I still remember the first Saturday Night Live after the attack. Rudy Giuliani appeared, along with some of the FDNY heroes.
Giuliani spoke of how important it was to get on with life, with the daily routine, in spite of the pain. How people had to return to their jobs, and live on.
Lorne Michaels: Does that mean we can be funny tonight? Rudy Giuliani: Why start now?
Anyone else feel that it is wrong for the media to cover this story so in depth, and ultimately make money on those that died and their families.
No, I don't. For three reasons.
One. I believe very strongly in the freedom of the press. A recent survey on Americans' desire in freedom showed that many people now feel that the Bill of Rights protects us -too much- from government... and that Freedom of the Press is one of the least popular rights we have. Remember this: Where there is no freedom of press, you generally find a totalitarian government.
Two. There are viewers that want coverage. There are viewers that want to see the speeches, view the replays, and relive the memory of that moment when they first heard the news. I'll likely avoid most of the coverage, but I did listen to my usual thirty-minutes-of-radio during my morning commute. I would find it fulfilling, I think, if I could re-listen to the radio broadcast as I heard it that morning, but I'm sure I'm not going to get the chance. You have the right to avoid it if you wish. You also have the right to express your opinion against it. I would entreat you against any measures to deny other viewers of what they wish to view.
Finally, I believe that honest profit is not a crime. Yes, I believe wholeheartedly in honest capitalism. If, by their broadcasts, they are depriving any of the victims or their families of life, liberty, or property, then they are doing wrong. Otherwise, they are doing a service to their viewers, and possibly even to said victims and families, by being preserving and spreading those memories. Any profit they make is nothing more than a measure of the value of that service.
There may be some broadcasters who wish to do without profits today. There may be others who, as you say, will donate at least a portion of their proceeds to charity. That is their right. It is their money. I'll give a nod of respect to those executives willing to make such a choice, but I won't scold those who don't.
I was wondering the same thing, especially whether it'd be showing in my city. I did a search for "Star Wars" films on the IMAX web site, and only got a documentary on Star Wars special effects. The web sites of companies running local IMAX theaters didn't tell me much, either (except that Apollo 13 is Coming Soon). I'm guessing a formal announcement hasn't been made yet.
Imagine computing devices that communicate seamlessly across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Did you say the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Visible and otherwise, I hope?
Someone needs to sneak one of these into a dance club. Preferably one with an impressive multicolored light show, and strobe lights. And clubbers using cell phones and other 'chic' wireless devices. That should cover a wide electromagnetic range.
Just to see what they get out of all that 'input'.
Fun to think about. Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.
Definitely. The nearest place I can think of where faster-than-light communication might be useful would be Mars, and then, only for ultra-time-critical purposes. Like playing the stock market, perhaps. A market 'rise' could be a lessening of gravitational pull, a market 'fall' could be an increase.
And a market 'crash'.... Oops. Scratch that, bad idea.
Please tell me what you think ideas can do without implementation?
A very good point, and a worthy question. An idea without some form of implementation is like a car without an engine: It's worth something to somebody, but only to the mechanic who can make it run, or the junkyard warrior who can craft it into something new and different. Most of these ideas fall in the realm of theoretical sciences: physics, math, philosophy, and so on. The best such ideas can do is spawn other ideas.
For example, take Boole, the inventor of binary logic. He died thinking he had come up with an idea with no possible implementation whatsoever. Someone else found an implementation for the idea, and so computers were made possible.
On the other hand, implementations without ideas simply do not exist. And without the implementation of certain great ideas, there are very valuable things that would not exist. Therefore, it's safe to say that these things would not exist without the ideas that lead to the implementations. Before someone had the idea of using penicillin to combat bacterial infection, all we had was bread mold. Now we have antibiotics.
I alone am not going to think food onto my table. But my implementations of my ideas are valuable to my employer. My employer's services (which stem from his ideas and are made possible and affordable by my ideas) are of value to his clients. Somewhere, one of his clients is providing life-essential services (which stemmed from an idea) to an agricultural engineer. Because that engineer is able to afford those life-essential services, he can focus his attention less on the the effort of living, and more on creating and implementing ideas. Those ideas, once implemented, lead to a surplus of food. Another industrious-minded individual has had the idea to transport surplus food to places far and wide, where it can be used.
Some of this food gets transported to feed starving in Africa (assuming it doesn't get 'appropriated' by some dictatorship on the way). Without this long chain of implemented ideas, they would not have food. And some of this food ends up on my own table, too.
I still hold to my original point. Ideas have inherent value. Some ideas are worth more than others, and different people will value an idea differently, but still. Ideas have value.
So if we stop enforcing IP laws, IP will cease to have value, and thus not be considered wealth. Makes sense to me!
You say it's only the force of Law that gives value to Intellectual Property? I can only guess from this statement that your intellect has never produced anything which you greatly value. Either that, or you just don't understand the nature of wealth.
The ideal of copyright law, and the ideals of capitalism in general, reflect the truth that ideas -do- have value... that ideas can put food on tables, bring clean water to homes, save lives, and so much more. The fact that the DMCA and the patent system as they currently exist in the United States are inherently flawed does not change this truth.
I wish I had a mod point to give you, good sir. Well-stated, all around.
In my mind, one of the highest pursuits of a human being is to create. The application of intellect to turn mere physical materials into something more valuable than they were before. This is what it means to create value, to create wealth, to "make money" out of an idea... money being nothing more than one way to represent the concept of value. It was in this book that I first read about that concept, and it has stayed with me since.
The system isn't closed. Even if the amount of material 'stuff' in the world were fixed, the intellectual wealth of mankind grows from generation to generation.
"A running soldier in a camoflague uniform, looks just like a running soldier in a camoflague uniform."
How very, very true. And, in the dark, stillness is the best camoflage of all.
This brings to mind a memory of a childhood camping trip. Had a flashlight-tag-like game in the middle of the woods, where one person started out as 'it', and everyone else started out away from the campfire. The campfire circle was a 'safe' zone. Get tagged by an 'it' person, and you joined the 'it' crowd.
Eventually there was only one person left untagged, and no one could find him, even though he was right under everyone's noses. Standing against a tree. And he wasn't even wearing dark clothing.
Interesting analogies, but none quite applicable in this case, imho.
Is cyberspace inside or outside space for these purposes? I'd say most likely inside. Whenever you enter someone else's system in 'cyberspace', (ignoring the misleading qualities of the word, for the moment) you're 'inside' someone's server.
Treating these systems as storefronts doesn't quite work. For one thing, you can enter because the store owner -wants- people in his store. If you go causing problems, they have the legal right to kick you out. If you try to enter the 'employees-only' storage area, you could find yourself in trouble. If you enter after business hours, when the doors are locked, you're guilty of breaking and entering.
And not all places of business are storefronts. If you go walking in the front door of a factory, or many a suit-and-tie 9-to-5 office, you may find yourself stopped at the front desk unless you've been invited in. And if you use the delivery door in back to get to the Top Boss's office uninvited, again, you're asking for trouble.
Now, as I understand it, he was invited to try and find an insecure entrance. He was an invited guest, and the responsibility falls on the person who invited him. In every businessplace I've worked, all non-employees have had to be accompanied while visiting, for security reasons.
For his sake, I hope he had that invitation in writing. For the sake of the NBC employee that invited him, I hope that invitation was pre-approved by the employee's boss. And NBC's legal department. If the reporter gave an invitation which he didn't have the authority to give, that reporter is the one who could end up in the most trouble.
I'll save the cyberspace/real-space analogy rant for another time.
When are producers of products going to learn that they CANNOT STOP people from ripping off their product until people have the MORALS not to do it? Face it, there's no unbreakable copy protection except for a populace who refuses to copy copyrighted works!
Very well-said.
As other posters in this forum have mentioned, publishers have every right to make it difficult to copy their work. It is, after all, their work. I have every right to work around it, as long as I am not depriving anyone else of life, liberty, or property. It is, after all, the disk that I have paid for that could easily be scratched or destroyed. The RIAA/MPAA Lawyers have been flexing their political muscles to make the exercise of my right illegal.
However, that doesn't mean I have to either play their game or break the law to enjoy good music.
For one thing, I have been developing my taste in classical music. Orchestral pieces written by dead white guys. I'd just like to hear them try to claim copyright against Bach or Mozart.
And yes, I do use peer-to-peer... but not for piracy. I download broadcast television from other countries. Aired free to the public, but unavailable locally. No different from getting a videotaped copy of that show I missed last week from a friend, at least, not in my mind.
And then, there's software. I used to accept copied versions of programs from friends on a regular basis back when I was in college, and broke. Nowadays, I have money... and if it's worth my time to use it, it's worth my money to encourage that company to make more good software.
So, rather than expressing my contempt for the DMCA by violating it, I choose to voice my opinion with my dollars... and, of course, with letters to my representatives in Congress.
Allrighty, I'm about to open my big mouth and risk getting chewed out, but what the hey, it's only karma, right?
You ask what harm PC pursuits have caused. I answer that Political Correctness has helped to turn the US government's efforts towards airport security into a joke.
It's political correctness that has led to the a very, very foolish mentality amongst airport security screeners. They don't want to be accused of singling out Arabs for extra scrutiny for 'racial' reasons. For this reason, they will single out anyone -but- Arabs. Grandmothers in wheelchairs. Mothers with bottled breast milk. Even the pilots themselves.
The passengers who are least likely to hijack a plane are systematically harrassed to show that the government is concerned about security, and no one dares even take a sideways glance at passengers from nations that actively support terrorism.
So, yes, I'd say PC concerns can do more harm than good.
That said, I'm personally against the idea of this database of 'potential' criminals for reasons of privacy and ethics that other posters have dealt with very eloquently.
One of my best physics professors in college talked about the Light Speed Limit and cause-and-effect and temporal relativity with what he called the Barney Assasination thought experiment. I'll see if I can remember it....
Imagine that a man in a Purple Dinosaur Suit is sitting at the front of the class. Imagine that a guy in the very back of the lecture hall shoots the Purple Dinosaur.
Now, if the bullet travels significantly slower than light, we know what'll happen. First we see the assassin pull the trigger, then we see the Dinosaur die.
If the bullet travels as fast as or faster than the speed of light, relativity kicks in. We have to take into account where we're sitting, and which light will reach us first: The light from the trigger finger, or the light from the dying dino. The effect might appear to happen before the cause.
And, since scientists would have a tough time carrying out experiments if effects happened before their causes, it's a good thing we don't have any FTL bullets.
Did I mention that this professor had a weird but terrific sense of humor?
When I first read of 'bunnies', I thought of Energizer.
Then, for half a moment, it occurred to me that you might be referring to certain attractive-looking females employed by a certain photographic magazine.
Finally, I realized you were talking about the Intel advertisements with the guys in those colorful 'bunny-suits'.
Now, the image I can't get out of my mind is of shapely percussionists in colorful environmental suits. With large, fuzzy ears.
Re:But can you haiku your sig?
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 2
Why, yes, I can!
"It is kind of fun To do the impossible": Quote from Walt Disney.
Warning: This feature not recommended when attending auctions of antiques or fine art. Your cell phone provider will not be accept liability for your accidental purchase of a $1.5 million spoon collection.
otherwise parrots, as clever as they may be, could also go to school and get a job. I've known students to get through philosophy classes just by parrotting the professor, does this count?
Sign me up for a talking dog too. As long as it's not a labrador. It would inevitably turn out like that episode of Dexter's Laboratory. Hey, look! It's a thing! Look at the thing, Look! It's a thing, look at the thing!
Slashdot Mirror
I know we're wandering way offtopic here, but here's a few definitions.
Communism: An economic system in which the government directly controls both production-related goods and goods that are consumed.
Fascism: An economic system in which private industries control production-related goods, but government controls all goods consumed.
Socialism: Any political philosopy which states that governments should control distribution of goods.
In other words, all three are on the strong-government-control end of the political spectrum.
That said, the Nazi Party was Germany's National Socialism party.
Many kudos to Jon for that speech.
I still remember the first Saturday Night Live after the attack. Rudy Giuliani appeared, along with some of the FDNY heroes.
Giuliani spoke of how important it was to get on with life, with the daily routine, in spite of the pain. How people had to return to their jobs, and live on.
Lorne Michaels: Does that mean we can be funny tonight?
Rudy Giuliani: Why start now?
Anyone else feel that it is wrong for the media to cover this story so in depth, and ultimately make money on those that died and their families.
No, I don't. For three reasons.
One. I believe very strongly in the freedom of the press. A recent survey on Americans' desire in freedom showed that many people now feel that the Bill of Rights protects us -too much- from government... and that Freedom of the Press is one of the least popular rights we have. Remember this: Where there is no freedom of press, you generally find a totalitarian government.
Two. There are viewers that want coverage. There are viewers that want to see the speeches, view the replays, and relive the memory of that moment when they first heard the news. I'll likely avoid most of the coverage, but I did listen to my usual thirty-minutes-of-radio during my morning commute. I would find it fulfilling, I think, if I could re-listen to the radio broadcast as I heard it that morning, but I'm sure I'm not going to get the chance. You have the right to avoid it if you wish. You also have the right to express your opinion against it. I would entreat you against any measures to deny other viewers of what they wish to view.
Finally, I believe that honest profit is not a crime. Yes, I believe wholeheartedly in honest capitalism. If, by their broadcasts, they are depriving any of the victims or their families of life, liberty, or property, then they are doing wrong. Otherwise, they are doing a service to their viewers, and possibly even to said victims and families, by being preserving and spreading those memories. Any profit they make is nothing more than a measure of the value of that service.
There may be some broadcasters who wish to do without profits today. There may be others who, as you say, will donate at least a portion of their proceeds to charity. That is their right. It is their money. I'll give a nod of respect to those executives willing to make such a choice, but I won't scold those who don't.
I was wondering the same thing, especially whether it'd be showing in my city. I did a search for "Star Wars" films on the IMAX web site, and only got a documentary on Star Wars special effects. The web sites of companies running local IMAX theaters didn't tell me much, either (except that Apollo 13 is Coming Soon). I'm guessing a formal announcement hasn't been made yet.
Imagine computing devices that communicate seamlessly across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Did you say the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Visible and otherwise, I hope?
Someone needs to sneak one of these into a dance club. Preferably one with an impressive multicolored light show, and strobe lights. And clubbers using cell phones and other 'chic' wireless devices. That should cover a wide electromagnetic range.
Just to see what they get out of all that 'input'.
In other words:
1) Prophet
2) Throw Fit
3) Profit!
Hey, I figured out what ??? is!
Fun to think about. Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.
Definitely. The nearest place I can think of where faster-than-light communication might be useful would be Mars, and then, only for ultra-time-critical purposes. Like playing the stock market, perhaps. A market 'rise' could be a lessening of gravitational pull, a market 'fall' could be an increase.
And a market 'crash'.... Oops. Scratch that, bad idea.
Please tell me what you think ideas can do without implementation?
A very good point, and a worthy question. An idea without some form of implementation is like a car without an engine: It's worth something to somebody, but only to the mechanic who can make it run, or the junkyard warrior who can craft it into something new and different. Most of these ideas fall in the realm of theoretical sciences: physics, math, philosophy, and so on. The best such ideas can do is spawn other ideas.
For example, take Boole, the inventor of binary logic. He died thinking he had come up with an idea with no possible implementation whatsoever. Someone else found an implementation for the idea, and so computers were made possible.
On the other hand, implementations without ideas simply do not exist. And without the implementation of certain great ideas, there are very valuable things that would not exist. Therefore, it's safe to say that these things would not exist without the ideas that lead to the implementations. Before someone had the idea of using penicillin to combat bacterial infection, all we had was bread mold. Now we have antibiotics.
I alone am not going to think food onto my table. But my implementations of my ideas are valuable to my employer. My employer's services (which stem from his ideas and are made possible and affordable by my ideas) are of value to his clients. Somewhere, one of his clients is providing life-essential services (which stemmed from an idea) to an agricultural engineer. Because that engineer is able to afford those life-essential services, he can focus his attention less on the the effort of living, and more on creating and implementing ideas. Those ideas, once implemented, lead to a surplus of food. Another industrious-minded individual has had the idea to transport surplus food to places far and wide, where it can be used.
Some of this food gets transported to feed starving in Africa (assuming it doesn't get 'appropriated' by some dictatorship on the way). Without this long chain of implemented ideas, they would not have food. And some of this food ends up on my own table, too.
I still hold to my original point. Ideas have inherent value. Some ideas are worth more than others, and different people will value an idea differently, but still. Ideas have value.
So if we stop enforcing IP laws, IP will cease to have value, and thus not be considered wealth. Makes sense to me!
You say it's only the force of Law that gives value to Intellectual Property? I can only guess from this statement that your intellect has never produced anything which you greatly value. Either that, or you just don't understand the nature of wealth.
The ideal of copyright law, and the ideals of capitalism in general, reflect the truth that ideas -do- have value... that ideas can put food on tables, bring clean water to homes, save lives, and so much more. The fact that the DMCA and the patent system as they currently exist in the United States are inherently flawed does not change this truth.
I wish I had a mod point to give you, good sir. Well-stated, all around.
In my mind, one of the highest pursuits of a human being is to create. The application of intellect to turn mere physical materials into something more valuable than they were before. This is what it means to create value, to create wealth, to "make money" out of an idea... money being nothing more than one way to represent the concept of value. It was in this book that I first read about that concept, and it has stayed with me since.
The system isn't closed. Even if the amount of material 'stuff' in the world were fixed, the intellectual wealth of mankind grows from generation to generation.
First, uncloaking networks. Then, invisible cloaks. Now, cloaking networks.
Next thing you know, we'll see a post about the invention of visible cloaks.
"A running soldier in a camoflague uniform, looks just like a running soldier in a camoflague uniform."
How very, very true. And, in the dark, stillness is the best camoflage of all.
This brings to mind a memory of a childhood camping trip. Had a flashlight-tag-like game in the middle of the woods, where one person started out as 'it', and everyone else started out away from the campfire. The campfire circle was a 'safe' zone. Get tagged by an 'it' person, and you joined the 'it' crowd.
Eventually there was only one person left untagged, and no one could find him, even though he was right under everyone's noses. Standing against a tree. And he wasn't even wearing dark clothing.
Ah, memories....
Must... resist... comment! Can't resist! Sigh...
Depending on your power requirements, you may want to look into a beowulf cluster of hamsters.
(Actually, I remember seeing an episode of Dexter's Lab with a massive hamster-array power source....)
Interesting analogies, but none quite applicable in this case, imho.
Is cyberspace inside or outside space for these purposes? I'd say most likely inside. Whenever you enter someone else's system in 'cyberspace', (ignoring the misleading qualities of the word, for the moment) you're 'inside' someone's server.
Treating these systems as storefronts doesn't quite work. For one thing, you can enter because the store owner -wants- people in his store. If you go causing problems, they have the legal right to kick you out. If you try to enter the 'employees-only' storage area, you could find yourself in trouble. If you enter after business hours, when the doors are locked, you're guilty of breaking and entering.
And not all places of business are storefronts. If you go walking in the front door of a factory, or many a suit-and-tie 9-to-5 office, you may find yourself stopped at the front desk unless you've been invited in. And if you use the delivery door in back to get to the Top Boss's office uninvited, again, you're asking for trouble.
Now, as I understand it, he was invited to try and find an insecure entrance. He was an invited guest, and the responsibility falls on the person who invited him. In every businessplace I've worked, all non-employees have had to be accompanied while visiting, for security reasons.
For his sake, I hope he had that invitation in writing. For the sake of the NBC employee that invited him, I hope that invitation was pre-approved by the employee's boss. And NBC's legal department. If the reporter gave an invitation which he didn't have the authority to give, that reporter is the one who could end up in the most trouble.
I'll save the cyberspace/real-space analogy rant for another time.
Someone please tell me I'm not the only one here with that '70s song 'Water Flowing Underground' stuck in his head after reading this article title.
Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was!
And no, I don't have an MP3 of it!
When are producers of products going to learn that they CANNOT STOP people from ripping off their product until people have the MORALS not to do it? Face it, there's no unbreakable copy protection except for a populace who refuses to copy copyrighted works!
Very well-said.
As other posters in this forum have mentioned, publishers have every right to make it difficult to copy their work. It is, after all, their work.
I have every right to work around it, as long as I am not depriving anyone else of life, liberty, or property. It is, after all, the disk that I have paid for that could easily be scratched or destroyed.
The RIAA/MPAA Lawyers have been flexing their political muscles to make the exercise of my right illegal.
However, that doesn't mean I have to either play their game or break the law to enjoy good music.
For one thing, I have been developing my taste in classical music. Orchestral pieces written by dead white guys. I'd just like to hear them try to claim copyright against Bach or Mozart.
And yes, I do use peer-to-peer... but not for piracy. I download broadcast television from other countries. Aired free to the public, but unavailable locally. No different from getting a videotaped copy of that show I missed last week from a friend, at least, not in my mind.
And then, there's software. I used to accept copied versions of programs from friends on a regular basis back when I was in college, and broke. Nowadays, I have money... and if it's worth my time to use it, it's worth my money to encourage that company to make more good software.
So, rather than expressing my contempt for the DMCA by violating it, I choose to voice my opinion with my dollars... and, of course, with letters to my representatives in Congress.
Just my two bits.
Allrighty, I'm about to open my big mouth and risk getting chewed out, but what the hey, it's only karma, right?
You ask what harm PC pursuits have caused. I answer that Political Correctness has helped to turn the US government's efforts towards airport security into a joke.
It's political correctness that has led to the a very, very foolish mentality amongst airport security screeners. They don't want to be accused of singling out Arabs for extra scrutiny for 'racial' reasons. For this reason, they will single out anyone -but- Arabs. Grandmothers in wheelchairs. Mothers with bottled breast milk. Even the pilots themselves.
The passengers who are least likely to hijack a plane are systematically harrassed to show that the government is concerned about security, and no one dares even take a sideways glance at passengers from nations that actively support terrorism.
So, yes, I'd say PC concerns can do more harm than good.
That said, I'm personally against the idea of this database of 'potential' criminals for reasons of privacy and ethics that other posters have dealt with very eloquently.
One of my best physics professors in college talked about the Light Speed Limit and cause-and-effect and temporal relativity with what he called the Barney Assasination thought experiment. I'll see if I can remember it....
Imagine that a man in a Purple Dinosaur Suit is sitting at the front of the class. Imagine that a guy in the very back of the lecture hall shoots the Purple Dinosaur.
Now, if the bullet travels significantly slower than light, we know what'll happen. First we see the assassin pull the trigger, then we see the Dinosaur die.
If the bullet travels as fast as or faster than the speed of light, relativity kicks in. We have to take into account where we're sitting, and which light will reach us first: The light from the trigger finger, or the light from the dying dino. The effect might appear to happen before the cause.
And, since scientists would have a tough time carrying out experiments if effects happened before their causes, it's a good thing we don't have any FTL bullets.
Did I mention that this professor had a weird but terrific sense of humor?
Darn you.
When I first read of 'bunnies', I thought of Energizer.
Then, for half a moment, it occurred to me that you might be referring to certain attractive-looking females employed by a certain photographic magazine.
Finally, I realized you were talking about the Intel advertisements with the guys in those colorful 'bunny-suits'.
Now, the image I can't get out of my mind is of shapely percussionists in colorful environmental suits. With large, fuzzy ears.
Why, yes, I can!
"It is kind of fun
To do the impossible":
Quote from Walt Disney.
There was a story on Yahoo /.ers jived,
About filtering spam with Haiku.
So in five-seven-five,
All the
But I thought I should try something new!
Warning: This feature not recommended when attending auctions of antiques or fine art. Your cell phone provider will not be accept liability for your accidental purchase of a $1.5 million spoon collection.
otherwise parrots, as clever as they may be, could also go to school and get a job.
I've known students to get through philosophy classes just by parrotting the professor, does this count?
Sign me up for a talking dog too.
As long as it's not a labrador. It would inevitably turn out like that episode of Dexter's Laboratory. Hey, look! It's a thing! Look at the thing, Look! It's a thing, look at the thing!
...the Feds started making use of wind-power.
After all, I understand they've got a continual excess of hot air moving around D.C.
Remember that scene in The Wizard of Oz, with the Wicked Witch's army? I think it's like that song....
Oooooeeeeeon Oeeeeeeeeeeeon.