Generally, I'd prefer a box without a fan, though that makes compute-intensive video processing problematic. My satellite receiver has a "quiet fan" in it. At a distance of 12 feet, I can hear it when listening to quiet music passages. It is quite annoying. Now, fortunately, when listening to local music sources, I don't generally have the Sat Rx on, but that isn't the case when listening to music delivered from the satellite.
Basically, the biggest problem I've found is that MPEG2 decoding, whether in software or graphics card hardware, requires the removal of a lot of heat, hence a noisy fan.
I've looked at remotes in the US$300 to US$500 range, and seriously considered the programmable image touch screen variety. But they all have the same problem: lack of a pick-list style interface, or pull-down menus.
Now this isn't necessary, if all I have is a couple dozen functions per device that I want to control -- a decent programmable universal remote is fine, but what about browsing my music or video library... you want a full browser-style interface, generally via a monitor or TV. Then, you have the problem of several devices all wanting to be the source of the video for that output. No, the browser as interface (via monitor or TV) for complex interactions works fine for that. Devices which need such interactions should provide either a local video/RF feed of a browser image (if used standalone), or an ethernet connection for a remote browser to their internal server, so it could be consolidated with a single device feeding providing the browser output display. Automatic update of a "links page" when such devices are connected together, would be nice.
"We've learned a lot about what people want and what they don't want," Lund [Gateway spokesman] said.
O.K., Then why hasn't someone created the obvious (IMNSHO) appliance? Namely one that:
1. has an 10/100 (or even GigE) Ethernet interface;
2. can receive streamed audio and video and decode it to the appropriate outputs: analog stereo audio, S/P-DIF digital audio, Dolby AC-3 5.1 digital (possibly analog as well), composite video, S/Video, RGBHV and or SD/HD component video, 1394 transport of audio and video, as well as the ubiquitous CH3/4 RF modulater A/V; [obvously not all of these are required on all versions of the product, but some A/V streaming support is essential];
3. Provide a Web-like control interface for such remote sources, and possibly a complete browser.
Options might include multiple A/V inputs for existing local components (and the ubiquitous IR controller), along with local (or remote) HTML "interface pages" for providing a UI to control them; or even an embedded 10/100 Mb/s switch.
The idea is to try to (a) allow for A/V data to be retrieved from an existing home server, and (b) tie in all the other legacy devices you have (perhaps via some kind of outboard adapter). Current attempts at "universal controls" are clumsy at best.
I just got a new Sony 32" HDTV ready set, and HDTV satellite/terrestrial receiver. The set has multiple inputs, and the receiver can provide different resolution material on multiple outputs, but switching resolutions requires controlling BOTH the receiver output AND the set input. Alas, the only remote which does this is the receiver remote which lacks the fancy split picture and other TV controls. Yes, I could program a "universal remote", but it would lack the necesary buttons. Things like a Pronto help, but are a hack at best: I should just plug things together, maybe download a "driver" or "plug-in" of some kind to the device I described above, and it should "just work".
Now, you're all thinking, "1. Use a PC. 2. Do it under [GNU/]Linux. 3. GPL the code and release it". Well, fine, except: (a) PCs are ugly, (b) PCs are noisy. I haven't found one quiet enough to do the job in a living/family room setting.
Perhaps, but you can't use the law as a shield when you have done something illegal, i.e. "an exploit". You are said to have "unclean hands", and can not seek redress from the courts.
For example, if I enter into a contract to, oh, sell you illicit drugs, and I provide the drugs, and you don't pay, I can not seek redress from the courts. In this case, if someone produced code designed to harm or otherwise compromise a computer system, I seriously doubt they could cry "copyright infringement" if someone explained how to render such an exploit ineffective.
Though, given the bizarre and insane state of current U.S. legislation, I would still be wary of such a silly charge sticking.
Of course I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.
But the "work" includes the co-bundled documentation as well as the source code. The license applies to the work. Whether or not it can actually make a compute do something is irrelevent in that regard.
Given the choice, I can not imagine someone not preferring an up to date changelog over one that isn't up to date. What Linus does and what consumers of the kernel prefer are two different things.
The argument you should be making instead should hinge on whether a particular changelog is sufficiently up to date or not. I doubt that important security fixes not being in the changelog would qualify it as "up to date", and preferred.
In fact, the best argument that these omissions are not the preferred form of such a changelog is right here! We want to see the log of changes AC made.
Well, actually there is... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. [GPL 2.0, section 3, paragraph 2, here]
The preferred form of the Linux kernel includes an up to date changelog.
An interesting development regarding the WTC collapse...
It seams that the building design specs called for asbestos insulation on the support structure to avoid the catastrophic collapse that a fire could cause. This was used up to the 64th floor, when the use of asbestos insulation was banned in NY. At the time, one designer pointed out that if a fire broke out above the 64th floor, the building would collapse.
Now, asbestos is dangerous when inhaled, but with proper handling is no more dangerous than, say, gas mains.
One friend is of the opinion that of the 6000 dead (pick your number), 1000 were the result of a terrorist attack, and 5000 were the result of government irrationality. Had asbestos insulation been used, it is estimated that the buildings would have stood for at least four hours, if not indefinitely, allowing many of those 5000 to escape.
Ayn Rand (an Objectivist, rather than a libertartian, but often the source of many individual's interest in libertarian philosophy) also wrote on this subject. The idea is that principles do not apply in emergency situations, because the situation can't be forseen (If it could, it would not be an emergency).
The classic example is standing on the shore and seeing someone in the middle of a lake fall out of a boat and start to drown. You want to help them (even though you have no obligation to do so), but have no boat. There is a boat tied up to the dock, but it isn't yours. Do you take it without permission for the time it takes to save the poor victim?
Rand wrote that doing so was permissible and not a violation of Objectivist principles for several reasons. Under the circumstances, any rational person would want to be saved, even at great cost to themselves (i.e. a rescue bill). So the person drowning is unlikely to protest. This probably goes for the owner of the boat as well, though with a much weaker argument: he might argue that he should not be inconvenienced because of someone else's misfortune and wouldn't change his mind if he were drowning, because he avoids such risks.
So we have a situation where someone is harmed (loses use of his boat for a while, perhaps JUST when he needs it the most), and someome can be reasonably expected to be willing to pay for their rescue. Also, the would-be rescuer would likely be willing to compensate for the use of the boat (and risk not getting reimbursed by the victim) -- this is but one of the risks he takes on.
The only problem here is the lack of a contract with the owner of the boat!
In tort situations (harms caused outside of a contract, for example, a child breaking a neighbor's window with a ball), the guiding principle has been restitution. Here, an emergency results in the willful (as opposed to negligent) commitment of a tort. But clearly the motive is not malice (i.e. the rescuer does not WANT to deprive the boat owner of use of his boat).
So, the rational solution is to let the would-be rescuer chose between letting the victim drown, or compensate the boat owner for the tort he is about to commit on his property. Presumably the cost of this restitution can be estimated -- surely the boat owner can't argue a great opportunity loss if the boat is not kept secure: anyone could easily steal it and thus the owner couldn't argue for the value of it's constant availability. If the recuer takes the boat, and can't agree with the boat owner as to what reasonable compensation should be, the matter is settled by the courts.
The important ideas here are (a) the freedom (but NOT obligation) to chose to commit an otherwise tort in a time of crisis, (b) restitution after the fact. A more subtle idea is that opportunity costs can't be effectively compensated due to torts commited in emergencies.
Of course, IAAL (I Am A Libertarian), but IANAL (I am not a lawyer). NO PART OF THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
First, rely on yourself. That is, get some good theoretical as well as practical books. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming comes to mind. Yes, it is dated, but, if you have a math bent, you will enjoy Volume I. O'Reily offers lots of practical books on running this, and administering that.
But, I suggested finding mentors, so lets get to that. I suppose that people like me are the "first generation" of modern personal computer "old farts" -- we didn't really have "old hand" mentors ourselves that were computer people: they were chemists, engineers, physicists, etc. who used computers and learned (i.e. hacked) out of sheer necessity. Them and other people like us... what we had in common was either a need or a desire to hack. The point is that "our" mentors were a lot different than "your" mentors would be.
That said, you should probably start with your peer group -- other young hackers. Find out where they congregate and who they use for mentors. Sometimes us "old guys" will show up at a Linux Users Group meeting, or even a 2600 meeting. But, for me at least, non-hacker life (I have a family, own a home, etc.) makes that a bit difficult schedulewise. So, sadly, we're probably hard to find -- you'll probably have to pool your networking resources (which is why I suggested check with your peer group first). Of course, don't overlook places like Slashdot: you'll probably find an acceptable concentration of us here.
Which brings me to the flip side of the problem... do we, as "old fart" hackers mentor enough? Perhaps we should make an effort to show up at local meetings, or offer to help with computer science classes in schools, that is, make ourselves more accessable.
My father was an electrical engineer. Well, not really, since WWII prevented him from ever getting an actual degree (which would have been in medicine, not engineering, but that's a whole 'nother digression). Anyway, he ended up working for RCA Canada, and later SPAR Aerospace, on passive filters for all the satellites from Allouette through Anik C (whadda mean, "satellite TV" is new? That was the only way many Inuit (native northern Canadians) could get TV in the 1970s) and Brazilsat. The point is, I picked up an interest in electronics as a kid, which soon evolved to an interest in computers. See, my father "did neat shit".
Of course, that was way back in the 60's, er 1960's. I actually got to work with a computer in 1973 (HP2000 timesharing monstrosity running basic connected to dialup teletypes -- we got a DECwriter the next year, whee, 300 bps!) and experienced punched cards when I started my Comp. Sc. Degree program in 1979 -- we had DECwriters there too, and a few CRT terminals (at the end of current loop lines at, you guessed it, 300 bps), but course work had to be done via punched cards, submitted to the "express" window. You only had to wait 15-30 minutes for your job to get turned around.
I remember those days quite well. Today, I sometimes interview recent grads for software design jobs. One standard problem I pose is "Write a routine, in any programming language of your choice (I've probably seen it), that sorts an array of things according to some ordering scheme. I don't care about efficiency, but I expect the following: (a) that it is correct, (b) that you can explain the complexity of the algorithm in "O(n)" notation." Of course I expect a bubble sort of integers. One smartass did a Shell sort and got it right. But over 90% of the candidates fail this basic test. That's sad.
The scary part is that peer reviewers think this is being "too hard" on a candidate. Or worse, I remember one kid who added "servlets" to an FTP server -- basically he provided an API for command plug-ins that executed server-side and could provide massaged data back to the client. So, for example, you could do back-end SQL queries via FTP. Obviously an excercise in program extensibility. Trouble is, he didn't even get an offer -- a coworker insisted that he must have been "bullshitting" because "everyone knows that servlets are a Java thing and not an FTP thing". My protests got voted down. So, technical ignorance has permeated even the supposed technical interview -- on the part of the interviewers! Shortly after losing that battle, I left the employ of that company.
I remember building memory boards for an old SWTPC computer (none of us geek kids could afford to buy them assembled). I remember lamenting when the IBM PC booted into ROM Basic and displayed "Ready" -- who's gonna know how the computer gets to that point? that was what, almost 20 years ago?
There is hope. I often see young (say, under 20 years old) posters here who do have a clue. I envy that they have far better tools than I did as a kid, but note that these same "better tools" make it no big deal to be a script kiddie techno-vandal. Compare the history of mass computing to the history of the car. Anyone can drive a car today. Few know how to fix one or what makes it run, But, even with the ease of "turn the key, push on the gas, and remember to steer" driving, some still hack their cars. I take that as a sign that hacking doesn't die -- the computer hacker was a rare breed in the 1970s and still is despite the fact that there are a lot of 'leet wannabees around without a clue.
My advice to the young hacker is to seek out other hackers, young and old (say 40 and up), and avoid the wannabees. Of course, this implies a willingness and responsibility on the part of us "old guys" to mentor -- sure, you don't need a fast sort, or balanced tree structure, when you've got a 1 Ghz processor, but imagine how much faster and scalable your code will be if you use one. In my day, RAM was fast, and disk was S L O W, so you carefully designed your algorithms to minimize disk access. These days, you want stuff to stay locked in processor cache 'cause RAM is slow, by comparison. Look at other "hobies", like HAM radio, and see how "the torch gets passed on" there. We should strive for similar effect.
IANAL, but in a civil case, you can't collect if you have acted illegaly. I believe that attempting to buy restricted drugs would count as "acting illegally", so no, you couldn't collect damages if the drugs turned out to be bogus. It's called "coming into court with unclean hands".
...it could retrieve and play UNCOMPRESSED raw WAV files. Yes, I'm willing to allocate 200 Gb to my music collection. No, I will not compress the hell out of my music (well, not most of it anyway).
I've had grocery stores REFUSE to let me purchase goods UNLESS I provided a card.
Of course, getting somewhat loud about it ("You mean I can't buy food for my baby without you tracking my purchases and invading my privacy!") while not quite beligerent, usually gets them to back down.
Ever notice how all these little script kiddies being busted are shown to have had "linux" machines? Linux is being equated to badness
Oh this reminds me of a kind of racial profiling that used to go on in the Canadian media (not all, of course, but enough of it). Whenever a crime was commited, and the suspect was not white, a photo was always broadcast as part of the news story -- the implied message was that "not white == guilty". That used to get me REALLY riled: either show all photos that are available or none, lest an accusation of racial bias stick.
I'm not so naive to think that bias does not exist in the media, but, because of the wide freedoms that the press supposedly enjoys (at least in the U.S.A.), those freedoms should come at the price of a standard of unbiased reporting greater than that to which the common person would be held.
IOW, I can have an opinion, based on race, and be free to spout it, however vile it may be. It is an opinion, and I have first amendment yada yada to be that kind of pig if I want. But the press should be very careful not to misrepresent opinion as fact and go out of their way to label editorial commentary as such.
Ever notice how, when some product made by SLC (some large corporation) is involved in a crime, a disclaimer that "this is not meant to imply that SLC's... are a tool of crime..." is broadcast? Should be the same if [GNU/]/Linux is a factual part of a crime story.
Consider the costs and possibly bad publicity in fighting such a case...
You do x. Someone threatens to apply law Y against you (which has nothing to do with x, or cryptically permits x).
Do you sit there and spend your money against a frivolous case in an environment where (a) a good lawyer could convincingly argue that Y does apply, (b) the judiciary is perceived as 'bought', (c) the general public does not understand that Y does not apply because they understand neither x, nor Y.
Even if you win, it might cost you big time. Financially, you could still lose. The only people who would fight that fight would do so out of principle (and such people are stronger than I and I salute them).
In such cases, it strikes me that setting a precendent that such a suit is, indeed, frivolous, and without merit, would be a good idea. Isn't that what case law is all about, establishing precedents to make it easier to prosecute or defend similar cases in the future?
So, if someone threatens to sue you (which, IIRC (and IANAL), is illegal in Canada, at least (threatening to sue, that is -- either sue or don't)), it should be possible to sue for having made a groundless legal threat.
Now, that's not why Felten, et. al. are suing (they're arguing a first amendment issue and not a threat of a nuisance suit), so perhaps their case has no merit on a technicality (suing for the wrong reason), but there should be a legal mechanism for fighting back against legally groundless legal bullying -- IOW, if you threaten to sue me, I should be free to act as if you had, and defend that your suit would have been groundless, and so your threat was harassment.
This strikes me as an acceptable balance between "threatening" to sue but avoiding an all-out suit (so as to not clog the courts) when you're sure you'd have a case, and fighing such "legal bullying" the ability to so threaten would encourage.
And you're telling me that 60 of 62 houses signed up to drop $1600+ just to get some fast internet? That's a little much to believe...
Perhaps some of that was "new houseitis", you know, you buy a brand new house, and then want to fix it up REAL NICE. And $1600 compared to the cost of a typical house is peanuts.
As for my recent home purchase: 3200 square feet near Dallas, TX. for MUCH LESS than the house half that size I sold near Chicago, IL. So, I had $$$ burning a hole in my pocket.
After the new appliances (Maytag Neptune Washer/Dryer, Maytag side by side fridge $3700), and blinds ($3000, a drag to have to buy but new homes don't come with them), it was time for "fun stuff". Oh yeah, did I mention the $500 spent just on bathroom accessories? Like I said "new houseitis".
Of course, the stupid builder was straight out of the stone age, so right away I planned a headend with 6 runs of dual Cat5e, and dual RG6. I decided to go for DirectTV (it was cheaper than cable anyway), and so planned for 2 5x8 multiswitches at the headend, but only ended up installing a single amplified 5x8 and the 4x4 that came with the dish. $1750, including cable (2000 ft Cat5e, 2000 ft RG6), connectors, headend boxes (2 Leviton 14" by 24"), punchdown blocks, structured wiring blocks, DSL bridge, firewall, multiswitches and splitters.
So, $1k to $2k to provide a link to a local high speed neighborhood LAN, when afflicted with "new houseitis" isn't a lot.
Oh yeah, my 10 year old TV died during all this, so I ended up getting a Sony HDTV-ready set and an HDTV DirecTV receiver, as well as a terrestrial DTV antenna.
H1-B workers must be paid at least the going wage and can't depress it.
This is debatable. It is easy to manipuate salary surveys and job titles.
And, IIRC, you can't hire an H1-B worker if you have been actively laying off Americans.
The monitoring is very poor. Words in a law and action are two different things.
Fine, so call for enforcement of the law.
They are certainly not cheap labor. If you know of cases of H1-B "sweatshops", I suggest you contact the INS -- their employer is breaking immigration laws.
Hidden camera?
Ah, so are you citing problems without evidence? I suggest not complaining about a problem unless you have compelling evidence. Then, evidence in hand, try applying existing laws before complaining that they are ineffective.
While looking for another job, and insisting on an H1-B visa transfer (I qualify for a Nafta visa as well, but, for various reasons, prefer the H1-B -- it makes Green Card processing easier because it relies on legislation that "permits" dual intent instead of no explicitly "forbidding" it), no employer could hire me that had recently let Americans go. So my experience is that employers DO heed INS regulations, particularly those that employ significant numbers of foriegn tech workers. Of course, YMMV.
What you have is a de-facto indentured servant. They cannot easily shop around if abused, and are often used to or expect oppression.
To some extent this is true, but some of the last legislation to come out of the Clinton administration made it easier for H1-Bs to look for new work and start without having to wait for their visas to transfer (of course, if the transfer is denied, you're SOL). Thus, the problem has been mitigated to a large degree.
The H1B thing is a big lie. Wether you agree with open borders WRT employment or not, the H1B laws were based on PAC manipulation of the facts and sloppy studies.
Certainly ideas are pushed as far as they can when lobbying government for new legislation. The response usually provides some, but not all, what was desired in the first place.
But, you have built a great straw-man of the problems of H1-B workers without citing specific cases of the abuses you mention. If said abuses were a major problem, you'd likely be able to produce such evidence, no?
The problems abd abuses you describe are no doubt real, and do occur, but I suspect to a far lesser extent that you think. Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to fix them.
As for me, had I not saved the asses of many American coworkers during "project panic mode", no doubt they, and our employer at the time would be far worse off today. Yes, I am a guest here, but I figure that with the INS hoops through which I have to jump at a snail's pace, and the contributions I have made (to my employer, coworkers, American charities, and the local economy), I'm paying my dues.
In conclusion, I hope you have me confused with someone else.
H1-B workers must be paid at least the going wage and can't depress it. At least so goes the law. And, IIRC, you can't hire an H1-B worker if you have been actively laying off Americans.
So, it is unlikely that new H1-B workers will be hired in this climate, or layed-off ones re-hired. H1-B workers often cost more (when the employer pays their immigration legal fees) than their American counterparts, and are retained only when they provide greater value. They are certainly not cheap labor. If you know of cases of H1-B "sweatshops", I suggest you contact the INS -- their employer is breaking immigration laws.
Of course, I suppose you could argue the case that existing H1-B workers who remain employed be fired to make room to hire Americans, but remember that many of us are spending our hard-earned cash helping out some of those Americans recently displaced from their jobs and continue to stimulate the local economy, and if this benefitted the employer, would already be done.
Finally, in my case, having had a Labor Certification previously granted (a first step for a Green Card), by definition there is no American that can do my job.
Islam is the only western religion that I know of which recognizes other religions as believers as well.
The Baha'i faith does as well. In fact it recognizes all prophets from the major faiths as separate "manifestations" of one god.
(I am agnostic. I do not capitalize "god".)
Right, but they can transfer that right to ask to third parties, which we might not want to deal with. If your distributing code to 10 customers tops (at several $million on a per-installation basis), you don't want to get into the business of supporting millions of people that they gave the binaries of GPL utilities you included. You wan't them to support that redistribution. The only way to do this is by giving them source up front.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, I'd prefer a box without a fan, though that makes compute-intensive video processing problematic. My satellite receiver has a "quiet fan" in it. At a distance of 12 feet, I can hear it when listening to quiet music passages. It is quite annoying. Now, fortunately, when listening to local music sources, I don't generally have the Sat Rx on, but that isn't the case when listening to music delivered from the satellite.
Basically, the biggest problem I've found is that MPEG2 decoding, whether in software or graphics card hardware, requires the removal of a lot of heat, hence a noisy fan.
But, I will look into your suggestions.
Now this isn't necessary, if all I have is a couple dozen functions per device that I want to control -- a decent programmable universal remote is fine, but what about browsing my music or video library... you want a full browser-style interface, generally via a monitor or TV. Then, you have the problem of several devices all wanting to be the source of the video for that output. No, the browser as interface (via monitor or TV) for complex interactions works fine for that. Devices which need such interactions should provide either a local video/RF feed of a browser image (if used standalone), or an ethernet connection for a remote browser to their internal server, so it could be consolidated with a single device feeding providing the browser output display. Automatic update of a "links page" when such devices are connected together, would be nice.
O.K., Then why hasn't someone created the obvious (IMNSHO) appliance? Namely one that:
1. has an 10/100 (or even GigE) Ethernet interface;
2. can receive streamed audio and video and decode it to the appropriate outputs: analog stereo audio, S/P-DIF digital audio, Dolby AC-3 5.1 digital (possibly analog as well), composite video, S/Video, RGBHV and or SD/HD component video, 1394 transport of audio and video, as well as the ubiquitous CH3/4 RF modulater A/V; [obvously not all of these are required on all versions of the product, but some A/V streaming support is essential];
3. Provide a Web-like control interface for such remote sources, and possibly a complete browser.
Options might include multiple A/V inputs for existing local components (and the ubiquitous IR controller), along with local (or remote) HTML "interface pages" for providing a UI to control them; or even an embedded 10/100 Mb/s switch.
The idea is to try to (a) allow for A/V data to be retrieved from an existing home server, and (b) tie in all the other legacy devices you have (perhaps via some kind of outboard adapter). Current attempts at "universal controls" are clumsy at best.
I just got a new Sony 32" HDTV ready set, and HDTV satellite/terrestrial receiver. The set has multiple inputs, and the receiver can provide different resolution material on multiple outputs, but switching resolutions requires controlling BOTH the receiver output AND the set input. Alas, the only remote which does this is the receiver remote which lacks the fancy split picture and other TV controls. Yes, I could program a "universal remote", but it would lack the necesary buttons. Things like a Pronto help, but are a hack at best: I should just plug things together, maybe download a "driver" or "plug-in" of some kind to the device I described above, and it should "just work".
Now, you're all thinking, "1. Use a PC. 2. Do it under [GNU/]Linux. 3. GPL the code and release it". Well, fine, except: (a) PCs are ugly, (b) PCs are noisy. I haven't found one quiet enough to do the job in a living/family room setting.
And doesn't that imply that the FBI aids terrorists?
SPOOK: Arrest thyself!
For example, if I enter into a contract to, oh, sell you illicit drugs, and I provide the drugs, and you don't pay, I can not seek redress from the courts. In this case, if someone produced code designed to harm or otherwise compromise a computer system, I seriously doubt they could cry "copyright infringement" if someone explained how to render such an exploit ineffective.
Though, given the bizarre and insane state of current U.S. legislation, I would still be wary of such a silly charge sticking.
Of course I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.
But the "work" includes the co-bundled documentation as well as the source code. The license applies to the work. Whether or not it can actually make a compute do something is irrelevent in that regard.
The argument you should be making instead should hinge on whether a particular changelog is sufficiently up to date or not. I doubt that important security fixes not being in the changelog would qualify it as "up to date", and preferred.
In fact, the best argument that these omissions are not the preferred form of such a changelog is right here! We want to see the log of changes AC made.
The preferred form of the Linux kernel includes an up to date changelog.
It seams that the building design specs called for asbestos insulation on the support structure to avoid the catastrophic collapse that a fire could cause. This was used up to the 64th floor, when the use of asbestos insulation was banned in NY. At the time, one designer pointed out that if a fire broke out above the 64th floor, the building would collapse.
Now, asbestos is dangerous when inhaled, but with proper handling is no more dangerous than, say, gas mains.
One friend is of the opinion that of the 6000 dead (pick your number), 1000 were the result of a terrorist attack, and 5000 were the result of government irrationality. Had asbestos insulation been used, it is estimated that the buildings would have stood for at least four hours, if not indefinitely, allowing many of those 5000 to escape.
Ayn Rand (an Objectivist, rather than a libertartian, but often the source of many individual's interest in libertarian philosophy) also wrote on this subject. The idea is that principles do not apply in emergency situations, because the situation can't be forseen (If it could, it would not be an emergency).
The classic example is standing on the shore and seeing someone in the middle of a lake fall out of a boat and start to drown. You want to help them (even though you have no obligation to do so), but have no boat. There is a boat tied up to the dock, but it isn't yours. Do you take it without permission for the time it takes to save the poor victim?
Rand wrote that doing so was permissible and not a violation of Objectivist principles for several reasons. Under the circumstances, any rational person would want to be saved, even at great cost to themselves (i.e. a rescue bill). So the person drowning is unlikely to protest. This probably goes for the owner of the boat as well, though with a much weaker argument: he might argue that he should not be inconvenienced because of someone else's misfortune and wouldn't change his mind if he were drowning, because he avoids such risks.
So we have a situation where someone is harmed (loses use of his boat for a while, perhaps JUST when he needs it the most), and someome can be reasonably expected to be willing to pay for their rescue. Also, the would-be rescuer would likely be willing to compensate for the use of the boat (and risk not getting reimbursed by the victim) -- this is but one of the risks he takes on.
The only problem here is the lack of a contract with the owner of the boat!
In tort situations (harms caused outside of a contract, for example, a child breaking a neighbor's window with a ball), the guiding principle has been restitution. Here, an emergency results in the willful (as opposed to negligent) commitment of a tort. But clearly the motive is not malice (i.e. the rescuer does not WANT to deprive the boat owner of use of his boat).
So, the rational solution is to let the would-be rescuer chose between letting the victim drown, or compensate the boat owner for the tort he is about to commit on his property. Presumably the cost of this restitution can be estimated -- surely the boat owner can't argue a great opportunity loss if the boat is not kept secure: anyone could easily steal it and thus the owner couldn't argue for the value of it's constant availability. If the recuer takes the boat, and can't agree with the boat owner as to what reasonable compensation should be, the matter is settled by the courts.
The important ideas here are (a) the freedom (but NOT obligation) to chose to commit an otherwise tort in a time of crisis, (b) restitution after the fact. A more subtle idea is that opportunity costs can't be effectively compensated due to torts commited in emergencies.
Of course, IAAL (I Am A Libertarian), but IANAL (I am not a lawyer). NO PART OF THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.
Er, RMS doesn't drink beer, drive a motorcycle, or have what I would call a "ZZ Top" beard.
First, rely on yourself. That is, get some good theoretical as well as practical books. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming comes to mind. Yes, it is dated, but, if you have a math bent, you will enjoy Volume I. O'Reily offers lots of practical books on running this, and administering that.
But, I suggested finding mentors, so lets get to that. I suppose that people like me are the "first generation" of modern personal computer "old farts" -- we didn't really have "old hand" mentors ourselves that were computer people: they were chemists, engineers, physicists, etc. who used computers and learned (i.e. hacked) out of sheer necessity. Them and other people like us... what we had in common was either a need or a desire to hack. The point is that "our" mentors were a lot different than "your" mentors would be.
That said, you should probably start with your peer group -- other young hackers. Find out where they congregate and who they use for mentors. Sometimes us "old guys" will show up at a Linux Users Group meeting, or even a 2600 meeting. But, for me at least, non-hacker life (I have a family, own a home, etc.) makes that a bit difficult schedulewise. So, sadly, we're probably hard to find -- you'll probably have to pool your networking resources (which is why I suggested check with your peer group first). Of course, don't overlook places like Slashdot: you'll probably find an acceptable concentration of us here.
Which brings me to the flip side of the problem... do we, as "old fart" hackers mentor enough? Perhaps we should make an effort to show up at local meetings, or offer to help with computer science classes in schools, that is, make ourselves more accessable.
Of course, that was way back in the 60's, er 1960's. I actually got to work with a computer in 1973 (HP2000 timesharing monstrosity running basic connected to dialup teletypes -- we got a DECwriter the next year, whee, 300 bps!) and experienced punched cards when I started my Comp. Sc. Degree program in 1979 -- we had DECwriters there too, and a few CRT terminals (at the end of current loop lines at, you guessed it, 300 bps), but course work had to be done via punched cards, submitted to the "express" window. You only had to wait 15-30 minutes for your job to get turned around.
I remember those days quite well. Today, I sometimes interview recent grads for software design jobs. One standard problem I pose is "Write a routine, in any programming language of your choice (I've probably seen it), that sorts an array of things according to some ordering scheme. I don't care about efficiency, but I expect the following: (a) that it is correct, (b) that you can explain the complexity of the algorithm in "O(n)" notation." Of course I expect a bubble sort of integers. One smartass did a Shell sort and got it right. But over 90% of the candidates fail this basic test. That's sad.
The scary part is that peer reviewers think this is being "too hard" on a candidate. Or worse, I remember one kid who added "servlets" to an FTP server -- basically he provided an API for command plug-ins that executed server-side and could provide massaged data back to the client. So, for example, you could do back-end SQL queries via FTP. Obviously an excercise in program extensibility. Trouble is, he didn't even get an offer -- a coworker insisted that he must have been "bullshitting" because "everyone knows that servlets are a Java thing and not an FTP thing". My protests got voted down. So, technical ignorance has permeated even the supposed technical interview -- on the part of the interviewers! Shortly after losing that battle, I left the employ of that company.
I remember building memory boards for an old SWTPC computer (none of us geek kids could afford to buy them assembled). I remember lamenting when the IBM PC booted into ROM Basic and displayed "Ready" -- who's gonna know how the computer gets to that point? that was what, almost 20 years ago?
There is hope. I often see young (say, under 20 years old) posters here who do have a clue. I envy that they have far better tools than I did as a kid, but note that these same "better tools" make it no big deal to be a script kiddie techno-vandal. Compare the history of mass computing to the history of the car. Anyone can drive a car today. Few know how to fix one or what makes it run, But, even with the ease of "turn the key, push on the gas, and remember to steer" driving, some still hack their cars. I take that as a sign that hacking doesn't die -- the computer hacker was a rare breed in the 1970s and still is despite the fact that there are a lot of 'leet wannabees around without a clue.
My advice to the young hacker is to seek out other hackers, young and old (say 40 and up), and avoid the wannabees. Of course, this implies a willingness and responsibility on the part of us "old guys" to mentor -- sure, you don't need a fast sort, or balanced tree structure, when you've got a 1 Ghz processor, but imagine how much faster and scalable your code will be if you use one. In my day, RAM was fast, and disk was S L O W, so you carefully designed your algorithms to minimize disk access. These days, you want stuff to stay locked in processor cache 'cause RAM is slow, by comparison. Look at other "hobies", like HAM radio, and see how "the torch gets passed on" there. We should strive for similar effect.
IANAL, but in a civil case, you can't collect if you have acted illegaly. I believe that attempting to buy restricted drugs would count as "acting illegally", so no, you couldn't collect damages if the drugs turned out to be bogus. It's called "coming into court with unclean hands".
a smart idea.
...it could retrieve and play UNCOMPRESSED raw WAV files. Yes, I'm willing to allocate 200 Gb to my music collection. No, I will not compress the hell out of my music (well, not most of it anyway).
Of course, getting somewhat loud about it ("You mean I can't buy food for my baby without you tracking my purchases and invading my privacy!") while not quite beligerent, usually gets them to back down.
Oh this reminds me of a kind of racial profiling that used to go on in the Canadian media (not all, of course, but enough of it). Whenever a crime was commited, and the suspect was not white, a photo was always broadcast as part of the news story -- the implied message was that "not white == guilty". That used to get me REALLY riled: either show all photos that are available or none, lest an accusation of racial bias stick.
I'm not so naive to think that bias does not exist in the media, but, because of the wide freedoms that the press supposedly enjoys (at least in the U.S.A.), those freedoms should come at the price of a standard of unbiased reporting greater than that to which the common person would be held.
IOW, I can have an opinion, based on race, and be free to spout it, however vile it may be. It is an opinion, and I have first amendment yada yada to be that kind of pig if I want. But the press should be very careful not to misrepresent opinion as fact and go out of their way to label editorial commentary as such.
Ever notice how, when some product made by SLC (some large corporation) is involved in a crime, a disclaimer that "this is not meant to imply that SLC's... are a tool of crime..." is broadcast? Should be the same if [GNU/]/Linux is a factual part of a crime story.
You do x. Someone threatens to apply law Y against you (which has nothing to do with x, or cryptically permits x).
Do you sit there and spend your money against a frivolous case in an environment where (a) a good lawyer could convincingly argue that Y does apply, (b) the judiciary is perceived as 'bought', (c) the general public does not understand that Y does not apply because they understand neither x, nor Y.
Even if you win, it might cost you big time. Financially, you could still lose. The only people who would fight that fight would do so out of principle (and such people are stronger than I and I salute them).
In such cases, it strikes me that setting a precendent that such a suit is, indeed, frivolous, and without merit, would be a good idea. Isn't that what case law is all about, establishing precedents to make it easier to prosecute or defend similar cases in the future?
So, if someone threatens to sue you (which, IIRC (and IANAL), is illegal in Canada, at least (threatening to sue, that is -- either sue or don't)), it should be possible to sue for having made a groundless legal threat.
Now, that's not why Felten, et. al. are suing (they're arguing a first amendment issue and not a threat of a nuisance suit), so perhaps their case has no merit on a technicality (suing for the wrong reason), but there should be a legal mechanism for fighting back against legally groundless legal bullying -- IOW, if you threaten to sue me, I should be free to act as if you had, and defend that your suit would have been groundless, and so your threat was harassment.
This strikes me as an acceptable balance between "threatening" to sue but avoiding an all-out suit (so as to not clog the courts) when you're sure you'd have a case, and fighing such "legal bullying" the ability to so threaten would encourage.
subject says it all.
Perhaps some of that was "new houseitis", you know, you buy a brand new house, and then want to fix it up REAL NICE. And $1600 compared to the cost of a typical house is peanuts.
As for my recent home purchase: 3200 square feet near Dallas, TX. for MUCH LESS than the house half that size I sold near Chicago, IL. So, I had $$$ burning a hole in my pocket.
After the new appliances (Maytag Neptune Washer/Dryer, Maytag side by side fridge $3700), and blinds ($3000, a drag to have to buy but new homes don't come with them), it was time for "fun stuff". Oh yeah, did I mention the $500 spent just on bathroom accessories? Like I said "new houseitis".
Of course, the stupid builder was straight out of the stone age, so right away I planned a headend with 6 runs of dual Cat5e, and dual RG6. I decided to go for DirectTV (it was cheaper than cable anyway), and so planned for 2 5x8 multiswitches at the headend, but only ended up installing a single amplified 5x8 and the 4x4 that came with the dish. $1750, including cable (2000 ft Cat5e, 2000 ft RG6), connectors, headend boxes (2 Leviton 14" by 24"), punchdown blocks, structured wiring blocks, DSL bridge, firewall, multiswitches and splitters.
So, $1k to $2k to provide a link to a local high speed neighborhood LAN, when afflicted with "new houseitis" isn't a lot.
Oh yeah, my 10 year old TV died during all this, so I ended up getting a Sony HDTV-ready set and an HDTV DirecTV receiver, as well as a terrestrial DTV antenna.
This is debatable. It is easy to manipuate salary surveys and job titles.
And, IIRC, you can't hire an H1-B worker if you have been actively laying off Americans.
The monitoring is very poor. Words in a law and action are two different things.
Fine, so call for enforcement of the law.
They are certainly not cheap labor. If you know of cases of H1-B "sweatshops", I suggest you contact the INS -- their employer is breaking immigration laws.
Hidden camera?
Ah, so are you citing problems without evidence? I suggest not complaining about a problem unless you have compelling evidence. Then, evidence in hand, try applying existing laws before complaining that they are ineffective.
While looking for another job, and insisting on an H1-B visa transfer (I qualify for a Nafta visa as well, but, for various reasons, prefer the H1-B -- it makes Green Card processing easier because it relies on legislation that "permits" dual intent instead of no explicitly "forbidding" it), no employer could hire me that had recently let Americans go. So my experience is that employers DO heed INS regulations, particularly those that employ significant numbers of foriegn tech workers. Of course, YMMV.
What you have is a de-facto indentured servant. They cannot easily shop around if abused, and are often used to or expect oppression.
To some extent this is true, but some of the last legislation to come out of the Clinton administration made it easier for H1-Bs to look for new work and start without having to wait for their visas to transfer (of course, if the transfer is denied, you're SOL). Thus, the problem has been mitigated to a large degree.
The H1B thing is a big lie. Wether you agree with open borders WRT employment or not, the H1B laws were based on PAC manipulation of the facts and sloppy studies. Certainly ideas are pushed as far as they can when lobbying government for new legislation. The response usually provides some, but not all, what was desired in the first place.
But, you have built a great straw-man of the problems of H1-B workers without citing specific cases of the abuses you mention. If said abuses were a major problem, you'd likely be able to produce such evidence, no?
The problems abd abuses you describe are no doubt real, and do occur, but I suspect to a far lesser extent that you think. Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to fix them.
As for me, had I not saved the asses of many American coworkers during "project panic mode", no doubt they, and our employer at the time would be far worse off today. Yes, I am a guest here, but I figure that with the INS hoops through which I have to jump at a snail's pace, and the contributions I have made (to my employer, coworkers, American charities, and the local economy), I'm paying my dues.
In conclusion, I hope you have me confused with someone else.
So, it is unlikely that new H1-B workers will be hired in this climate, or layed-off ones re-hired. H1-B workers often cost more (when the employer pays their immigration legal fees) than their American counterparts, and are retained only when they provide greater value. They are certainly not cheap labor. If you know of cases of H1-B "sweatshops", I suggest you contact the INS -- their employer is breaking immigration laws.
Of course, I suppose you could argue the case that existing H1-B workers who remain employed be fired to make room to hire Americans, but remember that many of us are spending our hard-earned cash helping out some of those Americans recently displaced from their jobs and continue to stimulate the local economy, and if this benefitted the employer, would already be done.
Finally, in my case, having had a Labor Certification previously granted (a first step for a Green Card), by definition there is no American that can do my job.
The Baha'i faith does as well. In fact it recognizes all prophets from the major faiths as separate "manifestations" of one god.
(I am agnostic. I do not capitalize "god".)
Right, but they can transfer that right to ask to third parties, which we might not want to deal with. If your distributing code to 10 customers tops (at several $million on a per-installation basis), you don't want to get into the business of supporting millions of people that they gave the binaries of GPL utilities you included. You wan't them to support that redistribution. The only way to do this is by giving them source up front.