the "bad" stuff done by these so called "robber barons" was done via money buying law -- something libertarians would oppose). People who gave rights of way cheaply, without seeking a share in railroad ownership made a mistake, and later cried foul.
...things I can not do, like send my child to a better school, contribute more to worthwhile charities and organizations like the EFF, etc., because of my tax burden
"Oh, yeah, the bad man's taking all your money."
Er, yes. And, without my consent, that IS bad.
"It's just like you objectivists to blame everyone else for your troubles. You want more money? Then make more money! The money's out there just waiting for you to take it."
First of all, I am an Libertarian, not an Objectivist. (Rand supposedly hated libertarians, BTW). The primary difference is that Objectivists claim the moral high ground becuase of "reason", whereas Libertarians claim it because of non-initiation of force, though my moral basis stems from Contractarianism and not Libertarianism, per se. Second, you are suggesting that the victim of forceful confiscation is to blame for the harm this causes them. Third, I earn quite enough to pay for what I want, including the share of government-provided services that I use, were it not for taxes I pay to (a) be redistributed to others, (b) support the enforcement of all sorts of regulatory programs. Do note that, were I to retain this money, it would stimulate the local economy, and provide income for other people -- hardly the spoils of personal greed.
"And by the way, the wealthier you get, the more ways you'll learn to dodge that bad tax man."
More evidence of the corruption of the tax system: ostensibly the "rich" pay more because they can "afford to". However, this is a lie, precisely for the reasons you mention, though it isn't as rampant as it once was. Unfortunately, calls for the rich to pay more of their "fair share" are exactly the wrong thing to do: in terms of government services actually received, they generally do pay far more than most of us. So, you have the paradoxical situation where the rich are over-taxed, yet taxed less than the middle-class at the same marginal rates. Of course, it isn't the low taxes the rich pay that's the problem, but rather the relatively high taxes that prevent the middle class from investing to join the ranks of the rich. Socialists decry capitalism because of the perpetuation of this have/have-not dichotomy, but it isn't an attribute of capitalism, but rather one of corruption.
Since you insist on alternatives, here's one for you: let the government offer the rich liability, asset, and court insurrance. Courts cost money, generally funded out of tax revenues, but larger civil cases, where more is at stake, should probably incur higher court fees. These could be offset via court-cost insurance policies. Rates could be structured to subsidize the poor without being forced upon anyone since one would have the chose to self-insure.
...the few checks against outright mob rule are codified on flimsy sheets of paper in the form of a constitution.
"At least that paper's a little more concrete than corporate rule being obviated by some theoretical invisible hand."
Huh? Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution mandate the type of regulation we see today. In fact, any rights not explicitly given to the government are reserved for the people. Libertarians have no problem with strong constitutions, and generally like the American model.
Adam Smith's so-called "invisible hand" would be constrained by prohibitions against initiation of force and fraud (particularly fraud, I'd expect). Of course, this would not protect people from their own ignorance or stupidity: a free society requires members to be responsible for their choices, both those that affect others, and those that affect themselves.
A forced exchange is neither fair nor free.
"Well, nice to see we agree on something. I can absolutely get with this philosophy as a tool. As a be-all, end-all philosophy, however, it's as lame as any other One True Way, rigidly applied."
This suggests that there are situations that call for forced exchanges that are free and fair. I can not see this. I can only see such forced exchanges benefitting the strong at the expense of the weak (who can not defend against the initiation of force brought to bear against them in forcing the exchange).
There are certainly situations where one might voluntarily accept what would otherwise be force against them, when appropriate consideration is offered. Where many agree, and few object, those few shound not be forced to comply, but rather shunned by the many who effectively form a cooperative under contract. This works well for many communities: Amish, for example, do not force complience with decrees brought forth by their Elders, but rather shun those who do not comply. This is surprisingly effective. See, the libertarian sword cuts both ways: you don't have to agree, but if you don't you're on your own.
...you take such a vocal, ardent, and venomous stance against my libertarian beliefs...
"Where I get ardent and venemous is when I ask for some reality checks, some backup for your statements, and you ''won't do my homework'' and sneer down at ''my ilk'' as ''biggots, racists, petty thieves, religious zealots.''"
From a libertarian perspective, you come off as a thief, or thief by proxy, so, yes, I claim the moral high ground (from a contractiarian perspective, this isn't strictly true, since we have not contracted to agree that theft is wrong, but I think it reasonable that you would agree to this, but claim that taxation is not theft).
But, how hard would a google search for "libertarian government regulation utility" be? You'd find arguments for both sides there, some with hard data. For example, regarding electricity .
If the government wants to certify distilleries as ''safe'', then let it, sell me a list of the safe ones. Or, offer a certification program, with fancy little seals and certificates (though that is so ripe for corruption)
"Well, as I believe you correctly point out, the fancy little seals system is not really a viable alternative. But I'm curious about the safe list system - this would be an improvement over the current one in precisely what ways?"
It would be an improvement in that the opportunity for corruption would be far lower. Instead of government providing the list as a service, private "booze rating" companies would spring up, in much the same way as bond-rating agencies. Because their value would depend on trust (lest, like Arthur Anderson, they go down in Enron flames), the incentive for corruption is almost nonexistent. Of course, for this to work, you'd need several companies in this business, and not a monopoly (which can afford to be corrupt for lack of alternatives), so while the government could offer this service, it would have to not do so exclusively (some people trust the governmment, after all, and would welcome such a service from them).
Perhaps it isn't improving because of the government-sanctioned monopolies that remove any incentive to improve.
"Cool. Now this is a basis for discussion."
First you support intervention and then you decry it?
Perhaps most people are too stupid to realize how bad things are.
"This ain't, though. Now how are you ever going to get the support of the mob, talking like that?"
So, replace ''stupid'' with ''ignorant''. There's a saying that people get the government they deserve. Cynics like myself tend to believe that government provide public education to keep the masses to stupid to see how badly they are being shafted. The first step, of course, is to encourage better education, let the schools compete, and not tax people to support the public schools if they chose to educate their children privately. Alternatively, provide greater choice as to where one's kids go to school and pay your school taxes to that district. The degree to which bad schools are subsidized is horrible in the U.S.A. At least, hold the schools accountable to standards. I know this latter measure is supposedly being done, but far too laxly, and supports the belief that the government does not want a well-educated (which does not imply expensively-educated, as home-schoolers can attest) citizenry.
But, to spend other peoples' money in an attempt to fix things is plain wrong. It is even wronger to give this money to the organization that likely fucked things up in the first place with their policies.
"I'm perfectly willing to go along with this, if indeed this is the most sensible way to improve the situation. I haven't seen anything so far but bland sophistry to back this up, though. So realistically, how might your proposal work? First you disband the FCC and FTC and a bunch of other acronyms, and then...?"
The general principle is that "less government is better". Of course, Libertarians take this to a minimalist level, and anarchists say, "none at all". If there is an overwhelming desire to intervene to boot-strap an infrastructure build-out, for example, then part of that intervention should be plans for it's eventual demise. If intervention is needed on a continual basis, then something is wrong, and the intervener (government) should be taken to task -- after all the intervention costs the taxpayer money.
Get rid of useless laws, and their enforcement. The only laws really needed are those prohibiting the initiation of force and fraud. Many grounds for intervention are based on preventing fraud. If the penalties for deceptive practices by private enterprises were much stronger (a condition of a corporate charter, perhaps? Though, libertarians generally oppose corporate fictions), and applied, there would be less need for intervention, which is likely just as corrupt and fraudulent. Look at gun laws restricting law-abiding citizens, for example. Criminal use of firearms persists generally because existing laws are not enforced for lack of funding. And the proposed solution is to spend more money on additional laws? This appears to be a government trend -- grow government for it's own sake. Government exists only to be the servant of the governed, not the otherway around, and not the instrument of a mob.
You're confusing two arguments here--we can debate the merits of government intervention (aka subsidies & grants) in R&D , or we can debate regulation (the mythical mandated bus you throw out), but it's important to remember that they're not the same thing....
Actually, I'm working as I respond to this thread, so my argments may not be as sharp as they could be, but I do find that regulation often goes hand-in-hand with subsidization, espescially in infrastructure build-out projects.
By this justification it is wrong for me to vote *for* anything that someone else is *against*. On the off chance that my vote wins, I'll be forcing my issue on them. And the whole thing works vice versa as well.
Well, lesse: voting *for* (for example) a return to disenfranchisement and reenslavement of Americans of African origin, would be wrong. I don't care how many KKKers you'd get to agree with that, it would still be wrong.
The general principle behind a democracy is that the electorate can enforce its majority will on the minority to the extent that the constitution permits. And, you'd better have a strong constitution and the willingness to defend it lest you fall victim to bloody mob rule.
Libertarians just push the envelope as to what is acceptable to enforce on others. Given the observations that power corrupts, and governments tend to serve their own ends (or those who finance their rule), we say, "not very much" to what we consider is acceptable for government to enforce. (Traditionally, (1) settling disputes where voluntary arbitration has failed, (2) protection from criminals, (3) protection from foreign invaders).
The overriding principle is that the only things that are morally wrong are (A) initiation of force, or (B) commiting fraud. Anything else implies that it's O.K. to treat someone (initiate force against them) in a manner that you would not wish to be treated yourself (if you accepted it, it wouldn't be force). The golden rule may be a but too religeous to raise (esp. since I am agnostic), but religeon/shmeligeon, it's still a good idea, regardless of what inspired it.
Majority rule to initiate force against a minority (i.e. taxing them to support some venture) remains wrong even when supported by a majority.
That's like arguing that because your father once gave you a quarter, he ()wNz your son.
Perhaps I was not making myself clear. While the PC industry may have benefited from subsidization of the mainframe industry, bootstrapping the commoditization of the PC industry was not the intent of this subsidization (I doubt anyone seriously imagined PCs at the time). This is what I meant by the PC industry taking off without government intervention. In fact, the road from the Altair/IMSAI, through the Apple ][, through various Z80 CPM incarnations, to the PC, was a rather slow one, but effective at weeding out good ideas from bad ones: 1975 to about 1982.
Would you really have wanted government-mandated PC busses, bioses, and operating systems, in, say 1977? Perhaps DMA would be illegal, because the computer would be too powerful.
I find it pointless to argue for the benefits of government intervention because somewhere, sometime, government may have had a hand in some precursor of modern technology. In fact, given the post-WWII/cold-war millitary/industrial complex, your'd probably be certain to find such a connection.
If there were no corrupt government, these laws would not be bought.
Do you really think that government-mandated infrastructure build-out would not be "bought" the same way? In fact, the present mess probably exists because it is!
I actually don't think we're as far apart as you think, but I'm not sure that many libertarians really do take the historical record into account as much as they think they do.
Utilities backed by government monopolies enjoyed higher profits far too long because of their monopoly status. Hence, "deregulation" being all the rage.
Canada, and Quebec, in particular (admitedly, not part of the U.S.) are notorious for building roads, at great expense, to nowhere, simply to bolster employment of road-building workers. Not quite the same as a monopoly, but such disasters do not inspire confidence in the ability to plan and regulate anything.
Put another was: do you really want technological infrustructure to look like subsidized housing?
I just don't subscribe to the notion that the taxpayer should subsidize an infrustructure buildout unless there is strong desire for same, and then you don't need the subsidy!
It's almost laughable that/. attracts both the anti-CBDTCA (sp?) and anti-DMCA crowds, as well as people calling for increased government regulation for their favorite technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Be warned, that it is expensive (ca. US$1000 per floating license), and has a fairly steep learning curve (but that's partly because of all the things it lets you do -- various repository views, for example, are cool, but can be a nightmare if not managed properly -- it is easy to shoot yourself in the foot with Clearcase).
I'm refering, of course, to CDC Hawk disk drives, c. 1982. I had one in my bedroom, connected to an Alpha Micro computer system, when still living with my parents.
As for being a network security zealot, I would consider that "stronger security is better" and evaluate security measures on a "security vs. convenience" and "bang for buck" basis. An external firewall/router is not inconvenient, and provides good value (around US$200). I don't go so far as to use encrypted filesystems, though I have considered it.
Finally, the use of a dedicated firewall/router is commonly advocated: I am not alone in this view. In fact, when I got my always-on line, my ISP very strongly reccommended I get one -- the idea being that if I could afford $80/month for a DSL line (I'm so far from the CO that I had to spring for a dedicated dry pair at $15/month), I could certainly afford a $200 firewall/router.
In the scenario presented, securing traffic on the outbound channel may not be possible, without some effort (I envision a dedicated PC acting as a router AND a telephone switch for the modem line -- you could NAT this way too), and SOME firewall is better than none, but I can't help think that any ISP that prevents the use of off-the-shelf solutions for common security problems isn't worth dealing with.
Well, there are existing laws against public lewd behavior (as other posters have noted). But, let's assume that banning porn would solve the problem. The principle here is a dangerous one. Consider it's application in the following situation (warning: this reducto ad absurdum argument may be offensive to some):
Consider: "Some Jews are rapists and murders. By banning Jews (i.e. killing them), we eliminate Jewish rapists and murderers."
Now, there's no flaw in that logic: Genocide does eliminate the negative elements of a particular group. It's horribly frightening that such an argument even carried the day, some 70 years ago. The problem, of course, is that the side effect (killing of innocents) is completely unacceptable.
How is it that the same principle can be applied in the case of pornography? Do we value freedom of expression far less than the lives of innocent people?
Some will no doubt say, "Definately! Free speech matters far less than the right to life". Others (myself among them) would argue that without free speech, particularly unpopular or critical speech, democracy goes to hell because one can't spread ideas critical of the government, and sway opinion at the polls. The right to life is lost as soon as a tyrant comes to power where freedom of speech is already lost.
So, the proposed method of dealing with access to pornography in public libraries is unacceptable. This does not mean that access to such material should not be restricted in some contexts (minors, for example).
When I was growing up, public libraries had two sections, a "childrens'" section and an "adult" section. Minors could use the adult section with permission from their parents, and most did, to research school projects, around the age of 13.
Restricting internet access in a childrens' section of a library might be a reasonable prior restraint, even if it excludes otherwise benign material. However, the adult section, if it provides internet access, should have no blocking software whatever.
Just because something solves a problem, does not mean that the solution isn't worse than the problem solved, nor does it mean that better solutions don't exist.
>What would prevent this from being done using my solution? Most proxy (internet sharing) softwares comes with some form of protection, and what the packages doesn't come with it is easy enough to download a free firewall that will work WITH the proxy.
Perhaps you trust non-dedicated firewalls (i.e. in the networking stack of the user's PC), but I prefer a dedicated machine for this.
Finally, I don't like the idea of being dependent on a user PC to mediate my network connection -- if the other PC crashes, or becomes busy with someone else's work, my network connection suffers. Of course, as a "poor-man's" approach, it's quite workable.
Erm, uh, perhaps because s/he wants to take advantage of a firewall (built-in to many consumer routers) on the outbound link, lest any nasty packets come back upstream? Of course, if s/he trusts the cable company, this is moot.
Then again, there may be the simple desire to eventually NAT several PCs, though having the inbound and outbound traffic split might make this difficult.
Of course, that's in a vacuum. It propagates slower in a medium (which is why you have refractive effects at surface bounderies, and optical lenses work).
I had thought of the idea for a "Portable Electronic Book", with much the same design in mind -- this around 1980-1985. My idea was to have books on CD (having just gotten a portable CD player, and noticing how small it was), in a foldable unit, with one or two LCD display elements (monochrome, lousy resolution at the time, etc.)
I actually tried to raise some $$$ to get the project off the ground, but there was no interest.
I'm sure I was not the only one with this idea.
No, no! Austin's feet never left the ground! That was the whole idiocy of the thing... he just stood his ground, and pulllllled "real hard" to haul the chopper down.
Heh :-) Strikes me that your brain is so sane that you can't even imagine the non-science in this.
Steve Austin (Lee Majors) a.k.a. the $6m man, prevents a helicopter from taking off by pulling it down. It's clear that it isn't his extra weight that's holding the chopper back, because they play the cheesy "using all his bionic strength" music, and show the chopper being pulled down "in the kind of slow motion that we use to suggest, that yes, he is moving at 60 mph".
That was so implausable that I laughed myself silly when I saw that.
Now, IANAL, but, for a contract to exist, there must be several things:
0) Offer and Acceptance. Well, DUHH!, though many forget that without acceptance there is no contract. On the other hand, once there is acceptance, the contract is binding on both parties.
1) Consideration. Someone must give something.
2) Performance. Something must be done: property given, access granted, etc.
3) Duration. Contracts have to be met in a specified time. You have to tell when the contract is over, rather than just "pending". This is more important with leases and licenses than with sales, but even here, a "time to perform" (i.e. transfer the property) forms part of the contract.
4) And this is most important, A meeting of minds. All parties must have understood the contract and agreed to it.
Now, (4) is generally established by a signature, or other form of agreement. Contracts can be verbal, or symbolic: agreements don't have to be in writing, and I can buy a candy bar without ever saying a word, just taking the candy bar, and offering the right amout of money. The cashier's presentation of a receipt or a handwave establishes the meeting of minds.
Of course, enforcing such contracts at law is iffy at best because of the difficulty of establishing that a meeting of minds took place. For many contracts to be enforcable at law, certain other conditions have to be met, i.e. be "in writing". So, the wise person will contract for anything of significance in writing.
Many jurisdictions explicitly disallow (by statute) enforcement of "frivolous" contracts. So, If I offer you $10 for your house, and you say, "Sure!", such a contract is not enforcable at law. Similarly, without consideration, there is no contract: if I offer you a candy bar (or something of minor value) for free, and you accept, I can still change my mind because the lack of consideration means there was no contract to begin with. This is why often consideration is "silly". Real estate contracts in Illinois generally provide for the transfer of title to immovables within the home (smoke detectors, appliances, etc.) for consideration of $10, which is never (in practice) demanded (the price of the house, of course, is adjusted accordingly). People in Quebec, Canada, will often demand $1 from new appartment tennants when vacating: the dollar is for any improvements that the tennant may have made that are impractical to remove: carpetting, window blinds, etc. This way, the new tennant owns the improvements and the landlord can not demand that the old tennant remove them (they're now the "problem" of the new tennant). (Oh, and you generally don't want to transfer ownership of your improvements to your landlord, without significant consideration, because then he can raise your rent for the improvements!)
Now, there have been cases where so-called "exempt" employees were found to be, in fact, non-exempt, because vacation was accrued on an hourly and not diaily basis (more particularly, it was lost on an hourly basis), but such cases were expensive to litigate. The motive was generally scads of back-overtime.
Having been caught by the local grammar police more than once in my time, usually for a typo that looked like a grammatical error, I thought I'd post in kind.
That should read "for all intents and purposes".
Thus concludes this rare contribution by me to the ranks of the grammar police.
I think Teradyne set the standard on this, thanks, in part, to my efforts, while there: A "good effort", means paying RMS to come and lecture your developers on the GPL, taping the lecture, and using it as a tool for new hires who will work with GPL code.
Now, that cuts both ways: the company may have an excuse if a clueless programmer messes up, but now has no excuse if the company tries to hide it.
The problem with the HOA is that they forbid several possible actions within a particular context, leaving other reasonable alternatives available (in this case, while I may not be able to stop trespassers because of an inability to post signage to that effect, I could tape them if they vandalized the property). Then, the state removes even those alternatives, leaving the intersection of two permitted activities as the null set.
Some HOAs forbid signage on homes, except notices "for rent" or "for sale".
Easier said than done. No trespassing signs would suggest that trespassing is a problem (which it is, particularly because of vandalism), depressing property values. People here try to hide the problem rather than deal with it. Ironically, the police are more than happy for me to set up video cameras on my property, and help them catch the perps.
I wouldn't have moved here if I had known the problem was as bad as it was. Unfortunately, the most recent crime stats were a year old when I was looking at homes, and recent acts of vandalism look like the work of a small group of people who suddenly decided to target this recently built up area.
I may be reading too much in your comment but you seem to be willing to have your HOA curtail what you can do on your own property, but not the federal gov't.
Since I am not a citizen, I have little say in what the government does, though I oppose their interference with what I do on my property as long as it does not harm others. As for the HOA, it is reasonable for them to have a greater say, precisely because the state of my neighbor's property affects the value of mine, and I voluntarily accepted their covenents when I bought the house. Of course, at the time, the proscribtions against signage weren't perceived to be a problem.
I think one possible solution may be to threaten to install motion detectors connected to loudspeakers anouncing "No Trespassing!" loudly enough to be noticed, but not so loudly as to be contrued as disturbing the peace. Surely, signage would be better received than that.
Alternately, an article in the local paper exposing (a) how bad vandalism is (which isn't that much of a secret since the paper prints a local "police blotter" of complaints), and (b) what certain HOAs do to impede fighting this.
The flip side of your argument is that someone who films house guests using the shower could say "I was only trying to protect my property from criminals."
I think that argument would be weak. If house guests are concerned about privacy, they should ask (and sue for fraud if they found out I lied).
I suppose a sign stating that the property is under surveillance would be reasonable (but see below), but one then runs into the defense of "I didn't see the sign."
It's bad enough that I can't stop trespassing because my HOA does not permit signage (other than for sale or rent) on the property -- in Texas, one is not trespassing if no warning (like a "no trespassing" sign) isn't given).
Maybe not!
I have a residential line and DSL, but because of my distance to the CO, I had to get a dedicated pair for the DSL service (for $15 a month). If I replaced the existing telco service with local toll, for some $5 a month, I could still have 911 emerency service, service during a power outage, and service to "outlawed" NXXs (why 540 is outlawed, I don't know -- I used to have a 540 residential NXX).
They don't list their toll rates to Quebec, CA, though, and their voice customer service line appears down now (the first slashdotting of a phone line?)
Still, this is VERY intriguing.
"As you are proposing, as well."
No. I am asserting a negative right, that others may not interfere with me (so long as I don't try to interfere with them), whereas you are asserting a positive right: that, armed with sufficient numbers that agree with you, you can force specific actions on my part.
In particular, I make no claim to restrict you from getting together with a bunch of people wnd voluntarily imposing a system of regulation upon yourselves. It may serve as an example of what kinds of agreements are beneficial for people to enter into.
"I can't include myself a public highway system any more than you can exclude yourself from it."
Sure you can! Form a cooperative, seek rights of way to land you do not own, and levy tolls on non-members. The railroads did this (though toward the end of the so-called "bobber baron" days, they also tried to outlaw other forms of transportation, i.e. coastal shipping, as "dangerous" -- it is worth investigating how much of the "bad" stuff done by these so called "robber barons" was done via money buying law -- something libertarians would oppose). People who gave rights of way cheaply, without seeking a share in railroad ownership made a mistake, and later cried foul.
"Oh, yeah, the bad man's taking all your money."
Er, yes. And, without my consent, that IS bad.
"It's just like you objectivists to blame everyone else for your troubles. You want more money? Then make more money! The money's out there just waiting for you to take it."
First of all, I am an Libertarian, not an Objectivist. (Rand supposedly hated libertarians, BTW). The primary difference is that Objectivists claim the moral high ground becuase of "reason", whereas Libertarians claim it because of non-initiation of force, though my moral basis stems from Contractarianism and not Libertarianism, per se. Second, you are suggesting that the victim of forceful confiscation is to blame for the harm this causes them. Third, I earn quite enough to pay for what I want, including the share of government-provided services that I use, were it not for taxes I pay to (a) be redistributed to others, (b) support the enforcement of all sorts of regulatory programs. Do note that, were I to retain this money, it would stimulate the local economy, and provide income for other people -- hardly the spoils of personal greed.
"And by the way, the wealthier you get, the more ways you'll learn to dodge that bad tax man."
More evidence of the corruption of the tax system: ostensibly the "rich" pay more because they can "afford to". However, this is a lie, precisely for the reasons you mention, though it isn't as rampant as it once was. Unfortunately, calls for the rich to pay more of their "fair share" are exactly the wrong thing to do: in terms of government services actually received, they generally do pay far more than most of us. So, you have the paradoxical situation where the rich are over-taxed, yet taxed less than the middle-class at the same marginal rates. Of course, it isn't the low taxes the rich pay that's the problem, but rather the relatively high taxes that prevent the middle class from investing to join the ranks of the rich. Socialists decry capitalism because of the perpetuation of this have/have-not dichotomy, but it isn't an attribute of capitalism, but rather one of corruption.
Since you insist on alternatives, here's one for you: let the government offer the rich liability, asset, and court insurrance. Courts cost money, generally funded out of tax revenues, but larger civil cases, where more is at stake, should probably incur higher court fees. These could be offset via court-cost insurance policies. Rates could be structured to subsidize the poor without being forced upon anyone since one would have the chose to self-insure.
"At least that paper's a little more concrete than corporate rule being obviated by some theoretical invisible hand."
Huh? Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution mandate the type of regulation we see today. In fact, any rights not explicitly given to the government are reserved for the people. Libertarians have no problem with strong constitutions, and generally like the American model.
Adam Smith's so-called "invisible hand" would be constrained by prohibitions against initiation of force and fraud (particularly fraud, I'd expect). Of course, this would not protect people from their own ignorance or stupidity: a free society requires members to be responsible for their choices, both those that affect others, and those that affect themselves.
A forced exchange is neither fair nor free.
"Well, nice to see we agree on something. I can absolutely get with this philosophy as a tool. As a be-all, end-all philosophy, however, it's as lame as any other One True Way, rigidly applied."
This suggests that there are situations that call for forced exchanges that are free and fair. I can not see this. I can only see such forced exchanges benefitting the strong at the expense of the weak (who can not defend against the initiation of force brought to bear against them in forcing the exchange).
There are certainly situations where one might voluntarily accept what would otherwise be force against them, when appropriate consideration is offered. Where many agree, and few object, those few shound not be forced to comply, but rather shunned by the many who effectively form a cooperative under contract. This works well for many communities: Amish, for example, do not force complience with decrees brought forth by their Elders, but rather shun those who do not comply. This is surprisingly effective. See, the libertarian sword cuts both ways: you don't have to agree, but if you don't you're on your own.
"Where I get ardent and venemous is when I ask for some reality checks, some backup for your statements, and you ''won't do my homework'' and sneer down at ''my ilk'' as ''biggots, racists, petty thieves, religious zealots.''"
From a libertarian perspective, you come off as a thief, or thief by proxy, so, yes, I claim the moral high ground (from a contractiarian perspective, this isn't strictly true, since we have not contracted to agree that theft is wrong, but I think it reasonable that you would agree to this, but claim that taxation is not theft).
But, how hard would a google search for "libertarian government regulation utility" be? You'd find arguments for both sides there, some with hard data. For example, regarding electricity .
If the government wants to certify distilleries as ''safe'', then let it, sell me a list of the safe ones. Or, offer a certification program, with fancy little seals and certificates (though that is so ripe for corruption)
"Well, as I believe you correctly point out, the fancy little seals system is not really a viable alternative. But I'm curious about the safe list system - this would be an improvement over the current one in precisely what ways?"
It would be an improvement in that the opportunity for corruption would be far lower. Instead of government providing the list as a service, private "booze rating" companies would spring up, in much the same way as bond-rating agencies. Because their value would depend on trust (lest, like Arthur Anderson, they go down in Enron flames), the incentive for corruption is almost nonexistent. Of course, for this to work, you'd need several companies in this business, and not a monopoly (which can afford to be corrupt for lack of alternatives), so while the government could offer this service, it would have to not do so exclusively (some people trust the governmment, after all, and would welcome such a service from them).
Perhaps it isn't improving because of the government-sanctioned monopolies that remove any incentive to improve.
"Cool. Now this is a basis for discussion."
First you support intervention and then you decry it?
Perhaps most people are too stupid to realize how bad things are.
"This ain't, though. Now how are you ever going to get the support of the mob, talking like that?"
So, replace ''stupid'' with ''ignorant''. There's a saying that people get the government they deserve. Cynics like myself tend to believe that government provide public education to keep the masses to stupid to see how badly they are being shafted. The first step, of course, is to encourage better education, let the schools compete, and not tax people to support the public schools if they chose to educate their children privately. Alternatively, provide greater choice as to where one's kids go to school and pay your school taxes to that district. The degree to which bad schools are subsidized is horrible in the U.S.A. At least, hold the schools accountable to standards. I know this latter measure is supposedly being done, but far too laxly, and supports the belief that the government does not want a well-educated (which does not imply expensively-educated, as home-schoolers can attest) citizenry.
But, to spend other peoples' money in an attempt to fix things is plain wrong. It is even wronger to give this money to the organization that likely fucked things up in the first place with their policies.
"I'm perfectly willing to go along with this, if indeed this is the most sensible way to improve the situation. I haven't seen anything so far but bland sophistry to back this up, though. So realistically, how might your proposal work? First you disband the FCC and FTC and a bunch of other acronyms, and then...?"
The general principle is that "less government is better". Of course, Libertarians take this to a minimalist level, and anarchists say, "none at all". If there is an overwhelming desire to intervene to boot-strap an infrastructure build-out, for example, then part of that intervention should be plans for it's eventual demise. If intervention is needed on a continual basis, then something is wrong, and the intervener (government) should be taken to task -- after all the intervention costs the taxpayer money.
Get rid of useless laws, and their enforcement. The only laws really needed are those prohibiting the initiation of force and fraud. Many grounds for intervention are based on preventing fraud. If the penalties for deceptive practices by private enterprises were much stronger (a condition of a corporate charter, perhaps? Though, libertarians generally oppose corporate fictions), and applied, there would be less need for intervention, which is likely just as corrupt and fraudulent. Look at gun laws restricting law-abiding citizens, for example. Criminal use of firearms persists generally because existing laws are not enforced for lack of funding. And the proposed solution is to spend more money on additional laws? This appears to be a government trend -- grow government for it's own sake. Government exists only to be the servant of the governed, not the otherway around, and not the instrument of a mob.
Actually, I'm working as I respond to this thread, so my argments may not be as sharp as they could be, but I do find that regulation often goes hand-in-hand with subsidization, espescially in infrastructure build-out projects.
Well, lesse: voting *for* (for example) a return to disenfranchisement and reenslavement of Americans of African origin, would be wrong. I don't care how many KKKers you'd get to agree with that, it would still be wrong.
The general principle behind a democracy is that the electorate can enforce its majority will on the minority to the extent that the constitution permits. And, you'd better have a strong constitution and the willingness to defend it lest you fall victim to bloody mob rule.
Libertarians just push the envelope as to what is acceptable to enforce on others. Given the observations that power corrupts, and governments tend to serve their own ends (or those who finance their rule), we say, "not very much" to what we consider is acceptable for government to enforce. (Traditionally, (1) settling disputes where voluntary arbitration has failed, (2) protection from criminals, (3) protection from foreign invaders).
The overriding principle is that the only things that are morally wrong are (A) initiation of force, or (B) commiting fraud. Anything else implies that it's O.K. to treat someone (initiate force against them) in a manner that you would not wish to be treated yourself (if you accepted it, it wouldn't be force). The golden rule may be a but too religeous to raise (esp. since I am agnostic), but religeon/shmeligeon, it's still a good idea, regardless of what inspired it.
Majority rule to initiate force against a minority (i.e. taxing them to support some venture) remains wrong even when supported by a majority.
Perhaps I was not making myself clear. While the PC industry may have benefited from subsidization of the mainframe industry, bootstrapping the commoditization of the PC industry was not the intent of this subsidization (I doubt anyone seriously imagined PCs at the time). This is what I meant by the PC industry taking off without government intervention. In fact, the road from the Altair/IMSAI, through the Apple ][, through various Z80 CPM incarnations, to the PC, was a rather slow one, but effective at weeding out good ideas from bad ones: 1975 to about 1982.
Would you really have wanted government-mandated PC busses, bioses, and operating systems, in, say 1977? Perhaps DMA would be illegal, because the computer would be too powerful.
I find it pointless to argue for the benefits of government intervention because somewhere, sometime, government may have had a hand in some precursor of modern technology. In fact, given the post-WWII/cold-war millitary/industrial complex, your'd probably be certain to find such a connection.
Do you really think that government-mandated infrastructure build-out would not be "bought" the same way? In fact, the present mess probably exists because it is!
Utilities backed by government monopolies enjoyed higher profits far too long because of their monopoly status. Hence, "deregulation" being all the rage.
Canada, and Quebec, in particular (admitedly, not part of the U.S.) are notorious for building roads, at great expense, to nowhere, simply to bolster employment of road-building workers. Not quite the same as a monopoly, but such disasters do not inspire confidence in the ability to plan and regulate anything.
Put another was: do you really want technological infrustructure to look like subsidized housing?
I just don't subscribe to the notion that the taxpayer should subsidize an infrustructure buildout unless there is strong desire for same, and then you don't need the subsidy!
It's almost laughable that /. attracts both the anti-CBDTCA (sp?) and anti-DMCA crowds, as well as people calling for increased government regulation for their favorite technology.