Actually, recently, Tipper has reversed her position on music censorship, and has said that it was wrong, and that labelling, itself, has been successful (successful at increasing the sales of the ones labelled "explicit lyrics").
I think she also said that she was suffering from depression at the time, and is now on Prozac. Wild hysterical laughter can be heard emenating from the gravesite of Frank Zappa.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Just because this mechanism, evolution, can be observed happening in speckled moths and Galapagos tortoises, doesn't make it a global fact, and doesn't prove a lot of the things that the whole evolution theory implies, and especially some of the things that are said about evolution (such as, it proves that God does not exist). That's just crap. It's not Science as a system of rational thought, it's Science masquarading as a religion. It's Science claiming to have all the answers mankind needs and will ever need. Look around you at the utopia mankind has created. That should be enough for anyone.
I know there are creationist whackos out there who dispute evolution, foist distorted facts, use sneaky tactics to try to push their opinion, or their belief system, onto the public at large, in place of rational Scientific methods and teaching, and I totally disagree with that.
I agree with science, and the principles of rational deduction, peer review, scrutiny and skepticism, but I also feel that there is a lot of hubris out there on the part of Scientists, that just does not belong. It borders on non-rational faith in Science, and preaches that we can replace God with our own ingenuity. Now, I'm not saying that ALL people should have Christianity rammed down their throat either. But there are some principals that I believe strongly in, that some scientists seem to want to quash; the concept of a free will, the concept that religion is an important and necessary part of some people's life. When people try to force this evolution agenda on the masses, it's just as bad as forcing Christianity, because it's just as much the mixing of religion and government as the Holy Roman Empire.
Science is a system of rational deduction and observation of the world around us. It should never become more than that. The system, and it's theories should be taught in school, but the phenomenological implications should be left to individuals and philosphers to think about, and should never be offered as the SOLE and ultimate answers that religion is designed to address. If someone wants to believe that fundamentally, the universe just formed as an accident, and the physical laws of the universe are all that are in play, and we're just smart apes, that's okay. But DON'T force your views on everyone else.
I personally DO believe in evolutionary theory, and I personally DO reconcile that mechanism with my religious faith. That's my philosophy. Due to the nature of science, that theories follow from observation, the limitation is, that since we are NOT omnicient beings, we will never be able to observe everything, and thus we will never be able to come up with a theory for Everything, (not to say that we will never nail Grand Unification - by everything, I mean, capital-E everything) every detail in the universe that has happened, or will happened. It's simply not possible. We are not divine beings, and we should not pretend that we are. It's only a tool folks. Not a religion.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Well, I watched it on CSPAN, and Gore was CLEARLY in favor of the DOJ's position, he made some strong statements about antitrust law, and gave a hypothetical situation that it applied to, and that hypothetical situation sounded a heck of a lot like Microsoft. I laughed my ass off. Gore, in NO way was waffling, or giving a watered down, reversible opinion, or dodging the issue. He clearly didn't want to dodge the issue, even though he said several times that he wasn't allowed to comment on it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
There is no way Hillary Clinton is going to be elected president. She is WAY too leftist for this country. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If the vast right-wing conspiracy was against Clinton, they'll really go into full gear against her. In fact, I'm quite certain that her run in New York will be unsuccessful. You can't polish a turd.
Bush has plenty of Gaffes. He's got too much money, too many unanswered questions about his past, his ethics, his stand on issues. He has stumbled numerous times in public speeches and press conferences. I don't think Bush will be elected, in fact, I don't think he'll even be nominated. He's too centrist for his own good, like his father before him. God help him if he chooses a goofball for VP like his dad did. (which is exactly the ONLY reason Bush lost his second term - we were all terrified of Quayle, and had had enough) I think McCain will come from behind and suprise everyone and get the Republican nomination. And I'm also pretty sure that even though Bradley is catching up to Gore, and even has lots more money than Gore, he won't be taken seriously by the Democratic party. Clinton may not have any more strings to pull on Gore's behalf, and Clinton's record may even prevent Gore from winning the election, but there is such a high barrier against Bradley getting the Democratic nomination, I don't think it's possible. I'm sure he's as qualified as Gore, and I also think he's a bit further to the left than Gore, and that's what's going to kill him.
So basically, I think McCain will end up being the next president. I don't think he'll even make that bad of a president, but he is pretty much pro business, and I think MS will get off the hook because of him. I think it would be great if McCains ideas about campaign finance reform would be enacted. But they won't.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I actually saw the talk on CSPAN last night. I thought Gore did great, he was more personable and honest than I've ever seen him, and though his statements on gun control rile me a bit, Gore does have a set of brass ones. The Microsoft people were TOLD beforehand NOT to ask Gore about the antitrust case, because he could not comment on it, and after several questions, after reminding them himself, he finally gave in, and told the audience exactly what they didn't want to hear, just to shut them up. I don't think Gore could back out of his position, from what he said, there was no ambiguity that he stood for the antitrust laws as they were, and the hypothetical situations he described, sounded damn close to what is actually happening in the Microsoft case. I think he did a wonderful job standing up to those twits and giving them the law. He could have just said "sorry, I can't comment, no more questions on this please", and stood his ground on that - like Clinton would have done. But Gore obviously has strong opinions on this matter, and had to let them out, after all the regurgitated "freedom to innovate" crap those Microsoft zombies were spouting.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
First, they should figure out what the actual mass of the universe is.
First, they should figure out what the actual age of the universe is.
First, they should figure out why deep space probes are accelerating away from the sun faster than Newtonian physics says they should.
First, they should identify the graviton (if such a thing exists) - and actually prove that Gravity is a real force.
These are basics, that just have not been done. I don't like criticizing those giants who have done all these wonderful great things to date, when about the best I've ever done was make a battery out of a potato (actually, last weekend, I made plasma in my microwave oven!). When these basic things have been resolved, then maybe they can talk about unifying all forces of nature. Until then, it looks like they're as far away as ever from solving that riddle. I just hate it when humanity gets a big head.
And as far as string theory goes, I've heard different variations from 12 dimensions, to 10 dimensions to 9 dimensions, to, you guessed it, even 1 dimension. (don't remember whether that was a legitimate theory or a joke or not, it was back in the late 80's)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I was just watching the Al Gore speech at Microsoft. I tell you, before this, I thought I was going to vote for McCain.
Gore was NOT wearing a tie (okay, it was a costume for that specific audiance, dockers, cashmere vneck sweater, etc.) and he was more personable and loose than I've ever seen him. That prozac shit must be working wonders for Tipper. Anyway, he did something I admire greatly, he walked into the belly of the beast. It's apparent that "the administration" is in favor of Jackson's ruling, and the DOJ action. Gore is legally not allowed to comment on this case, and the questioners were told not to ask about this case during his visit. And still, they asked, There were 4, maybe 5 questions asked about his stance on the issue. He repeated, that he was not able to comment. The brainwashed zombies spewed the party line "why is the government interfering in our innovation?" "show me an example of harm done to consumers." Invariably, Gore responded well to these questions, and finally gave in. He said he would not comment on this specific case, but he would talk about his philosophy on the issue, in general, of whether it's right for government to interfere in a "free market", and what he said did not sound like regurgitated tripe, it sounded like a well thought out argument, a position, a philosophy, that in no case should there be too large a concetration of power. Either in the government, or the private sector, it can lead to abuses. He also said that there should be a means to give startups the opportunity for fair competition in a field against a strong corporate power, for entrance into the market. In short, he communicated his opinion, to a live audience of Microsoft employees, all enthusiastically in support of Microsoft's position and actions, that he was in favor of Jackson's position, and in favor of. He's got a set of brass ones.
He also made statements about encryption. He does favor "protecting the national security interests".
He totally lambasted Bush on the environment.
He said it was totally critical that if you value a woman's choice to choose, you MUST vote democratic in the next election, because the next president is crucial in selecting the tone of the Supreme court for the next 30 years.
He responded to a question about Columbine, went into a very long winded, but honest, and from the heart spiel about gun control, then a biblical thing about Cain and Abel, and how that related to how disenfranchised Harris and Klebold felt, and how they were not respected, how they felt there was nobody and nothing left in this world for them. He was clearly making a statement that the national discourse on this subject, and the government's conclusion was that it was this sick system that pushed a couple of troubled kids over the edge. Yes, first he used it as a tool to tout gun control, but after that, he does seem to "get it".
I may not agree with a lot of what he said. But the fact that he walked into that clusterfsck, and had the balls to stand up in front of that crowd and tell them what they didn't want to hear - it was amazing, and I'm thinking about NOT voting for McCain this time around. . .
I wish I could find a link to the transcript or any coverage of this talk. Maybe some other more skillful surfer will respond and provide a URL.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Oh, come now - it's already apparent that Palm has backed off on innovation.
Now, don't take this the wrong way, I love my Palm III, and wouldn't necessarily want all of these features weighing it down, stuff that WinCE devices DO have; ethernet ports, PCMCIA cards, color displays, sound, GOBS more memory, much more CPU horsepower. But what I DO take issue with is how outrageously expensive the Palm is compared to a WinCE device is, when you compare features.
In other words, I'm saying that Palm ought to lower it's prices. Drastically. It's obvious these guys are making a huge profit on these things, and of course, since they have such high marketshare, and high demand, they don't have to lower their prices. So it's obvious that Palm already has too high a marketshare. However, they only have this one market, PDA's, and they're not encroaching into others, and they're winning on technical merit, not strongarm tactics, so I don't disagree with them as heartily as I do with Microsoft. And did I say I LOVE my Palm III? Went down to the beach on Saturday, looked up the tides with TideTool, checked the weather forcast with my saved AvantGo webpage. Checked movie listings to see what was playing that night, and when. Can you beat that shit? no way. It does what I want it to. But I'm just NOT going to buy a V or VII, because they're too fucking expensive. WAY.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I don't see how a Fat Cat, say Donald Trump for instance is really taking any risk. I mean, come on, if I took this month's paycheck, and invested it in the stock market instead of paying my bills, and came out a winner, I'd be that much further ahead of the game, I could sell a fraction of my stocks, and pay the bills late, and be okay. If I lose, then I'm boned, because I have no way to pay my bills, I go into collection, get my credit rating ruined, possibly get possessions repoed.
But someone like Donald Trump, the WORST thing that could happen to him is that he falls back on a multi-million dollar trust fund, and he lives happily ever after with his trophy wife. In fact, the guy DID have some hard times, and had to sell some casinos, and even went bankrupt, and you know what happened, the court decided he could still have an income of several hundred thou a month. A MONTH. The privileged play the game, and win or lose, they are still privileged. Only exploited child actors do the rags to riches back to rags thing. Or have you run into Michael Milikin at the laundramat lately?
I'm as much for capitalism and against communism as anybody - but I don't carry this pretense that there's any meritocracy involved, that in general, the rich are smarter, or better risk-takers, harder workers, or more fit or deserving to be rich. For the most part, they were lucky, in the right place at the right time, perhaps more connected, perhaps through golfing/polo buddies, perhaps through lineage. For me, I got my riches through Stock Options, and fortunate promotions. I was damn lucky. I make 5 times now, sitting on my ass in front of my computer and surfing the web, occasionally doing actual work, than I did 8 years ago by grunting and sweating in the shipping department. Sure, I worked hard to get where I am, and I sacrificed a lot, and even took some risks, and maybe I deserve to be making what I'm making, for my expertise, but maybe I deserved to be making what I'm making now, when I was doing manual labor 8 years ago, but I know that my success has very little to do with that risk, labor, and sacrifice, and more to do with ass kissing, and luck. In fact, I can say that right now, I would not be employed if it weren't for the guys who are NOW down in shipping, sweating away, moving boxes, making labels, etc. I don't mind speaking this ugly truth about myself. Anonymously, because I like where I am, I like the system that got me here, and I sure as hell don't want to go back to making $6.50 an hour. Hell, if I wasn't lucky enough to be born white, and male, and American, who knows - I could be starving in Southeast Asia right now, picking rice for soldiers. The illusion that it has to do with anything else is false.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
IANAAP (I am not an astro physicist), but I think that a solar system, with a large gas giant with an orbital period of 3 days, would not harbor any intelligent life. (not making an absolute statement, I'm saying probably here).
The gravity field from the gas giant is very strong - it's a very massive object, a very large world, and would tend to greatly perturb the orbits of other planets nearby. Especially the small, rocky inner ones that would otherwise sustain life long enough to evolve intelligence. Basically, what I'm saying, is if a planet that size occupied Mercury's orbit in this solar system, probably Venus, Earth, and Mars would not be occupying stable orbits, and would likely have either been catapaulted out of the solar system, or into the sun, or broken up. Inner planets (from what little I understand of astrophysics) tend to be grouped relatively close together, and outer planets, farther apart, which is why Jupiter and Saturn don't perturb the orbits of Mars, Venus, Earth, or Mercury (to any significant degree - by significant, I mean, catastrophically). But then again, the fact that a gas giant exists so close to a star, kind of turns a lot of astrophysics on it's ear. That was not what has been thought of as a "normal" solar system, yet pretty much all of the extrasolar planetary systems we've observed so far have had what modern astrophysics would consider "abnormal". On the other hand, it's a lot harder to observe these smaller rocky planets (like Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury) at these distances, because they don't perturb the Sun gravitationally as much, so we really don't know what's "normal" and what is not. What we do know, is that there are certainly planets out there, and my feeling is that in these systems, where a gas giant is close-in to the star like that, it's not likely that there are any close-in small rocky planets capable of bearing intelligent life. (for the record, I do believe that there is likely life on Europa, and probably Mars too, and therefore it's possible that life may exist in one of these extrasolar systems, on small moons or stray planets, etc. - just not intelligent life. Whether there are planetary systems configured like ours, bearing intelligent life out there, remains to be seen - but I believe it's likely).
So yeah, there would be killer eclipses (especially since the star's photosphere might be stretched out into space by the gravitation from the inner planet), but no comfortable place to view them from.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
would you rather have the exploding projectile fly PAST the enemy bunker, and into the village they're defending?
This device is designed to change the grenade accuracy from something like 1 in 10 being an effective hit, to 1 in 2. As a civillian, I'd rather not be a potential target of the other 9 grenades that missed. It also changes the yeild of the grenade from 40mm to 20mm - because a closer hit means less explosives are needed to damage the target, which means much less collateral damage.
Yes, the laws of war are irrational, because when it comes down to it, they can only be enforced on the loser. There is only ONE law that does not need to be enforced - and that's the law of the jungle; the fittest survive. So eventually, any loser will forget the other laws, and do what it takes to survive, and win, and defend themselves. God help them if they lose anyway. But since not all wars are wars of extermination, it's not always a matter of survival. And sometimes, war is a necessary evil - so it's nice to have laws governing their prosecution, because it makes a terrible thing, a bit less terrible. We will still have wars, with or without laws. The argument against the laws seems to be that - nobody's going to follow them anyway, and especially, if we make war too pleasant, then we'll have more of them. Well, war's going to happen anyway, people will eventually resort to force when other means to achieve their goals do not work. People break laws in civillian life too, but I think we're all better off that murder and theft are illegal in civillian life. Those things happen a lot less often than they would otherwise.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
9 times out of 10, mangling the Win9X registry means, reinstall the whole fscking OS. We call it "registry bit-rot", the net effect is, when you first install a system, it runs great, but after a few months, it bogs down for no apparent reason. Look through your registry for all the garbage that was put in there whenever you installed or uninstalled that seemingly innocuous web browser plugin.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Um. Great idea. Do it. (actually, I think that a running "help" converstation on slashdot would be better, since a lot of knowlegable people are already hanging out on slashdot, plus, good answers=good moderation = more karma.)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:What about the lemmings in modern-day USA?
on
The Year 1000
·
· Score: 1
Millenium schmillenium.
People want to party - the sooner the better. No history geek is going to tell the masses with their horded cases of Budweiser that they're going to have to put off the party of the millenium for another year. They won't wait for a technicality.
This year WILL be the party of the millenium, and people who are selling beer, champagne, party dresses, and renting ballrooms, are going to make a shitload of money off of it. Then next year, we'll start to see mainstream media hyping the REAL party for the following year. That party will be just as "big" if not bigger. But shhhhh! don't tell anybody. It's a secret, and you're just a party pooper.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:A few things of note...
on
The Year 1000
·
· Score: 1
It's called "mail". Not chainmail. Put your D&D books away and get thee to a library.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Early on in the trial, the press had discussed a potential remedy that didn't get talked about much, and is not really mentioned at all anymore, but seems to be consistent with some of the statements Jackson made in his FoF (particularly in his "see-no-evil" attitude towards competing platforms like Macintosh, Linux, Be, Solaris, etc.)
This remedy was called "Essential Facility", where the Microsoft platform (not just the OS, but the API, document formats, applications, development environments) would be declared to be an essential facility, like the power grid, or or Bell's phone network, etc. This essential facility would then fall under government regulation just as if Microsoft were a utility, and price controls would be enforced, as well as careful scrutiny of sales models, service levels, and improvements (or as Bill likes to call them, "innovations").
With the likelyhood that none of the other proposed remedies (splits, either vertical or horizontal, forced open sourcing/API documentation, fines and consent decrees) will really solve the problem (naughty behavior and tactics), do you think that it's likely that THIS remedy would be considered or put into effect, and if so, what would that mean for the competing platforms (which Jackson denies exist)?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Damn, when does a 42-karma slashdotter get to moderate again? I'd unload all my points on the post which is the parent to this one. It's pretty much the most insightful post I've read in a long time.
Anyway, we've already seen some moves to Stage 3, Apple tried it with ATI, but got screwed, I think, because of ATI's crappy drivers (heh, I'll take any chance I can get to bash ATI), plus, it seems like ATI would still rather build cards than sell chips to stick onto Apple mobo's, probably because Apple was such a niche market for them anyways.
Then Intel was also trying it, with their AGP nonsense, and their 3d graphics chipset that they tried to use to corner the markets so they could foist it onto mobo manufacturers as the "de facto" standard. This failed. I'm not sure why. Maybe it just wasn't "good enough" enough.
What will suck about this integration of "good enough" hardware, is the proprietary API that will be tied to it, probably DirectX, which will prevent game manufacturers from taking the sensible approach and using a cross platform 3d API like OpenGL, or MESA, which will probably mean that most games will continue to be written for Windows first, and Linux and Mac will continue to be the afterthought.
While Office98 and iMac have built Apple up an impressive marketshare recovery in the past few years, and all the press and business support have bolstered Linux, these platforms will not gain broad acceptance outside of their niche markets until the game-software availability problem is resolved. And for that to happen, there needs to exist a compelling cross-platform 3d API, that the game industry actually uses.
For this, I'd say that Carmack is the industry leader, and a great example to follow. Not only does Id design GREAT games, but they do it in a manner which facilitates cross-platform adoption, which gives them access to markets that are otherwise not available. I hope that this is enough of a competitive advantage that it persuades other game developers to follow suit. (at least indications for Bungie are that they will be releasing Halo cross-platform, so that's an encouraging trend.)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Yeah, "liberal" in American means - wanting a larger government, more government regulations, especially anti-business, pro-labor, higher taxes, especially for the rich, more handouts for the poor.
"liberal" in European means - pro-business, liberalization of laws restricting business, enslavement of the masses etc.
"conservative" in America means - return to "traditional family (Christian) values". Anti-abortion, low taxes, especially for the rich who can then spend their money to boost the economy (why give tax breaks to the poor? they'll only blow their money on booze, the scoundrels - besides, if they're poor, that means that God doesn't love them, so why should we?) - - but conservatives are generally thought to be business freindly, but not in a general sense, usually more in a local sense (as in the businesses that contribute most to their campaigns, or who are run by their golfing buddies).
What does "conservative" mean in Europe? I think that the reason we don't use "liberal" instead of "socialist" in America, is because we vilainized the USSR so much during the 50's - 80's, there is too much stigma attached to the term. Now there's too much stigma attached to "liberal". There's even stigma attached to "moderate" now. OY! the state of US politics!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
"Somehow Microsoft needs to be forced from conducting itself in a predatory way...from using its monopolies to force OEMS to do things, from unfairly entering other markets, etc. It's the/behavior/ that needs to be remedied. I'm not sure how to do about this though."
Dust off, and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Also, we aren't on the cusp of an internet revolution. We are in the eye of the hurricane (sorry, switched one bad cliche for a worse one). IDG says that there are over 100 Million US users. I'd say it's in full swing. The implications are still over the horizon, but I think we can see the color coming into the sky. (damn metaphors!)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
There was an analysis of Office Suites (actually just word processors) done a few months ago on some Mac advocacy web page. Wish I could find that link now, but when all the word processors available were compared, Office came out as more than double the nearest competitor in price, which was Apple Works, which is a complete office suite, actually better integrated than Office, for $99. (unfortunately, it wasn't integrated with a web browser, email client, and database access like Office is). It went down the list, Star Office is free, of course, (this was like, the week after Sun bought them), and WP Mac is free. (but discontinued).
I'm suprised Jackson didn't run down this list in his FoF, because it's supportive to his OS pricing argument, and also to the stories about "Using Office as a club" with Apple.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, recently, Tipper has reversed her position on music censorship, and has said that it was wrong, and that labelling, itself, has been successful (successful at increasing the sales of the ones labelled "explicit lyrics").
I think she also said that she was suffering from depression at the time, and is now on Prozac. Wild hysterical laughter can be heard emenating from the gravesite of Frank Zappa.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Just because this mechanism, evolution, can be observed happening in speckled moths and Galapagos tortoises, doesn't make it a global fact, and doesn't prove a lot of the things that the whole evolution theory implies, and especially some of the things that are said about evolution (such as, it proves that God does not exist). That's just crap. It's not Science as a system of rational thought, it's Science masquarading as a religion. It's Science claiming to have all the answers mankind needs and will ever need.
Look around you at the utopia mankind has created. That should be enough for anyone.
I know there are creationist whackos out there who dispute evolution, foist distorted facts, use sneaky tactics to try to push their opinion, or their belief system, onto the public at large, in place of rational Scientific methods and teaching, and I totally disagree with that.
I agree with science, and the principles of rational deduction, peer review, scrutiny and skepticism, but I also feel that there is a lot of hubris out there on the part of Scientists, that just does not belong. It borders on non-rational faith in Science, and preaches that we can replace God with our own ingenuity. Now, I'm not saying that ALL people should have Christianity rammed down their throat either. But there are some principals that I believe strongly in, that some scientists seem to want to quash; the concept of a free will, the concept that religion is an important and necessary part of some people's life. When people try to force this evolution agenda on the masses, it's just as bad as forcing Christianity, because it's just as much the mixing of religion and government as the Holy Roman Empire.
Science is a system of rational deduction and observation of the world around us. It should never become more than that. The system, and it's theories should be taught in school, but the phenomenological implications should be left to individuals and philosphers to think about, and should never be offered as the SOLE and ultimate answers that religion is designed to address. If someone wants to believe that fundamentally, the universe just formed as an accident, and the physical laws of the universe are all that are in play, and we're just smart apes, that's okay. But DON'T force your views on everyone else.
I personally DO believe in evolutionary theory, and I personally DO reconcile that mechanism with my religious faith. That's my philosophy. Due to the nature of science, that theories follow from observation, the limitation is, that since we are NOT omnicient beings, we will never be able to observe everything, and thus we will never be able to come up with a theory for Everything, (not to say that we will never nail Grand Unification - by everything, I mean, capital-E everything) every detail in the universe that has happened, or will happened. It's simply not possible. We are not divine beings, and we should not pretend that we are. It's only a tool folks. Not a religion.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Well, I watched it on CSPAN, and Gore was CLEARLY in favor of the DOJ's position, he made some strong statements about antitrust law, and gave a hypothetical situation that it applied to, and that hypothetical situation sounded a heck of a lot like Microsoft. I laughed my ass off. Gore, in NO way was waffling, or giving a watered down, reversible opinion, or dodging the issue. He clearly didn't want to dodge the issue, even though he said several times that he wasn't allowed to comment on it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
There is no way Hillary Clinton is going to be elected president. She is WAY too leftist for this country. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If the vast right-wing conspiracy was against Clinton, they'll really go into full gear against her. In fact, I'm quite certain that her run in New York will be unsuccessful. You can't polish a turd.
Bush has plenty of Gaffes. He's got too much money, too many unanswered questions about his past, his ethics, his stand on issues. He has stumbled numerous times in public speeches and press conferences. I don't think Bush will be elected, in fact, I don't think he'll even be nominated. He's too centrist for his own good, like his father before him. God help him if he chooses a goofball for VP like his dad did. (which is exactly the ONLY reason Bush lost his second term - we were all terrified of Quayle, and had had enough) I think McCain will come from behind and suprise everyone and get the Republican nomination. And I'm also pretty sure that even though Bradley is catching up to Gore, and even has lots more money than Gore, he won't be taken seriously by the Democratic party. Clinton may not have any more strings to pull on Gore's behalf, and Clinton's record may even prevent Gore from winning the election, but there is such a high barrier against Bradley getting the Democratic nomination, I don't think it's possible. I'm sure he's as qualified as Gore, and I also think he's a bit further to the left than Gore, and that's what's going to kill him.
So basically, I think McCain will end up being the next president. I don't think he'll even make that bad of a president, but he is pretty much pro business, and I think MS will get off the hook because of him. I think it would be great if McCains ideas about campaign finance reform would be enacted. But they won't.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I actually saw the talk on CSPAN last night. I thought Gore did great, he was more personable and honest than I've ever seen him, and though his statements on gun control rile me a bit, Gore does have a set of brass ones.
The Microsoft people were TOLD beforehand NOT to ask Gore about the antitrust case, because he could not comment on it, and after several questions, after reminding them himself, he finally gave in, and told the audience exactly what they didn't want to hear, just to shut them up.
I don't think Gore could back out of his position, from what he said, there was no ambiguity that he stood for the antitrust laws as they were, and the hypothetical situations he described, sounded damn close to what is actually happening in the Microsoft case. I think he did a wonderful job standing up to those twits and giving them the law. He could have just said "sorry, I can't comment, no more questions on this please", and stood his ground on that - like Clinton would have done. But Gore obviously has strong opinions on this matter, and had to let them out, after all the regurgitated "freedom to innovate" crap those Microsoft zombies were spouting.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
First, they should figure out what the actual mass of the universe is.
First, they should figure out what the actual age of the universe is.
First, they should figure out why deep space probes are accelerating away from the sun faster than Newtonian physics says they should.
First, they should identify the graviton (if such a thing exists) - and actually prove that Gravity is a real force.
These are basics, that just have not been done. I don't like criticizing those giants who have done all these wonderful great things to date, when about the best I've ever done was make a battery out of a potato (actually, last weekend, I made plasma in my microwave oven!). When these basic things have been resolved, then maybe they can talk about unifying all forces of nature. Until then, it looks like they're as far away as ever from solving that riddle. I just hate it when humanity gets a big head.
And as far as string theory goes, I've heard different variations from 12 dimensions, to 10 dimensions to 9 dimensions, to, you guessed it, even 1 dimension. (don't remember whether that was a legitimate theory or a joke or not, it was back in the late 80's)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I was just watching the Al Gore speech at Microsoft.
I tell you, before this, I thought I was going to vote for McCain.
Gore was NOT wearing a tie (okay, it was a costume for that specific audiance, dockers, cashmere vneck sweater, etc.) and he was more personable and loose than I've ever seen him. That prozac shit must be working wonders for Tipper.
Anyway, he did something I admire greatly, he walked into the belly of the beast. It's apparent that "the administration" is in favor of Jackson's ruling, and the DOJ action. Gore is legally not allowed to comment on this case, and the questioners were told not to ask about this case during his visit. And still, they asked, There were 4, maybe 5 questions asked about his stance on the issue. He repeated, that he was not able to comment. The brainwashed zombies spewed the party line "why is the government interfering in our innovation?" "show me an example of harm done to consumers." Invariably, Gore responded well to these questions, and finally gave in. He said he would not comment on this specific case, but he would talk about his philosophy on the issue, in general, of whether it's right for government to interfere in a "free market", and what he said did not sound like regurgitated tripe, it sounded like a well thought out argument, a position, a philosophy, that in no case should there be too large a concetration of power. Either in the government, or the private sector, it can lead to abuses. He also said that there should be a means to give startups the opportunity for fair competition in a field against a strong corporate power, for entrance into the market. In short, he communicated his opinion, to a live audience of Microsoft employees, all enthusiastically in support of Microsoft's position and actions, that he was in favor of Jackson's position, and in favor of. He's got a set of brass ones.
He also made statements about encryption. He does favor "protecting the national security interests".
He totally lambasted Bush on the environment.
He said it was totally critical that if you value a woman's choice to choose, you MUST vote democratic in the next election, because the next president is crucial in selecting the tone of the Supreme court for the next 30 years.
He responded to a question about Columbine, went into a very long winded, but honest, and from the heart spiel about gun control, then a biblical thing about Cain and Abel, and how that related to how disenfranchised Harris and Klebold felt, and how they were not respected, how they felt there was nobody and nothing left in this world for them. He was clearly making a statement that the national discourse on this subject, and the government's conclusion was that it was this sick system that pushed a couple of troubled kids over the edge. Yes, first he used it as a tool to tout gun control, but after that, he does seem to "get it".
I may not agree with a lot of what he said. But the fact that he walked into that clusterfsck, and had the balls to stand up in front of that crowd and tell them what they didn't want to hear - it was amazing, and I'm thinking about NOT voting for McCain this time around. . .
I wish I could find a link to the transcript or any coverage of this talk. Maybe some other more skillful surfer will respond and provide a URL.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
You're supposed to use it and throw it away and buy a new one with the new standard, before the old one becomes obsolete.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Oh, come now - it's already apparent that Palm has backed off on innovation.
Now, don't take this the wrong way, I love my Palm III, and wouldn't necessarily want all of these features weighing it down, stuff that WinCE devices DO have; ethernet ports, PCMCIA cards, color displays, sound, GOBS more memory, much more CPU horsepower. But what I DO take issue with is how outrageously expensive the Palm is compared to a WinCE device is, when you compare features.
In other words, I'm saying that Palm ought to lower it's prices. Drastically. It's obvious these guys are making a huge profit on these things, and of course, since they have such high marketshare, and high demand, they don't have to lower their prices. So it's obvious that Palm already has too high a marketshare. However, they only have this one market, PDA's, and they're not encroaching into others, and they're winning on technical merit, not strongarm tactics, so I don't disagree with them as heartily as I do with Microsoft. And did I say I LOVE my Palm III? Went down to the beach on Saturday, looked up the tides with TideTool, checked the weather forcast with my saved AvantGo webpage. Checked movie listings to see what was playing that night, and when. Can you beat that shit? no way. It does what I want it to. But I'm just NOT going to buy a V or VII, because they're too fucking expensive. WAY.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I don't see how a Fat Cat, say Donald Trump for instance is really taking any risk. I mean, come on, if I took this month's paycheck, and invested it in the stock market instead of paying my bills, and came out a winner, I'd be that much further ahead of the game, I could sell a fraction of my stocks, and pay the bills late, and be okay. If I lose, then I'm boned, because I have no way to pay my bills, I go into collection, get my credit rating ruined, possibly get possessions repoed.
But someone like Donald Trump, the WORST thing that could happen to him is that he falls back on a multi-million dollar trust fund, and he lives happily ever after with his trophy wife. In fact, the guy DID have some hard times, and had to sell some casinos, and even went bankrupt, and you know what happened, the court decided he could still have an income of several hundred thou a month. A MONTH. The privileged play the game, and win or lose, they are still privileged. Only exploited child actors do the rags to riches back to rags thing. Or have you run into Michael Milikin at the laundramat lately?
I'm as much for capitalism and against communism as anybody - but I don't carry this pretense that there's any meritocracy involved, that in general, the rich are smarter, or better risk-takers, harder workers, or more fit or deserving to be rich. For the most part, they were lucky, in the right place at the right time, perhaps more connected, perhaps through golfing/polo buddies, perhaps through lineage.
For me, I got my riches through Stock Options, and fortunate promotions. I was damn lucky. I make 5 times now, sitting on my ass in front of my computer and surfing the web, occasionally doing actual work, than I did 8 years ago by grunting and sweating in the shipping department. Sure, I worked hard to get where I am, and I sacrificed a lot, and even took some risks, and maybe I deserve to be making what I'm making, for my expertise, but maybe I deserved to be making what I'm making now, when I was doing manual labor 8 years ago, but I know that my success has very little to do with that risk, labor, and sacrifice, and more to do with ass kissing, and luck. In fact, I can say that right now, I would not be employed if it weren't for the guys who are NOW down in shipping, sweating away, moving boxes, making labels, etc. I don't mind speaking this ugly truth about myself. Anonymously, because I like where I am, I like the system that got me here, and I sure as hell don't want to go back to making $6.50 an hour.
Hell, if I wasn't lucky enough to be born white, and male, and American, who knows - I could be starving in Southeast Asia right now, picking rice for soldiers. The illusion that it has to do with anything else is false.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
IANAAP (I am not an astro physicist), but I think that a solar system, with a large gas giant with an orbital period of 3 days, would not harbor any intelligent life. (not making an absolute statement, I'm saying probably here).
The gravity field from the gas giant is very strong - it's a very massive object, a very large world, and would tend to greatly perturb the orbits of other planets nearby. Especially the small, rocky inner ones that would otherwise sustain life long enough to evolve intelligence. Basically, what I'm saying, is if a planet that size occupied Mercury's orbit in this solar system, probably Venus, Earth, and Mars would not be occupying stable orbits, and would likely have either been catapaulted out of the solar system, or into the sun, or broken up.
Inner planets (from what little I understand of astrophysics) tend to be grouped relatively close together, and outer planets, farther apart, which is why Jupiter and Saturn don't perturb the orbits of Mars, Venus, Earth, or Mercury (to any significant degree - by significant, I mean, catastrophically).
But then again, the fact that a gas giant exists so close to a star, kind of turns a lot of astrophysics on it's ear. That was not what has been thought of as a "normal" solar system, yet pretty much all of the extrasolar planetary systems we've observed so far have had what modern astrophysics would consider "abnormal". On the other hand, it's a lot harder to observe these smaller rocky planets (like Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury) at these distances, because they don't perturb the Sun gravitationally as much, so we really don't know what's "normal" and what is not. What we do know, is that there are certainly planets out there, and my feeling is that in these systems, where a gas giant is close-in to the star like that, it's not likely that there are any close-in small rocky planets capable of bearing intelligent life.
(for the record, I do believe that there is likely life on Europa, and probably Mars too, and therefore it's possible that life may exist in one of these extrasolar systems, on small moons or stray planets, etc. - just not intelligent life. Whether there are planetary systems configured like ours, bearing intelligent life out there, remains to be seen - but I believe it's likely).
So yeah, there would be killer eclipses (especially since the star's photosphere might be stretched out into space by the gravitation from the inner planet), but no comfortable place to view them from.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
would you rather have the exploding projectile fly PAST the enemy bunker, and into the village they're defending?
This device is designed to change the grenade accuracy from something like 1 in 10 being an effective hit, to 1 in 2. As a civillian, I'd rather not be a potential target of the other 9 grenades that missed. It also changes the yeild of the grenade from 40mm to 20mm - because a closer hit means less explosives are needed to damage the target, which means much less collateral damage.
Yes, the laws of war are irrational, because when it comes down to it, they can only be enforced on the loser. There is only ONE law that does not need to be enforced - and that's the law of the jungle; the fittest survive. So eventually, any loser will forget the other laws, and do what it takes to survive, and win, and defend themselves. God help them if they lose anyway. But since not all wars are wars of extermination, it's not always a matter of survival. And sometimes, war is a necessary evil - so it's nice to have laws governing their prosecution, because it makes a terrible thing, a bit less terrible. We will still have wars, with or without laws. The argument against the laws seems to be that - nobody's going to follow them anyway, and especially, if we make war too pleasant, then we'll have more of them. Well, war's going to happen anyway, people will eventually resort to force when other means to achieve their goals do not work. People break laws in civillian life too, but I think we're all better off that murder and theft are illegal in civillian life. Those things happen a lot less often than they would otherwise.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
I don't know, isn't this just another form of PsyOps, where we carpet bomb the enemy with leaflets telling them to go home, the war is over?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
9 times out of 10, mangling the Win9X registry means, reinstall the whole fscking OS. We call it "registry bit-rot", the net effect is, when you first install a system, it runs great, but after a few months, it bogs down for no apparent reason. Look through your registry for all the garbage that was put in there whenever you installed or uninstalled that seemingly innocuous web browser plugin.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Um. Great idea. Do it.
(actually, I think that a running "help" converstation on slashdot would be better, since a lot of knowlegable people are already hanging out on slashdot, plus, good answers=good moderation = more karma.)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Millenium schmillenium.
People want to party - the sooner the better. No history geek is going to tell the masses with their horded cases of Budweiser that they're going to have to put off the party of the millenium for another year. They won't wait for a technicality.
This year WILL be the party of the millenium, and people who are selling beer, champagne, party dresses, and renting ballrooms, are going to make a shitload of money off of it. Then next year, we'll start to see mainstream media hyping the REAL party for the following year. That party will be just as "big" if not bigger. But shhhhh! don't tell anybody. It's a secret, and you're just a party pooper.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
It's called "mail". Not chainmail. Put your D&D books away and get thee to a library.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Weren't you talking about a cluster of 64 cloistered monks with abacii?
(singular: abacus, plural: abacii?)
(singular: virus, plural: viruses)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Early on in the trial, the press had discussed a potential remedy that didn't get talked about much, and is not really mentioned at all anymore, but seems to be consistent with some of the statements Jackson made in his FoF (particularly in his "see-no-evil" attitude towards competing platforms like Macintosh, Linux, Be, Solaris, etc.)
This remedy was called "Essential Facility", where the Microsoft platform (not just the OS, but the API, document formats, applications, development environments) would be declared to be an essential facility, like the power grid, or or Bell's phone network, etc. This essential facility would then fall under government regulation just as if Microsoft were a utility, and price controls would be enforced, as well as careful scrutiny of sales models, service levels, and improvements (or as Bill likes to call them, "innovations").
With the likelyhood that none of the other proposed remedies (splits, either vertical or horizontal, forced open sourcing/API documentation, fines and consent decrees) will really solve the problem (naughty behavior and tactics), do you think that it's likely that THIS remedy would be considered or put into effect, and if so, what would that mean for the competing platforms (which Jackson denies exist)?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Damn, when does a 42-karma slashdotter get to moderate again? I'd unload all my points on the post which is the parent to this one. It's pretty much the most insightful post I've read in a long time.
Anyway, we've already seen some moves to Stage 3, Apple tried it with ATI, but got screwed, I think, because of ATI's crappy drivers (heh, I'll take any chance I can get to bash ATI), plus, it seems like ATI would still rather build cards than sell chips to stick onto Apple mobo's, probably because Apple was such a niche market for them anyways.
Then Intel was also trying it, with their AGP nonsense, and their 3d graphics chipset that they tried to use to corner the markets so they could foist it onto mobo manufacturers as the "de facto" standard. This failed. I'm not sure why. Maybe it just wasn't "good enough" enough.
What will suck about this integration of "good enough" hardware, is the proprietary API that will be tied to it, probably DirectX, which will prevent game manufacturers from taking the sensible approach and using a cross platform 3d API like OpenGL, or MESA, which will probably mean that most games will continue to be written for Windows first, and Linux and Mac will continue to be the afterthought.
While Office98 and iMac have built Apple up an impressive marketshare recovery in the past few years, and all the press and business support have bolstered Linux, these platforms will not gain broad acceptance outside of their niche markets until the game-software availability problem is resolved. And for that to happen, there needs to exist a compelling cross-platform 3d API, that the game industry actually uses.
For this, I'd say that Carmack is the industry leader, and a great example to follow. Not only does Id design GREAT games, but they do it in a manner which facilitates cross-platform adoption, which gives them access to markets that are otherwise not available. I hope that this is enough of a competitive advantage that it persuades other game developers to follow suit. (at least indications for Bungie are that they will be releasing Halo cross-platform, so that's an encouraging trend.)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Yeah, "liberal" in American means - wanting a larger government, more government regulations, especially anti-business, pro-labor, higher taxes, especially for the rich, more handouts for the poor.
"liberal" in European means - pro-business, liberalization of laws restricting business, enslavement of the masses etc.
"conservative" in America means - return to "traditional family (Christian) values". Anti-abortion, low taxes, especially for the rich who can then spend their money to boost the economy (why give tax breaks to the poor? they'll only blow their money on booze, the scoundrels - besides, if they're poor, that means that God doesn't love them, so why should we?) - - but conservatives are generally thought to be business freindly, but not in a general sense, usually more in a local sense (as in the businesses that contribute most to their campaigns, or who are run by their golfing buddies).
What does "conservative" mean in Europe?
I think that the reason we don't use "liberal" instead of "socialist" in America, is because we vilainized the USSR so much during the 50's - 80's, there is too much stigma attached to the term. Now there's too much stigma attached to "liberal". There's even stigma attached to "moderate" now. OY! the state of US politics!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
"Somehow Microsoft needs to be forced from conducting itself in a predatory way...from using its /behavior/ that
monopolies to force OEMS to do things, from unfairly entering other markets, etc. It's the
needs to be remedied. I'm not sure how to do about this though."
Dust off, and nuke 'em from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
momentous moment?
please.
Also, we aren't on the cusp of an internet revolution. We are in the eye of the hurricane (sorry, switched one bad cliche for a worse one). IDG says that there are over 100 Million US users. I'd say it's in full swing. The implications are still over the horizon, but I think we can see the color coming into the sky. (damn metaphors!)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
There was an analysis of Office Suites (actually just word processors) done a few months ago on some Mac advocacy web page. Wish I could find that link now, but when all the word processors available were compared, Office came out as more than double the nearest competitor in price, which was Apple Works, which is a complete office suite, actually better integrated than Office, for $99. (unfortunately, it wasn't integrated with a web browser, email client, and database access like Office is). It went down the list, Star Office is free, of course, (this was like, the week after Sun bought them), and WP Mac is free. (but discontinued).
I'm suprised Jackson didn't run down this list in his FoF, because it's supportive to his OS pricing argument, and also to the stories about "Using Office as a club" with Apple.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
That would be the equivalent of Little Ceasar's being forced to publically release the secret ingedients of their pizza.
Sure it will be good for some chuckles, and lots of embarrassment for MS, but beyond that, will it really help the industry?
What if all other pizza joints could duplicate Little Ceasar's pizza exactly because they had the recipie?
More likely, we'll have a stunning example for textbooks for future college books on how NOT to write an OS.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".