The reasons you state are the very reasons for putting forward GPLv3. Currently Tivo et al are using GPL software, without letting people modify the devices. This was the intention of Stallman from the beginning. Remember his Xerox Printer incident, it was a device which could not be programmed. I would prefer that Tivo et al write their own software and not depend on free software at all, so that there is an incentive for NoName et al to use free software for their services, because it will be cheaper. If there is no incentive ofcourse their would be no freedom. The service providers will never provide you flexibility if it is not too expensive, compared to the competition. And the competition will come if there is really some benefit to providing a flexible service. Remember an Inflexible service is good for the manufacturer, because it locks its consumers. If the flexible service cannot be cheaper than the inflexible service there will be no flexible service. I hope people understand it more.
I think the reason why Linus is against the DRM provisions of GPLv3 is that, it is more important for him to have OSS everywhere. While FSF believes that FSS should be as flexible as possible. There is a lot of difference between the two. But I think the FSF's agenda is more important than Linus's agenda.
Redhat is not using a loophole. What they are insisting on is that if you use their code, you can sell them, but don't call it Redhat linux. They have a reputation to keep if you could call modifications to their distribution, as Redhat, then you could discredit them by putting trojans in the code, and they will be liable. It is simply protecting themselves from liability. You should know that many distributions have been based on Redhat, most notably Mandrake.
Neither can the internal users. They are employees of the company, and when they are using the software they are part of the company, they are not independent entities. They have to respect whatever employee rules the company has asked them to follow. The employees cannot claim that they have the right to send the software outside the company. Because they will not even be allowed to use the said software outside their office. It is not they that are the user, it is the company that is the user.
This is wrong. The manufacturer should not withold the key, nor even provide it. They should just make sure in the software that the hospital does not set a easily guessable password. They can deny running the software without setting a key though. But why do we consider the manufacturer above malice. It is only the hospital whose reputation is on the line if the software is tampered with. Why should the manufacturer come into the picture in any way. Actually GPL3 forces this way of working, which is a good thing.
Actually the situation is much more simple. The manufacturer of the hardware/software will just provide a mechanism for setting up the password, but it will not set the password. The password will be set by the voting authority. So the manufacturer has no way to rig the system. Since the software is open source everybody (including the voting authority) can check that there are no holes, but need not have the password, as its not part of the hardware/software at all. I believe the authorities should provide some machines online to let people try to hack them based on the available sources. And there should be a hacking challenge. If nobody is able to hack it for some time like 3 months then the hardware/software can be approved for usage in voting machines. The GPLv3 has no problems with this situation.
Re:MOND doesn't work on Cluster scales
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 1
I was mistaken. This research does indeed show the existance of dark matter but not really CDM. The dark matter could very well be nutrinos. They are supposedly able to form stable structures smaller than clusters but larger than galaxies. So clusters may contain nutrino structures. And this cluster may also contain them. So here we could be seeing the effects of nutrinos, but not exotic CDM particles.
It definitely could be dark matter, but not necessarily cold dark matter. It could very well be nutrinos. They are able (in our current theories) to form stable structures of size smaller than clusters but bigger than galaxies.
The premise for this study is faulty, so it cannot be conclusive at all.
Just because MOND does not work on clusters doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with our understanding of gravity. The utility of MOND is not that it is a good theory (actually it cannot be called a theory, there have been attempts to create a theory out of it, but I believe they have not yet succeeded). But its utility is that it works on a huge range of galaxies. This shows that for dark matter assumptions (dark matter is also not a theory, it is just an assumption) to be correct the dark matter must somehow be related to the normal matter. This is where the dark matter theories (the theories which define how the dark matter must be distributed within a galaxy) get into trouble. Because they cannot explain why the dark matter should be arranged only in that precise distribution. Why shouldn't they be more random, like the normal matter, and why should they assume the distribution to fulfill the MOND equation, which actually uses only normal matter.
That MOND doesn't work on clusters has been known for a long time. But then it doesn't need to work there to show the holes in our understanding. If it simply shows that our theories don't work at the Galactic level, then it is obviously true that it doesn't work on cluster levels too. Doesn't matter if MOND doesn't work there.
I don't know how long it will take for somebody to find the problem in the current theories, but the clue should come from studying the pioneer anamoly. I don't know why there are not more efforts to study the anamoly by simulating the same conditions again.
I don't know about you, who like to misspell his name but, in Hindi (or Gujrati his native tongue) the word Ghand is a bad word and means ass-hole. It is really a very bad thing for us. I hope people will understand why we Indian's react so badly to this particular misspelling. For you adding a 'h' here or there may not mean much but for us it changes the whole meaning. For us 'dh' is not the same as 'd' and neither is 'gh' the same as 'g'. So please for the sake of his memory don't change his name to something that is not really his name and is really a bad word.
How would you feel if we were to misspell Pope as Poop. I don't think anybody will like that. So please don't do that.
Copywrite is not bad per-se. But currently it is insane. Look at the time limit. Look at the lack of fair use. Look at the automatic copywriting.
Repeat after me. Works are not created in a void. They are created after assimilating thoughts occuring in the public domain.
If you create a chair, you have paid for the wood, the tools and everything else except the design. So I agree that you have property rights to it. But when you create mickey mouse then I don't agree that you have property rights to it unless you have paid for the steam boat willy's ancestor or any and all public domain ideas that you used for creating that movie. I could recognise that you have some privilege for having created something, and can allow you a limited time monopoly over its distribution. But that is the extent of it. Nothing more nothing less. And in case of patents, independent discoveries should be allowed. If somebody recreated something without the original creators help why should original creator given any benefit at all.
The whole point of the copywrite and patents is to enrich the public domain, to provide an incentive to the authors to generate works and to the inventors to open up their invention so that others can view. They are not because anybody can keep then hostage forever and disallow others from coming up with the same ideas. They are not their to impoverish the public domain and to allow everybody to create new fiefdoms.
Unless the public domain is rich, thoughts will not have a rich source. The fact of life is that you need the public domain to thrive. The current IPR regime is stiffling the public domain. That is why we need copyleft, creative commons, etc licenses to bring some sanity back to this insane IPR world.
Yes you wouldn't even want anybody to know that your code is running on every computer in the world. Just like the BSD TCP/IP stack writers. But it is only good for this particular case, writing interoperable interfaces.
And who decides what is more free. Yes you make it more free and then go and use it in your own product after closing it down. If the license does not protect the software from becoming unfree then it is not a good license. Unless we are talking about protocols, there is no way that I will want to use BSD license.
"The GPLv3 is trying to dictate to manufacturers that if you decide to use GPLed software, now you have to open up your hardware." No one is dictating that. If you want to obscure the interfaces do it in firmware. Or don't use GPL code. Simple.
"But for some reason, people and the GPLv3 now think the hardware should be opened also. Now instead of kust returning the changes, I will have to give up control of my hardware too." What kind of control of your hardware are you talking about when you cannot modify the source and use it on the same hardware. What is the point if you can run the modified source on the same hardware. It is not that the company will provide you with another hardware where you can use it. Also there is no way to determine that the source matches with the binary running on the hardware.
"It will be illegal from a licence standpoint to make a chip for sound that has code lockouts that enable parts of the chip so one main board manufacturer could use one chip design in say all thier on board sound cards but only enable 7.1 suround sound on tuse he higher end boards to save on licensing fees." I would prefer that they don't use this method. If they want to make a price difference, provide different chips. All the CPU makers do differentiate their products in the hardware. Why shouldn't the Sound card manufacturers do the same. Why should they be able to get away cheap, and by using GPL software to boot.
The only trouble I can think of is for future smart cards. The only way to make the code secure in those cards is to make them open source. But when you do GPL then you can not make sure that only your software is running on the smart-card. But then it is a chicken egg problem how does the public make sure that the manufacturer has not made a goof up and has provided the correct source.
In any case DRM is against GPL software anyway. The loophole must be closed.
The problem is that this trade-off exists only in your mind. But it does not exist. Give me a genuine trade-off. Normally the governments in these countries are quite corrupt, so although a laptop that has not much of a percieved resale value can be given off, but money will probably be taken by the corrupt people.
Give a man a fish, you feed him one day. Teach a man to fish, and you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
Are you afraid of giving up your monopoly, or you just don't believe in it;-).
So you write the Software, does this make you the owner. No. The FTC certifies it does it become the owner. No. The Manufacturer creates the ATM, does this make the Manufacturer the owner even after the sale. No. So the conclusion is that the Bank is the sole Owner. And it gets to decide which keys are put on the ATM. In the DRM case the Manufacturer has the keys and can steal from the ATM when it wants. This doesn't seem logical. The only logical thing is for the BANK to have the keys, and this is allowed by the GPLv3.
"Lets take a somewhat different example, looked at from the "other end of the telescope". A month ago I put out some python code under the gpl for doing some MySQL stuff. It only works with MySQL. Nobody has the right to tell me that I'm depriving them of their freedom to run my gpl'd code because it won't work with, say, Access."
You are right you don't have the responsibility to make it work with Access. That is why we have GPL. It allows me to make the changes to your code to work it with Access. But the problem is that GPLv2 allows you to restrict me from making the changes if you make sure that the machine that runs your code does not run a modified version of your program. You could as well have produced a proprietory software.
I don't know if the wording is the best now, but this modification is allowed. Tivo should not be allowed to use GPL software to make a proprietory system. If I buy TIVO and find that I can improve some aspects of it, I should be able to, because they used my (or other GPL software writers) software to produce their system. They should not be able to make it proprietory, just by adding DRM to the mix. It is too easy to circumvent GPL this way.
I normally agree with whatever Linus thinks, but he is only an engineer. I love his ideas on software. But regarding to software Rights and Freedoms, RMS is way ahead of the world.
Yes, you would like them to be beggers forever. You wouldn't want them to become strong enough to compete. You dread the day when they become educated and come back to compete with you. Its not like the small number of software engineers are causing you enough problems.
I hate this attitude of feeding the people. Why do people think that giving handouts is the best way to solve poverty. Actually the only way to solve poverty is to educate the people. And the only way to educate the people is to want them to learn. It is not a simple task to make people want to learn. I think that the OLPC project can go a long way in making the children want to learn (whether their parents will allow them is a different matter). I hope some of the innovations that they have made result in cheaper durable and more friendly (to the children) computers so that eventually all children in the Developing countries can have access to them.
I am rather disappointed at the HRD ministers point of view. As it is in India, Education gets a very low priority over the handouts in the form of Subsidies. I know some places/circumstances when subsidies are required, but if they were putting more money into education we would have been better of. The whole problem is that Subsidies get converted into VOTES.
Actually its not a devolution at all. Its just that we have more information. It is now far more difficult to hide behind a mask. It is very difficult to pressure the down and trodden from speaking out. That's all actual I would think we are improving slowly. Except for the USA. The people there are so much happy when their government tries to hide behind a mask.
This thing is totally hopeless. In what kind of a place does this happen. I wouldn't call these people civilized. Firstly, obviously the Teacher is Evil. Otherwise the student would not be having imaginations of the teacher being killed. If the teacher was not evil and if this was a mistake the teacher would have tried to solve the problem by talking to the child and their parents. But he goes out and get the child suspended. Thereby proving that he was Evil. The School is either stupid or evil or both, when they cannot understand that the Teacher is f***king with the minds of the young students. Now the judge also sides with the Teacher. These guys have got an explosive situation in their hands. They don't understand that the children cannot think very far. An anger in them can cause them to do anything. The Columbine incident was not because the children were evil but the school was evil in not allaying their fears. This will result in more Columbines.
There are indeed some Matriarchal societies. And they are very different than our normal societies. And they are present only in small tribal communities, unspoilt by the "Advancement".
The fact that it doesn't work is a very big problem. Everytime that it doesn't work *AA want stronger laws for people breaking the unworkable DRM.
If you don't think there are any Civil Liberty issues today, then you are not alarmed at the fact that DMCA could have been made into a law. It is a very bad law that discourages reverse-engineering, encourages consumer lock-in, and reduces the rights of the Consumer. If you think that consumers losing their rights is not a civil liberty issue, then I guess you will wait like the Germans waited, and watched the rise of Nazism.
Actually America has been ripe for the rise of a Fascist nation for quite some time. I am not surprised that Bush has siezed the opportunity.
All said and done, I am lucky to not be living in the USA.
No, a better analogy would be that you get a call from a girl to join her in the dance club. And when you reach there you find you have to pay $30 to enter and then you find that the call was a fake, made by the club, to lure people in.
No that would be 'gand'. I did see someone use Gandi before. The problem is that everybody is trying to transliterate the word Gandhi without understanding that there are far more consonents in Hindi than most of the European Languages. They don't understand that gh is not the same as g, and dh is not the same as d in Hindi. So any other way of writing Gandhi would not be correct. They just don't understand how that h changes everything for us.
Well there is also 'Gandiv' the bow of Arjun, so you couldn't say that Gandi is a bad word;-).
Putting a password on the file is not DRM. It is simply encrypting it. DRM is putting a password on the file and then giving the password to the attacker in an obscure way and hoping that he/she will not be able to find it. And then getting a big law behind you to lockup the attacker if he finds the password. The attacker here is not the malicious kind. He is just a normal guy/gal. The malicious guy doesn't need to find the password, he just makes a copy encryption password and all and sells the file. The normal guy is trying to make some use the the creator did not foresee, or didn't have the resources, or was just malicious in not wanting to give that freedom.
DRM is not a benign concept, it is a vehicle to take away your 'right to read' (look it up on Google), and concentrate the control of the 'right to read' into the hands of the few. It will eventually also take away your 'right to create', because you cannot create anything in a vaccuum, you need to have the right to read in order to create. So eventually the only producers will be the big media giants. The people controlling the right to read will be the hardware and software giants like Microsoft and AMD/Intel. We will in time learn the Newspeak (look it up too).
With the DRM both these concepts ('right to read' and newspeak) are going to be very important and everybody should learn them. They could be incredibly useful, and will help you to chose your future.
Slashdot Mirror
The reasons you state are the very reasons for putting forward GPLv3. Currently Tivo et al are using GPL software, without letting people modify the devices. This was the intention of Stallman from the beginning. Remember his Xerox Printer incident, it was a device which could not be programmed. I would prefer that Tivo et al write their own software and not depend on free software at all, so that there is an incentive for NoName et al to use free software for their services, because it will be cheaper. If there is no incentive ofcourse their would be no freedom. The service providers will never provide you flexibility if it is not too expensive, compared to the competition. And the competition will come if there is really some benefit to providing a flexible service. Remember an Inflexible service is good for the manufacturer, because it locks its consumers. If the flexible service cannot be cheaper than the inflexible service there will be no flexible service. I hope people understand it more.
I think the reason why Linus is against the DRM provisions of GPLv3 is that, it is more important for him to have OSS everywhere. While FSF believes that FSS should be as flexible as possible. There is a lot of difference between the two. But I think the FSF's agenda is more important than Linus's agenda.
Redhat is not using a loophole. What they are insisting on is that if you use their code, you can sell them, but don't call it Redhat linux. They have a reputation to keep if you could call modifications to their distribution, as Redhat, then you could discredit them by putting trojans in the code, and they will be liable. It is simply protecting themselves from liability. You should know that many distributions have been based on Redhat, most notably Mandrake.
Neither can the internal users. They are employees of the company, and when they are using the software they are part of the company, they are not independent entities. They have to respect whatever employee rules the company has asked them to follow. The employees cannot claim that they have the right to send the software outside the company. Because they will not even be allowed to use the said software outside their office. It is not they that are the user, it is the company that is the user.
This is wrong. The manufacturer should not withold the key, nor even provide it. They should just make sure in the software that the hospital does not set a easily guessable password. They can deny running the software without setting a key though. But why do we consider the manufacturer above malice. It is only the hospital whose reputation is on the line if the software is tampered with. Why should the manufacturer come into the picture in any way.
Actually GPL3 forces this way of working, which is a good thing.
Actually the situation is much more simple. The manufacturer of the hardware/software will just provide a mechanism for setting up the password, but it will not set the password. The password will be set by the voting authority. So the manufacturer has no way to rig the system. Since the software is open source everybody (including the voting authority) can check that there are no holes, but need not have the password, as its not part of the hardware/software at all. I believe the authorities should provide some machines online to let people try to hack them based on the available sources. And there should be a hacking challenge. If nobody is able to hack it for some time like 3 months then the hardware/software can be approved for usage in voting machines. The GPLv3 has no problems with this situation.
I was mistaken. This research does indeed show the existance of dark matter but not really CDM. The dark matter could very well be nutrinos. They are supposedly able to form stable structures smaller than clusters but larger than galaxies. So clusters may contain nutrino structures. And this cluster may also contain them. So here we could be seeing the effects of nutrinos, but not exotic CDM particles.
It definitely could be dark matter, but not necessarily cold dark matter. It could very well be nutrinos. They are able (in our current theories) to form stable structures of size smaller than clusters but bigger than galaxies.
The premise for this study is faulty, so it cannot be conclusive at all.
Just because MOND does not work on clusters doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with our understanding of gravity. The utility of MOND is not that it is a good theory (actually it cannot be called a theory, there have been attempts to create a theory out of it, but I believe they have not yet succeeded). But its utility is that it works on a huge range of galaxies. This shows that for dark matter assumptions (dark matter is also not a theory, it is just an assumption) to be correct the dark matter must somehow be related to the normal matter. This is where the dark matter theories (the theories which define how the dark matter must be distributed within a galaxy) get into trouble. Because they cannot explain why the dark matter should be arranged only in that precise distribution. Why shouldn't they be more random, like the normal matter, and why should they assume the distribution to fulfill the MOND equation, which actually uses only normal matter.
That MOND doesn't work on clusters has been known for a long time. But then it doesn't need to work there to show the holes in our understanding. If it simply shows that our theories don't work at the Galactic level, then it is obviously true that it doesn't work on cluster levels too. Doesn't matter if MOND doesn't work there.
I don't know how long it will take for somebody to find the problem in the current theories, but the clue should come from studying the pioneer anamoly. I don't know why there are not more efforts to study the anamoly by simulating the same conditions again.
I don't know about you, who like to misspell his name but, in Hindi (or Gujrati his native tongue) the word Ghand is a bad word and means ass-hole. It is really a very bad thing for us. I hope people will understand why we Indian's react so badly to this particular misspelling.
For you adding a 'h' here or there may not mean much but for us it changes the whole meaning. For us 'dh' is not the same as 'd' and neither is 'gh' the same as 'g'. So please for the sake of his memory don't change his name to something that is not really his name and is really a bad word.
How would you feel if we were to misspell Pope as Poop. I don't think anybody will like that. So please don't do that.
Copywrite is not bad per-se. But currently it is insane. Look at the time limit. Look at the lack of fair use. Look at the automatic copywriting.
Repeat after me. Works are not created in a void. They are created after assimilating thoughts occuring in the public domain.
If you create a chair, you have paid for the wood, the tools and everything else except the design. So I agree that you have property rights to it.
But when you create mickey mouse then I don't agree that you have property rights to it unless you have paid for the steam boat willy's ancestor or any and all public domain ideas that you used for creating that movie. I could recognise that you have some privilege for having created something, and can allow you a limited time monopoly over its distribution. But that is the extent of it. Nothing more nothing less. And in case of patents, independent discoveries should be allowed. If somebody recreated something without the original creators help why should original creator given any benefit at all.
The whole point of the copywrite and patents is to enrich the public domain, to provide an incentive to the authors to generate works and to the inventors to open up their invention so that others can view. They are not because anybody can keep then hostage forever and disallow others from coming up with the same ideas. They are not their to impoverish the public domain and to allow everybody to create new fiefdoms.
Unless the public domain is rich, thoughts will not have a rich source. The fact of life is that you need the public domain to thrive. The current IPR regime is stiffling the public domain. That is why we need copyleft, creative commons, etc licenses to bring some sanity back to this insane IPR world.
Repeat after me. IPR is evil.
Yes you wouldn't even want anybody to know that your code is running on every computer in the world. Just like the BSD TCP/IP stack writers. But it is only good for this particular case, writing interoperable interfaces.
And who decides what is more free.
Yes you make it more free and then go and use it in your own product after closing it down.
If the license does not protect the software from becoming unfree then it is not a good license.
Unless we are talking about protocols, there is no way that I will want to use BSD license.
"The GPLv3 is trying to dictate to manufacturers that if you decide to use GPLed software, now you have to open up your hardware."
No one is dictating that. If you want to obscure the interfaces do it in firmware. Or don't use GPL code. Simple.
"But for some reason, people and the GPLv3 now think the hardware should be opened also. Now instead of kust returning the changes, I will have to give up control of my hardware too."
What kind of control of your hardware are you talking about when you cannot modify the source and use it on the same hardware. What is the point if you can run the modified source on the same hardware. It is not that the company will provide you with another hardware where you can use it. Also there is no way to determine that the source matches with the binary running on the hardware.
"It will be illegal from a licence standpoint to make a chip for sound that has code lockouts that enable parts of the chip so one main board manufacturer could use one chip design in say all thier on board sound cards but only enable 7.1 suround sound on tuse he higher end boards to save on licensing fees."
I would prefer that they don't use this method. If they want to make a price difference, provide different chips. All the CPU makers do differentiate their products in the hardware. Why shouldn't the Sound card manufacturers do the same. Why should they be able to get away cheap, and by using GPL software to boot.
The only trouble I can think of is for future smart cards. The only way to make the code secure in those cards is to make them open source. But when you do GPL then you can not make sure that only your software is running on the smart-card. But then it is a chicken egg problem how does the public make sure that the manufacturer has not made a goof up and has provided the correct source.
In any case DRM is against GPL software anyway. The loophole must be closed.
The problem is that this trade-off exists only in your mind. But it does not exist. Give me a genuine trade-off. Normally the governments in these countries are quite corrupt, so although a laptop that has not much of a percieved resale value can be given off, but money will probably be taken by the corrupt people.
;-).
Give a man a fish, you feed him one day.
Teach a man to fish, and you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
Are you afraid of giving up your monopoly, or you just don't believe in it
So you write the Software, does this make you the owner. No.
The FTC certifies it does it become the owner. No.
The Manufacturer creates the ATM, does this make the Manufacturer the owner even after the sale. No.
So the conclusion is that the Bank is the sole Owner. And it gets to decide which keys are put on the ATM.
In the DRM case the Manufacturer has the keys and can steal from the ATM when it wants. This doesn't seem logical.
The only logical thing is for the BANK to have the keys, and this is allowed by the GPLv3.
"Lets take a somewhat different example, looked at from the "other end of the telescope". A month ago I put out some python code under the gpl for doing some MySQL stuff. It only works with MySQL. Nobody has the right to tell me that I'm depriving them of their freedom to run my gpl'd code because it won't work with, say, Access."
You are right you don't have the responsibility to make it work with Access. That is why we have GPL. It allows me to make the changes to your code to work it with Access. But the problem is that GPLv2 allows you to restrict me from making the changes if you make sure that the machine that runs your code does not run a modified version of your program. You could as well have produced a proprietory software.
I don't know if the wording is the best now, but this modification is allowed. Tivo should not be allowed to use GPL software to make a proprietory system. If I buy TIVO and find that I can improve some aspects of it, I should be able to, because they used my (or other GPL software writers) software to produce their system. They should not be able to make it proprietory, just by adding DRM to the mix. It is too easy to circumvent GPL this way.
I normally agree with whatever Linus thinks, but he is only an engineer. I love his ideas on software. But regarding to software Rights and Freedoms, RMS is way ahead of the world.
Yes, you would like them to be beggers forever. You wouldn't want them to become strong enough to compete. You dread the day when they become educated and come back to compete with you. Its not like the small number of software engineers are causing you enough problems.
I hate this attitude of feeding the people. Why do people think that giving handouts is the best way to solve poverty. Actually the only way to solve poverty is to educate the people. And the only way to educate the people is to want them to learn. It is not a simple task to make people want to learn. I think that the OLPC project can go a long way in making the children want to learn (whether their parents will allow them is a different matter). I hope some of the innovations that they have made result in cheaper durable and more friendly (to the children) computers so that eventually all children in the Developing countries can have access to them.
I am rather disappointed at the HRD ministers point of view. As it is in India, Education gets a very low priority over the handouts in the form of Subsidies. I know some places/circumstances when subsidies are required, but if they were putting more money into education we would have been better of. The whole problem is that Subsidies get converted into VOTES.
Well you forgot the last step.
- profit
Actually its not a devolution at all. Its just that we have more information.
It is now far more difficult to hide behind a mask.
It is very difficult to pressure the down and trodden from speaking out.
That's all actual I would think we are improving slowly.
Except for the USA. The people there are so much happy when their government
tries to hide behind a mask.
This thing is totally hopeless. In what kind of a place does this happen. I wouldn't call these people civilized.
Firstly, obviously the Teacher is Evil. Otherwise the student would not be having imaginations of the teacher being killed. If the teacher was not evil and if this was a mistake the teacher would have tried to solve the problem by talking to the child and their parents. But he goes out and get the child suspended. Thereby proving that he was Evil. The School is either stupid or evil or both, when they cannot understand that the Teacher is f***king with the minds of the young students. Now the judge also sides with the Teacher. These guys have got an explosive situation in their hands. They don't understand that the children cannot think very far. An anger in them can cause them to do anything. The Columbine incident was not because the children were evil but the school was evil in not allaying their fears. This will result in more Columbines.
There are indeed some Matriarchal societies. And they are very different than our normal societies.
a ro.html
And they are present only in small tribal communities, unspoilt by the "Advancement".
http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/KhasiG
The fact that it doesn't work is a very big problem. Everytime that it doesn't work *AA want stronger laws for people breaking the unworkable DRM.
If you don't think there are any Civil Liberty issues today, then you are not alarmed at the fact that DMCA could have been made into a law. It is a very bad law that discourages reverse-engineering, encourages consumer lock-in, and reduces the rights of the Consumer. If you think that consumers losing their rights is not a civil liberty issue, then I guess you will wait like the Germans waited, and watched the rise of Nazism.
Actually America has been ripe for the rise of a Fascist nation for quite some time. I am not surprised that Bush has siezed the opportunity.
All said and done, I am lucky to not be living in the USA.
No, a better analogy would be that you get a call from a girl to join her in the dance club. And when you reach there you find you have to pay $30 to enter and then you find that the call was a fake, made by the club, to lure people in.
No that would be 'gand'. I did see someone use Gandi before. The problem is that everybody is trying to transliterate the word Gandhi without understanding that there are far more consonents in Hindi than most of the European Languages. They don't understand that gh is not the same as g, and dh is not the same as d in Hindi. So any other way of writing Gandhi would not be correct. They just don't understand how that h changes everything for us.
;-).
Well there is also 'Gandiv' the bow of Arjun, so you couldn't say that Gandi is a bad word
Putting a password on the file is not DRM. It is simply encrypting it. DRM is putting a password on the file and then giving the password to the attacker in an obscure way and hoping that he/she will not be able to find it. And then getting a big law behind you to lockup the attacker if he finds the password. The attacker here is not the malicious kind. He is just a normal guy/gal. The malicious guy doesn't need to find the password, he just makes a copy encryption password and all and sells the file. The normal guy is trying to make some use the the creator did not foresee, or didn't have the resources, or was just malicious in not wanting to give that freedom.
DRM is not a benign concept, it is a vehicle to take away your 'right to read' (look it up on Google), and concentrate the control of the 'right to read' into the hands of the few. It will eventually also take away your 'right to create', because you cannot create anything in a vaccuum, you need to have the right to read in order to create. So eventually the only producers will be the big media giants. The people controlling the right to read will be the hardware and software giants like Microsoft and AMD/Intel. We will in time learn the Newspeak (look it up too).
With the DRM both these concepts ('right to read' and newspeak) are going to be very important and everybody should learn them. They could be incredibly useful, and will help you to chose your future.