Here are a few missions that we might task to NASA:
1. Permanent human presence on the Moon 2. Mission to near-Earth asteroid with an objective of eventual commercial exploitation 3. Develop space-only propulsion systems with the objective of "going faster", and capaable of sustained 1-G acceleration.
The third point is important. Earth-launched orbital, lunar, and planetary missions in effect have self-imposed speed limits of about 18,000 mph and 25,000 mph, respectively. That's as fast as they need to go to get the job done. Propulsion systems designed only to work in space ought not to be as constrained. If you're going to Mars, travelling at 100,000 mph is better than 25,000 moh.
>>,i>The original X program in the 60s...nearly achieved a aircraft capible of making orbit without booster rockets.
What was that? The X-15 was a long way and about 13,000 mph from orbit. I believe someone toyed with the idea of strapping on a bit of throw-away boost and giving it enough oomph for a single high-altitude traverse of the globe, but that's not equivalent to reaching orbit.
Projects that don't fly, literally, should be no surprise when the U.S. can't give NASA a target. We've been able to put people and hardware in low Earth orbit for 40 years, yet that's all we seem to ask NASA to do -- stay on the same old treadmill. Sure, NASA should be tasked with building cheaper, more efficient boosters for that particular job, but let's don't pretend that's the end of it.
NASA needs to be given a real mission -- a destination. Until then, they will keep on building trucks with no place to go.
>>...without rousing the average citizen to action.
If the "average citizen" isn't roused about copyright, it might be because:
1. They don't know about it. 2. They know about it and don't care. 3. They know about it, and like the current situation. 4. They know about it, don't like the current situation, but think it is a minor, unimportant issue in their own lives.
If copyright is as important an issue as many posters here seem to thnk it is, then they will realize that they need to prepare for years and years of effort to persuade people. If they're not willing to make that commitment, then I have no respect or tolerance for them when they retreat into unfounded and phony cynicism
Citing the Declaration without identifying it is an old trick which has lost it's flair. Remember, though, that the Declaration was a treasonous document when issued, and everyone who signed it a traitor. It took several years of warfare and many lives to determine that the signers wouldn't be hung. Somehow I doubt copyright is going to inspire that kind of comittment.
Well, you have two choices: Elect people who won't take corporate money or get dirty yourself. (Three actually: You can wrap yourself in presumed moral certainty and blame someone else.)
Decisions that have an impact on money and power are always subject to influence by the rich and powerful. It's human nature to protect the things that are important to you. Sadly, the poor and the weak too often assume that their certainty about being right (sometimes they aren't) will carry the day without any effort on their part. Hence, the first time one of their annointed champions loses a skirmish, they want to take refuge in unearned cynicism.
Face it, copyright duration is a boring issue with little perceived impact on almost everyone. Eyes glaze over when normal people hear someone talking about it. Why should they care if Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Most people have no idea what the public domain is, or why they should.
Finally, re: the Court -- The Constitution gives Congress specific powers to make copyright law. With apologies to Lessig, the Court was no more going to support Eldred than they would be to declare last year's Defense appropriation unconstitutional. Chasing this issue into the Supreme Court got the issue some publicity (along with Lessig) but only served to build false hopes.
You seem to be proposing to send Congress a rewrite of the Declaration of Independence.
I doubt you'll get very many to join your crusade based on their anger about the length of copyright. Political support -- in the ballot box or in a revolution -- doesn't come about by magic. You need issues that are important to a majority, and then you have to convince them they[re important issues. However vital copyright duration may be to some people, issues like health, employment, taxes and education will always sway more people.
To be frank, histrionic statements like yours simply persuade people that this whole fuss is fueled by boys who don't want to pay for CD's.
Why? It's the way things work. Convince enough people to vote the way you want them to, and you'll elect a Congress that will change or repeal the Bono Act. If you don't succeed in that, consider that it might just be because not everyone agrees with you, not because they're evil and corrupt.
If you refuse to play the game, don't complain when someone else wins
The chances of a pro-Eldred decision from the Court were always slim. The contest has always needed to be waged in the political arena: Convince enough people that this issue is so important that it ought to determine which Congressional candidates they vote for. That will be very difficult -- most Americans have more pressing needs than shortening copyright duration -- but it's the only way to go.
(It's telling that the Court went out of its way to explicitly state that the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress doesn't mean that Congress will always legislate wisely. Obviously, the Court is telling us that they won't declare a law unconstitutional just because lots of people think it's a bad law. They're right about that. )
Old machines like the Sinclair, VIC-20, C-64, etc., didn't have real operating systems because it's hard to shoehorn something into the tiny memories they had -- 5k, I think, in the VIC.
Take a look at all the semi-literate, poorly spelled, poorly argued, unsubstantiated crap that infests the web, e.g., most Slashdot comments. The crap is free, but you -- the reader -- have to spend your resources wading through it. The web trades off ease of access for little or no selection, filtering, and editing.
People who make a living by selling their work -- writers, musicians, etc. -- aren't about to threaten their careers by abandoning traditonal publishing and dumping their work on the net, free to all comers.
1. How would you protect yourself from damage claims coming from the owner of the attacking machine?
2. Who will determine that the process running on that other machine is, beyond doubt, malicous code? Can you make that call independent of others? If so, see the first question.
Nah, I didn't see any flamebait in your post. I think we're coming at a similar position from different directions. I'm not suggesting that punishments should be victim-driven, or determined by the impact of the crime. But, I am suggesting that, as in other areas, some cyber crimes will be more or less serious than others, and their punishment should reflect that. E.g., murder is more serious than attempted burglary. We just need to follow this same paradigm re: cyber crimes.
Some crimes cause more suffering and damage than others, and we treat them differerently. The use of categories like "felony" and "misdemeanor" don't, however, imply that some crimes don't merit punishment. If you're driving a junker, the guy that hits you and leaves has committed the same crime as he would if you had been driving a top-end model. A hit-and-run is a hit-and-run; the value of your car shouldn't come into it.
In the Internet arena, though, I think some way has to be found to keep punishment in line with the severity of the offense. Defacing a web site that consists of a single static page on a vanity server should not draw the same kind of punishment that taking down the home page of a major online retailer for days on end, or for mounting a successful DoS attack on important government sites. (Certainly, the differences would be brought out in the damages sought in any civil action.)
I'm not suggesting that a web page defacer merits no punishment, or is the equivalent of urban graffiti.
There are, I think, at least two things at play here. First, the use of plea bargaining and related devices to clear the docket, rather than serve justice, contributes to the perception that sentences are often out of whack with the crime committed. Second, courts are probably less able to judge the veracity of a damage claim brought in by a cracking victim than from a victim of a more traditional crime.
However, we can't avoid giving fair sentences to IT criminals simply because other criminals get unreasonably lenient sentences. My sympathy for convicted criminals is limited.
A crime is a crime is a crime. Aren't there plenty of existing standards to base this on? Tie it to the harm done. Some will be misdemeanors, some will be felonies. If some 'graffiitti' splattered over a commercial site causes a relatively small financial loss, call it a misdemeanor and sentence accordingly. If the financial loss is large enough, call it a felony and give an appropriate sentence. E.g., defacing the brochure page of your local shoe store might cause them little or no measurable loss of revenue and be repairable within a single work day. Doing the same thing to Amazon or Yahoo is a different matter and calls for a much stronger sentence.
The important thing is to prevent and punish people who act criminally, and to counter the popular impression that many "geeks" don't take the issue seriously.
Nice attempt at omniscience. I pointedly avoid stating my opinion on the issue, and you still lump me in with everyone who disagrees with you as "opponents of human rights". Must be nice to be infallible.
If you're typical of Libertarians, I guess I can expect as little from them as I do from "liberals" and "conservatives".
>> I've brought up cogent points here- but I suspect you guys would rather I be denied that speech.
Sheesh, what you've is go on a rant, tossing around the word "liberal" as if it's the strongest insult you can imagine. It is possible to support the Bill of Rights without agreeing with your interpretation of it.
As someone who used to consider himself pretty far to the left, but now considers appellations like "liberal" and "conservative" to be useful only as verbal incitements on talk radio, it seems to me that you're taking a minimalist approach to the First Amendment, ignoring two centuries of interpretation by the courts, while others overlook the fundamental nature of the amendment's protection of free speech. Both are valid; beats me which is "correct".
But, in the end, both sides should realize that story is on Slashdot simply to boost OSDN's ad revenue. Just like on talk radio. I'd rather go to my lawyer for advice on software than go to/. for rational thought on legal issues.
I'd guess it is a safe bet that all communications of Iraqi officers of that level is monitored by the Iraqi government. The act of replying to email from a known U.S. address -- regardless of the subject matter -- would likely bring retribution.
In any case, this is an attempt at pyschological warfare: Stay on the sidelines in a war or you will be captured and tried as a war criminal.
Fair to say, I think, that the general perception of this entire flap -- not without justification -- is that it is a fuss between adolescent to college-age boys and a handful of unloved corporations and their trade associations. It is naive to think that one side wouldn't want music at no cost (who wouldn't?), while the other expects people to pay for the products they sell (if you have a job, you'd be upset if someone offered to do everything you do for free).
At some point, the legal system will accommodate itself to all this, probably with solutions that leave both sides unhappy.
MS is not giving California up to $1.1 billion in MS software, it is giving California residents up to $1.1 billion in coupons that can be redeemed against any software/hardware manufactuer's products.
Reaction to this little piece says something about the attention span of the average/. reader.
You're not putting ideology ahead of education, are you?
As long as 95 percent of the world's computers run MS, schools are not the place to fight this battle. Teaching students how to use Linux software won't do them much good when they graduate and enter a world essentially bereft of it.
Better to volunteer to help your local schools download and install (and support) Linux or another "free" OS for use a mail server, etc. Exposing the school board to the real world of Linux will do a lot more good than mere prosletyzing.
>> No one has really used OS/2 since 1995...the install (sic) base...
You contradict yourself.
>> ...negating a reason for OS/2 to even exist. Operating systems aren't academic exercises. Capabilities that you won't use waste your money, no matter how "modern" the OS. Presumably, institutions with an investment in OS/2 think it makes good business sense to stay with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are a few missions that we might task to NASA:
1. Permanent human presence on the Moon
2. Mission to near-Earth asteroid with an objective of eventual commercial exploitation
3. Develop space-only propulsion systems with the objective of "going faster", and capaable of sustained 1-G acceleration.
The third point is important. Earth-launched orbital, lunar, and planetary missions in effect have self-imposed speed limits of about 18,000 mph and 25,000 mph, respectively. That's as fast as they need to go to get the job done. Propulsion systems designed only to work in space ought not to be as constrained. If you're going to Mars, travelling at 100,000 mph is better than 25,000 moh.
>>,i>The original X program in the 60s...nearly achieved a aircraft capible of making orbit without booster rockets.
What was that? The X-15 was a long way and about 13,000 mph from orbit. I believe someone toyed with the idea of strapping on a bit of throw-away boost and giving it enough oomph for a single high-altitude traverse of the globe, but that's not equivalent to reaching orbit.
Projects that don't fly, literally, should be no surprise when the U.S. can't give NASA a target. We've been able to put people and hardware in low Earth orbit for 40 years, yet that's all we seem to ask NASA to do -- stay on the same old treadmill. Sure, NASA should be tasked with building cheaper, more efficient boosters for that particular job, but let's don't pretend that's the end of it.
NASA needs to be given a real mission -- a destination. Until then, they will keep on building trucks with no place to go.
>> ...without rousing the average citizen to action.
If the "average citizen" isn't roused about copyright, it might be because:
1. They don't know about it.
2. They know about it and don't care.
3. They know about it, and like the current situation.
4. They know about it, don't like the current situation, but think it is a minor, unimportant issue in their own lives.
If copyright is as important an issue as many posters here seem to thnk it is, then they will realize that they need to prepare for years and years of effort to persuade people. If they're not willing to make that commitment, then I have no respect or tolerance for them when they retreat into unfounded and phony cynicism
The Constitution does not provide for its own abolition. Any effort to do so would, by definition, be extra-Constitutional and resisted with force.
Citing the Declaration without identifying it is an old trick which has lost it's flair. Remember, though, that the Declaration was a treasonous document when issued, and everyone who signed it a traitor. It took several years of warfare and many lives to determine that the signers wouldn't be hung. Somehow I doubt copyright is going to inspire that kind of comittment.
Well, you have two choices: Elect people who won't take corporate money or get dirty yourself. (Three actually: You can wrap yourself in presumed moral certainty and blame someone else.)
Decisions that have an impact on money and power are always subject to influence by the rich and powerful. It's human nature to protect the things that are important to you. Sadly, the poor and the weak too often assume that their certainty about being right (sometimes they aren't) will carry the day without any effort on their part. Hence, the first time one of their annointed champions loses a skirmish, they want to take refuge in unearned cynicism.
Face it, copyright duration is a boring issue with little perceived impact on almost everyone. Eyes glaze over when normal people hear someone talking about it. Why should they care if Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Most people have no idea what the public domain is, or why they should.
Finally, re: the Court -- The Constitution gives Congress specific powers to make copyright law. With apologies to Lessig, the Court was no more going to support Eldred than they would be to declare last year's Defense appropriation unconstitutional. Chasing this issue into the Supreme Court got the issue some publicity (along with Lessig) but only served to build false hopes.
You seem to be proposing to send Congress a rewrite of the Declaration of Independence.
I doubt you'll get very many to join your crusade based on their anger about the length of copyright. Political support -- in the ballot box or in a revolution -- doesn't come about by magic. You need issues that are important to a majority, and then you have to convince them they[re important issues. However vital copyright duration may be to some people, issues like health, employment, taxes and education will always sway more people.
To be frank, histrionic statements like yours simply persuade people that this whole fuss is fueled by boys who don't want to pay for CD's.
>> ... fed up with "political" solutions...
Why? It's the way things work. Convince enough people to vote the way you want them to, and you'll elect a Congress that will change or repeal the Bono Act. If you don't succeed in that, consider that it might just be because not everyone agrees with you, not because they're evil and corrupt.
If you refuse to play the game, don't complain when someone else wins
The chances of a pro-Eldred decision from the Court were always slim. The contest has always needed to be waged in the political arena: Convince enough people that this issue is so important that it ought to determine which Congressional candidates they vote for. That will be very difficult -- most Americans have more pressing needs than shortening copyright duration -- but it's the only way to go.
(It's telling that the Court went out of its way to explicitly state that the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress doesn't mean that Congress will always legislate wisely. Obviously, the Court is telling us that they won't declare a law unconstitutional just because lots of people think it's a bad law. They're right about that. )
Old machines like the Sinclair, VIC-20, C-64, etc., didn't have real operating systems because it's hard to shoehorn something into the tiny memories they had -- 5k, I think, in the VIC.
Take a look at all the semi-literate, poorly spelled, poorly argued, unsubstantiated crap that infests the web, e.g., most Slashdot comments. The crap is free, but you -- the reader -- have to spend your resources wading through it. The web trades off ease of access for little or no selection, filtering, and editing.
People who make a living by selling their work -- writers, musicians, etc. -- aren't about to threaten their careers by abandoning traditonal publishing and dumping their work on the net, free to all comers.
Questions:
1. How would you protect yourself from damage claims coming from the owner of the attacking machine?
2. Who will determine that the process running on that other machine is, beyond doubt, malicous code? Can you make that call independent of others? If so, see the first question.
I dumped Mozilla on OSX for Chimera, and I was happy. Last week, I dumped Chimera for Safari, and I'm happier.
I only use one platform at a time. While I'm waiting for Mozilla to do something, should I find solace in its cross-platform abilities?
Cross-platform code maymake life simpler for coders, but what does it bring to the user?
Nah, I didn't see any flamebait in your post. I think we're coming at a similar position from different directions. I'm not suggesting that punishments should be victim-driven, or determined by the impact of the crime. But, I am suggesting that, as in other areas, some cyber crimes will be more or less serious than others, and their punishment should reflect that. E.g., murder is more serious than attempted burglary. We just need to follow this same paradigm re: cyber crimes.
Some crimes cause more suffering and damage than others, and we treat them differerently. The use of categories like "felony" and "misdemeanor" don't, however, imply that some crimes don't merit punishment. If you're driving a junker, the guy that hits you and leaves has committed the same crime as he would if you had been driving a top-end model. A hit-and-run is a hit-and-run; the value of your car shouldn't come into it.
In the Internet arena, though, I think some way has to be found to keep punishment in line with the severity of the offense. Defacing a web site that consists of a single static page on a vanity server should not draw the same kind of punishment that taking down the home page of a major online retailer for days on end, or for mounting a successful DoS attack on important government sites. (Certainly, the differences would be brought out in the damages sought in any civil action.)
I'm not suggesting that a web page defacer merits no punishment, or is the equivalent of urban graffiti.
There are, I think, at least two things at play here. First, the use of plea bargaining and related devices to clear the docket, rather than serve justice, contributes to the perception that sentences are often out of whack with the crime committed. Second, courts are probably less able to judge the veracity of a damage claim brought in by a cracking victim than from a victim of a more traditional crime.
However, we can't avoid giving fair sentences to IT criminals simply because other criminals get unreasonably lenient sentences. My sympathy for convicted criminals is limited.
A crime is a crime is a crime. Aren't there plenty of existing standards to base this on? Tie it to the harm done. Some will be misdemeanors, some will be felonies. If some 'graffiitti' splattered over a commercial site causes a relatively small financial loss, call it a misdemeanor and sentence accordingly. If the financial loss is large enough, call it a felony and give an appropriate sentence. E.g., defacing the brochure page of your local shoe store might cause them little or no measurable loss of revenue and be repairable within a single work day. Doing the same thing to Amazon or Yahoo is a different matter and calls for a much stronger sentence.
The important thing is to prevent and punish people who act criminally, and to counter the popular impression that many "geeks" don't take the issue seriously.
Nice attempt at omniscience. I pointedly avoid stating my opinion on the issue, and you still lump me in with everyone who disagrees with you as "opponents of human rights". Must be nice to be infallible.
If you're typical of Libertarians, I guess I can expect as little from them as I do from "liberals" and "conservatives".
>> I've brought up cogent points here- but I suspect you guys would rather I be denied that speech.
/. for rational thought on legal issues.
Sheesh, what you've is go on a rant, tossing around the word "liberal" as if it's the strongest insult you can imagine. It is possible to support the Bill of Rights without agreeing with your interpretation of it.
As someone who used to consider himself pretty far to the left, but now considers appellations like "liberal" and "conservative" to be useful only as verbal incitements on talk radio, it seems to me that you're taking a minimalist approach to the First Amendment, ignoring two centuries of interpretation by the courts, while others overlook the fundamental nature of the amendment's protection of free speech. Both are valid; beats me which is "correct".
But, in the end, both sides should realize that story is on Slashdot simply to boost OSDN's ad revenue. Just like on talk radio. I'd rather go to my lawyer for advice on software than go to
I'd guess it is a safe bet that all communications of Iraqi officers of that level is monitored by the Iraqi government. The act of replying to email from a known U.S. address -- regardless of the subject matter -- would likely bring retribution.
In any case, this is an attempt at pyschological warfare: Stay on the sidelines in a war or you will be captured and tried as a war criminal.
Fair to say, I think, that the general perception of this entire flap -- not without justification -- is that it is a fuss between adolescent to college-age boys and a handful of unloved corporations and their trade associations. It is naive to think that one side wouldn't want music at no cost (who wouldn't?), while the other expects people to pay for the products they sell (if you have a job, you'd be upset if someone offered to do everything you do for free).
At some point, the legal system will accommodate itself to all this, probably with solutions that leave both sides unhappy.
In the meantime, no one else really cares.
MS is not giving California up to $1.1 billion in MS software, it is giving California residents up to $1.1 billion in coupons that can be redeemed against any software/hardware manufactuer's products.
/. reader.
Reaction to this little piece says something about the attention span of the average
You're not putting ideology ahead of education, are you?
As long as 95 percent of the world's computers run MS, schools are not the place to fight this battle. Teaching students how to use Linux software won't do them much good when they graduate and enter a world essentially bereft of it.
Better to volunteer to help your local schools download and install (and support) Linux or another "free" OS for use a mail server, etc. Exposing the school board to the real world of Linux will do a lot more good than mere prosletyzing.
>> No one has really used OS/2 since 1995...the install (sic) base...
...negating a reason for OS/2 to even exist.
You contradict yourself.
>>
Operating systems aren't academic exercises. Capabilities that you won't use waste your money, no matter how "modern" the OS. Presumably, institutions with an investment in OS/2 think it makes good business sense to stay with it.