No surprise he's against patents. As of about a year ago, Lulu was getting sued by some loon who claimed to hold a patent on print on demand systems.
How does "I'm a big fan of both copyrights and patents" get interpreted as 'against' patents? All he says is that patents and copyrights are like Vitamin D - essential in the right quantities, deadly if you take too much.
...I'm a big fan of both copyrights and patents, the problem was that our legislators didn't recognize the fundamental rule, which is: too much of a good thing no longer is. And so we're seeing things like the DMCA, like the idea that you could patent ideas, not just inventions, like the idea of taking copyright from 20 years to a hundred years with very little public debate on the topic and you sort of realize that it's a little bit like vitamin D -- you know, too little vitamin D and you get a variety of health problems. Too much vitamin D will actually kill you...
Don't most government-endowed monopolies have chilling unintended consequences on the markets they're supposed to protect?
No. Especially in cases where an overly large capital investment is needed to develop a technology, a temporary monopoly on the resulting deliverable is often needed to encourage or enable the investors in said technology to build it in the first place.
Copyright gives incredible power to the top publishers (with a lock on book stores), the recording industry, and the movie distributors.
Actually, it gives such power to me too, an independent software engineer. I can (and do) use copyrights to help me ensure that my time gets reasonably and profitably compensated. If this were not so, I would not develop nearly as much software, and that would be bad for all involved.
Government's monopoly on violence prevents the average person from defending their property, and use of the monopoly outside of our borders causes anger towards our citizens.
In the US, anyone can perform a citizen's arrest as a peace officer. In almost all jurisdictions, citizens have the right to lethal self-defense. (guns, etc.) I'm not sure if you're promoting the idea that US Citizens should be able to wage ware oversees without being part of the military? Your logic gets pretty weak, here.
Government's monopoly on prescription drugs causes the costs to skyrocket (death sentence for the poor) and useful drugs to be delayed for years.
Government monopolies on prescription drugs keep unsafe, sham products from flooding the marketplace. Take a look at your email inbox if want to see lots of examples of these: names like "Vi4gra" and "p3n15 3nl4rgemint".
Temporary monopolies granted by patents allow drug companies to invest huge sums of money (to the tune of 315 million dollars per drug) to research, develop and test (for safety) the numerous and highly beneficial pharmaceuticals available today. By keeping the patent term reasonable, "generic" drugs are available after the drug companies have reaped their profits to then make them affordable to the impoverished.
Government's monopoly on patent licensing is no different. The playing field is far from level. Drug companies would initially have to charge more to sell their meds, or sell through doctors groups (where generics might be contractually offlimits for those doctors). Patents don't protect bootlegs anyway, which get more pervasive as the web gets larger.
What are you saying here? I can't make heads or tails of it...
For our society to grow, we need to accept that monopolies are always bad, and only government can create them. There are no natural monopolies. The 4 or 5 times there might have been in the past I'd argue weren't meant to last, but they're gone anyway.
For our society to grow, we need to understand when monopolies are appropriate and when they are simply stupid. Like most GPL software, it's best when it's used for infrastructure (eg: highways, basic telecommunications, etc) and at its worst when used for end-use products. (eg: spatulas, carpets, televisions, etc)
Why do you think it's not legal? By all appearances, allofmp3.com is following copyright law, and the US legal definition of copyrights specifically allows for personal importation of copyrighted material, so long as such imported material is legally distributed in the country of origin.
Therefore, if it's legal in Russia, and I'm importing the music under terms legal in Russia, it appears to be legal here. I'm not publishing anything, so it's not P2P. Is there anything I'm missing?
The rest of your post is so much ego-stroking about encoding formats - I download 192 Kbps MP3s that sound wonderful. However, AllofMP3 allows for downloads in MP3, WMA, OGG, MPEG4, and MPC formats, at up to 320 Kb!
I've been using allofmp3.com for my music. It's a foreign website, they've signed agreements with the Russian RIAA-equivalent, and as far as I know, it's entirely legal to buy music there.
It's fast, I find the songs I want, the formats are unencumbered with DRM, and I pay a good price. ($0.15 per song is typical)
However, how has evolution been "repeatedly tested"?
I'd strongly recommend reading up on it! $30 spent at the local Barnes and Nobles can enlighten you immensely on virtually any subject you choose - as a function of knowledge gained against cost in time and money, B & N is damn hard to beat.
But, let's make it simple: take a bunch of rabbits of mixed colors. Kill all the black ones. Breed them like this for a few generations, and tell me how many black ones get born 10 generations hence?
What most ID IDiots don't realize is that not only is evolution a very well demonstrated concept, virtually all of modern agriculture depends on the truth of its precepts! For, if the concept of "survival of the fittest" were not generally true, corn could not be made to breed larger kernels through selective breeding, and every breed of dog at the dog show would have always existed.
ID is truly as rediculous as it sounds. Genetic drift can be VERY accurately calculated. Comparing that to the difference between modern-day humans and modern-day chimpanzees show a genetic drift of about 1.6 %. Yes, you are 98.4% Monkey. Knowing how fast the human genome is evolving means we can calculate that modern day humans drifted from the chips about 5 million years ago. Lots of corroborating evidence is found in archaeology and paleontology digs, along with radio carbon dating, and numerous other techniques.
Knowing the outcome of any one of these various techniques doesn't prove anything. The fact that so many of these techniques match up nicely provides alot of evidence to support the idea that people evolved from chimps. The fact that there is *no* evidence to disprove it despite over 100 years of looking for it simply adds that much more.
Remember, it can't be proven to be 100% true, and we routinely refine and enhance the theory. This doesn't "disprove" anything - it merely highlights the strength of the Scientific method - a process that, over time, tends to truth.
evolution has deep scientific background, despite not being a proven fact.
Evolution is not a proven fact in the same way that gravity is not a proven fact. The word "theory" throws people because the scientific definition is different than the plain English.
In plain English, a "theory" is defined as "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.". Pretty clearly not something you should put any undue trust into.
In Science, a "theory" is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.". Note the emphasis on being repeatedly tested, and that it can be used to make predictions of natural phenomena.
In short, the Scientific definition of theory pretty closely matches the English definition for fact: "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences". Since a Scientific theory has been repeatedly tested, we can be pretty sure it's pretty factual.
Or, put another way, a scientific theory can never be proven 100% right because we can never be absolutely sure that all aspects of the theory are correct. Isaac Newton cooked up the first mathematically supported theory of gravity, a theory that works perfectly well on Earth and in simple circumstances. But, in space, with extreme velocities and accellerations, Newtonian gravity theory becomes ambiguous and inaccurate.
It was Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that refined the older Newtonian theory and filled in the missing pieces.
If you ever have to deal with ID nuts, see if you can't get them to state that Evolution is "only a theory". Then, being very, very obvious and very quiet, hold out a pen, and let it drop on the table. Then, with the flattest, most rude, deadpan voice you can muster, say "Gravity is just a theory".
Slowly pick it up, and drop the pen again. And again. Let them blab their way to silence. (it might take a while)
Then, go click the lightswitch on and off again. Explain to them that electro-magnetism is more (gasp!) theory, not proven to be 100% true.
Then, ask them why they trust science when they drive their car, and they trust science when they swallow an aspirin, and why they trust science when they fly, or watch television, or drink floridated water, and why they trust science when they drive their tractors, and why they trust science when they drink homogenized milk, and why they trust science when they don their clothes made with nylon, and why they trust science when they talk on the cordless or cellular phone, and why they trust science when they swallow a vitamin pill, and why they trust science when they mow their lawns, and why they trust science when they watch dishes with their dishwasher, and why they trust science to identify the history of events when solving a crime, and why they trust science to identify the rightful father of a baby using DNA testing.
And then ask them why they don't trust science when to identify their other ancestry.
I think it is quite wrong to teach ID in schools, not because it's a weird theory but because children in school have learned to believe everything they are taught (I know I was) and don't have the critical thinking required to question those things and decide on their own (that comes later, about at the end of highschool/beginning of college). I remember some pretty outrageous things teachers told us (they obviously didn't know any better) that I believed until much later, and it's a sad realisation when you think that if something like this is false, everything else could be, as well.
You make an excellent case for the abolition of schools! Why should we continue to spend money on a system that results in children that learn to believe everything they are taught? Why should we support a system that is widely acknowledged to be failing our children and our nation at a time when we need them to work more than ever before?
Think about it: Children are born scientists - they spend the first 5 years of their lives exploring their world around them, conducting hundreds of ad-hoc experiments every day. So what do we do? We take them away from the rich experiences of their immediate environment, and instead contain them into a classroom where they are force-fed "facts" that they then have to regurgitate, using humiliation and false reward in a brutal, pavlovian fashion, without question or interaction.
Then, in a brutal display of irony, we then try to cram "science" down their throats, as though memorizing facts constituted science. Forget the passion and awe of scientific discovery, the wonder of imagining and the thrill of experimentation! Instead of enriching our children's lives with the discovery process, of learning how Science works as an interactive process of imagination and discovery, they're forced to memorize the periodic table of elements and the words "xylem" and "phloem" to pass a test, soon forgotten.
It should be proof to all how deeply embedded into the very fabric of humanity curiosity and science is, since it continues to exist, even with the extensive use of the above methods to discourage it!
The state of Kansas has, on this day, taken one giant leap backwards for mankind.
What many people don't realize is that a binary driver interface has already been developed, only without the central control or oversight needed to make sure it works well.
It's not only possible, it's not only inevitable, It's already happening!
I'd recommend putting together some kind of standardized binary driver interface, only put it in userland where it won't crash the O/S, and treat O/S crashes from buggy drivers as a bug, not the buggy driver.
I'd be happy to pay the performance price of usermode drivers if it meant I could *finally* use my small office inkjet printer/scanner on Linux.
I have a number of production servers to this day still running RedHat Linux 7.2. They are patched and up to date, even though RedHat axed support for RedHat long ago. I spend very little time doing so, because Progeny came to the rescue allowing me to milk another couple years out of otherwise perfectly happy, capable, production servers.
Also, there's the Fedora Legacy project which has picked up RedHat 7.3 as well, providing yet another option for administrators of "axed support" distros.
Let me ask you this - what companies or groups have stepped up to the plate to support Win9x after Microsoft's abandoning of the platform?
I bought one of these some years ago. The Audiovox 9155 GPX. No fancy pictures, color screens or downloadable ringtones.
It's a tri-mode phone, the best I've ever had. I get reception EVERYWHERE, and I love it! Battery life is acceptable, a few days between charges, or 4-5 hours of talk time on a full charge. With a $40 cable, I can plug it into my laptop and get Internet access anywhere, though it burns up my minutes.
About a year ago, it was dropped into a puddle, and stopped working. I bought another phone, an Audiovox picture phone. I hated it. I kept getting voice mail messages. (missed calls) I tried another, and got the same thing.
But, the puddled phone dried up, and started working again! It remains on my hip to this day, and to this day, Verizon has $200 credit on account for another phone...
it's amazing how stuff always manages to get "leaked". It's too bad some extra money didn't get "leaked" in to my bank account. I suppose it's a good way to get stuff tested without being responsible for it's results.
Actually, leaks can serve a very useful purpose for a software. Think about it:
1) Generate buzz about upcoming developments.
2) Get feedback on features that haven't yet been officially announced, especially those with some controversy.
3) Not worry about support agreements, effectively bypassing any laws or requirements about "merchantibility".
4) You can cripple the release (eh, leak) any way you like and nobody will complain, so you can give it away freely without much worry.
5) Get all the above without any expectation of support or official backing,
Marketing, tech support, and needed feedback, all for free? Of course "leaks" happen - why wouldn't they? You're reading this, aren't you? Isn't that proof that it works?
Hey, if it means anything, I've been doing Linux-only for about 5 years, and it pays off pretty nicely.
It's hard to think of something nicer than an ongoing service contract that requires a few hours per month reviewing log files, while the customer is blissfully happy because they just don't have to worry about things anymore...
I take you you have little/no experience working with small businesses?
My "not credible" numbers are very typical for scenarios I work in. In this world of small enterprises, it's very normal to run an entire business with just a single server. Bitch all you want to about whatever security issues, I sure have.
Small business owners tend to have a case of megalomania. If they can pet the box, they "own" it. Thus, they'll spend $2,000 on a server rather than $25/mo on a managed solution because they can pet the box, even as they explain about the increased downtime because they don't have a dedicated admin, like their ISP.
Just because it's not true in your world, doesn't mean it isn't true!
No, the mail server is a dedicated box, and thee are limits to how many processes it will spawn. What it will do is queue a bunch of messages and work through the backlog. I can build a $3k box (plus the cost of a storage array if needed) that will handle a 20Mbit stream of mail all day long. This isn't rocket science.
Perhaps this should start out as "no my mail server is a dedicated box..."?
See, there are other people in the world than yourself. And, while it's not hard to put together a Linux/sendmail server that can handle a 20 Mb stream, building one that also runs, oh, say, a web server, WebDAV, SQL, and a few other services useful to a small business may lead you to places where it's not true anymore. And, since SCSI drives are expensive, you'll typically see a smaller (maybe 20 GB) drive on it on your small business, entry level server that's a year or two old. With an average email sizing about 50k, 50k * 1 million adds up to 50,000,000,000 - whoops! Your hard drive just got seriously whumped!
Plus, your "20 Mb stream" server doesn't take into account anything at all resource-intensive, such as SpamAssassin, anti-virus, greylisting, or most of the other, processor-intensive functions now in common use. In reality, your baseline "20 Mb stream" server only proves that a modern SCSI drive can read/write data at a rate greater than 20 Mbps.
Congratulations! I'm thoroughly unimpressed. Come back when you have something relevant to say.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
Maybe offtopic, maybe not. But, your sig got to me. What a steaming load of bullsh17!
So, your world isn't better because of the technology of electricity powering your computer? Or the vaccines that you've taken since birth to prevent terrible, painful, and deadly diseases? What about the air conditioners that keep your house at a desireable temperature, year round? Or the lights by which you type this evening?
Come on, man! Technology is an integral part of humanity! Many think of humanity as what you are when you are naked in the shower, without any clothing or technology Except, that the use of tools (technology) in our genetic line comes before modern man, as does the clothing! Technology is not only one of the factors that makes us human, it has allowed our very species to evolve to make us who and what we are.
The chair you sit on as you read this is as human as the finger you use to type your response to this post. And, if being here, posting on/. is not making the (your) world a better place, why the !@#!@ are you wasting your time reading this post?
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it does him good
Sounds good, but just rediculous when you think about it. Examples of "worse tyranny":
1) Force a man to pay for something he does not want because you think it will hurt him.
2) Force a man to pay for something desired by the ruling class, to hell with whether or not it hurts him.
3) Force a man to sit and rot in prison, unable to even distract himself from his misery with work routines because he disagrees with the ruling class.
4) Force a man to occupy a particular position in society, with no hope or opportunity of improvement or self-betterment.
Well, this thread is stale, but I want to make one more point.
Your issue of how few people really care isn't, I feel, cause for apathy - rather, it highlights how important the activist really is.
Suddenly, you realize how critically important it is to care, and how much power you can amass if/when you do. At the age of 21, I was involved with an organization that promoted strict adherence to constitutional guidelines. We had a cable-access TV show, and routinely got mention in the local newspapers. (at least weekly mention, and more than a few front pages) In fairly short order, we had hundreds of attendees - it's easy to pick out a few hundred people willing to get together, attend a lecture, and drink a beer or two when you have a televised reach in the tens of thousands of homes!
Suddenly, you might realize how much power is wielded by those who give a damn!
Theres tons out there in print in this issue, and there has been all through the Bush Administration.
Since when does google having just 384 results on any topic mean there's TONS?
I tried several times to come up with things that would result in just 384 results.
"steel reserve msi" "Steel Reserve" is a cheap malt liquor. MSI is a manufacturer of motherboards. How screwy can you get? How about 126,000 matches?
Ok, how about mixing Underwear and a KVM switch???? - got 128,000 results. Come on. Underwear, and a KVM switch? Come on, 128,000 results?!?!?!?
So, what about mixing Redondo Beach and Scientology - Ultra-materialism meets wacko. Still has 21,600 articles. This is like mixing night and apples. WTF???!?!?
Sorry, but having just 384 results for "yucca mountain" on google means it's virtually unheard of.
It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
I'll go one further - I don't believe that people are even really capable of truly selfless behavior. Every gift however magnanimous, holy, or other-serving, is truly and only done for self - feeling good, satisfying a feeling of guilt, impressing the ole' lady so you get some tonight, whatever. No, I'll go two further - I believe that once you do away with the silly idea of "pure" giving, it's much easier to appreciate and love people for who and what they are! And, this doesn't detract from the positive effects caused by the selfish behavior.
There are people who really want to be known as the selfless, giving type. One person I feel is that way helped me out when I was a child, going through some abusive situations with my dad's wives. I can recognize that she has this desire to appear selfless and giving, and that she carefully arranges her surroundings so that people have lots of opportunities to see and publicly recognize her "selflessness". As an adult, I find this just a little amusing, but there are few people on this earth I owe more to for my current state of well being, and I love her very dearly for it.
She deserves it, too, and I make sure she knows it.
I spend lots of time on my children. I home school, all 5 of them. I feel it this is my best option for having well-adjusted, intelligent, successful children. I also recognize that my reasons for putting out all this effort (and it's a h377 of a lot of work) is primarily selfish. When I'm an old guy, I want my kids to know in their hearts that I was good to them and loved them, and gave them the best chance I could for their happiness. I want to be able to confidently brag about how good I was as a father, and I already enjoy being the parent who answers questions on how to raise happy, successful kids. My kids (now age 8-16) are intelligent, strong, capable, and hardworking. It makes me feel good knowing I've taken the role of father and done well with it.
I donate time and money to the Homeschool Association of California and I'm happy to do so. It makes me feel good, giving to a cause greater than myself.
Selfish? Yeah, perhaps. But the result is that I have 5 happy, well-adjusted children that show all indications of being roaring successes at life, and I think this is a good thing.
Don't bother trying to find out if somebody's being selfish when they give - everybody is. It's OK! Instead, take a look at what their particular form of selfishness benefits, and enjoy or discredit from there. You'll find it's alot easier to love somebody when you do away with the stupid idea of "pure" giving, and just decide on whether you like what they're doing!
OK, let's. I assume that this is a call to join a foundation, organization, or movement. What have you decided to call this organization? What's the mission statement? What are the goals of the organization? Meeting times? Rallies?
Yep, I just might be interested. Really.
If you're serious, that is - but I don't think you are. See, if you were, you'd have to stretch yourself outside of your current "comfort zone", which currently includes your computer, and quite possibly your mother's basement, but not much else.
But, if you WERE serious, and you REALLY DID put out enough effort to register a domain name, make a website, put together some business cards, talk to REAL LIVE PEOPLE (instead of your laptop) at real, live events, you'd find out very quickly what real, live people think. You'd grow immensely, as a result. Your skills at working with people, and your earning power would be forever improved, and your understanding of your true role in society would be much, much firmer.
You would forever be a bigger, better person.
I dare you to put together an organization of at least 100 members towards your cause. In order to be a "member", they have to have contributed at least $10 in CASH towards your cause's war chest. (And, I know you can do it, because I did)
One of these days, this jerk^W typical CEO will realize -- too late -- that he has painted his company in a corner with that type of statement.
Oh yeah! One of these days, the CEO of one of the largest, fastest-growing telecommunications companies will realize that by blurting something out while half sloshed at a party, he's committed his multi-billion dollar company to something where 80% of their customer base are going to leave, and they'll be bankrupt and everybody will be so sad, and they'll all know it was that one Friday night...
There can be some improvement, particularly with managing symlinks.
1) When you move a destination object, symlinks don't follow the target. This leaves "broken" symlinks that refer to nothing. Why doesn't the mv command move these too?
2) When you symlink a symlinked folder, the root symlink is ignored. Let's say you symlink/usr/tunes to/usr/local/tunes. Later, you symlink/usr/local/tunes/YMCA.mp3 => ~/my_favorite_song.mp3. Now, you have a symlink that relies on both the existence of "/usr/tunes/" AND symlink "/usr/local/tunes >>/usr/tunes". Thus, while deleting 1st ("/usr/local/tunes =>/usr/tunes") symlink doesn't actually delete anything, it does cause ~/my_favorite_song.mp3 to become unworkable.
3) Symlinks cause all kinds of weirds around chrooted file systems, especially ones on a different underlying filesystem. If you're not very careful, nothing is as it seems! Files go nowhere, files are accessable only sometimes, etc. It's logical when you understand and appreciate a symlink for what it is, just a referral, but it can be maddening when security contexts get distorted around a chroot...
Your assertion that "pay once, get bugfixes free" is not acceptable is flawed. I payed to have a working product. If they didn't do a good enough job to keep it working in the future, then they need to fix that FOR FREE. No need for bug fixes or anti-virus if there aren't any flaws in the first place.
So don't buy software unless it comes with "bugfexes for free".
If that truly is "right", then enough people will decide such, and that will become the predominant business model.
Software can be sold as a product, which is what you assume. Under these terms, there's a strong, implicit promise of "merchantability", which basically means that it does what the vendor said it would do, no questions asked.
But, software can be (and in my company's case, is) sold as part of a suite of services, of which the actual software is only part. For many organizations, the cost of hosting an application can be quite high, and for these cases, externally hosted applications can be very reasonable.
So, while you have a legitimate case to be made, I feel that the forever-changing landscape of computers, technology, and legal requirements (my company's software is designed to enforce legal compliance to California law) can be enough to compel somebody to want to just write a check periodically and "forget about it". Our customers worry much less about backups, hosting, viruses, worms, server crashes, software conflicts, O/S upgrades, etc. (We don't offer to support their client systems, but we may do that too, soon)
Buy what you think is reasonable. The marketplace will decide.
Re:Ma Bell was worse than you think
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Care to explain why Time Warner doesn't have to let a startup use their cable plant but Verizon does?
Sure, since it's obvious you haven't figured it out... historically, Cable and Telephone were just different. They had different needs, they served different purposes, and different regulations as a result.
Enter TCP/IP which commoditizes communications over any medium such that the medium itself is irrelevant. Suddenly, enterprises that have been completely unrelated for many decades start competing head to head. (Cable companies vs. Telephony)
Suddenly, phone companies can start distributing movies. (it won't be long now) Suddenly, cable companies can start routing phone calls. (already started for some customers) Communication = communication = communication - the very definition of "commodity".
It's not at all unlike the water situation in California - there are plenty of "water treaties" with local indian tribes and other entities that are kept alive because of the historical context of the agreement - not because it actually makes sense anymore. The tribe is gone, most of the "members" are out of the area, yet the treaty remains, and will likely do so unless a disaster happens, or the legal corpus finally dissolves. (unlikely any time soon - selling water is quite profitable!)
The contracts have to "catch up" to reality - it will be a while. Relax, and enjoy a good beer while you're waiting.
PS: Excessive use of profantiy, such as "fuck", "shit" and "damn" make you sound like trailer trash. Using alternative terms, such as "evil consumer-rapists", or perhaps "indifferent monopolists" make you sound intelligent, insightful, and perhaps worth listening to, while "evil fuckers" either makes you sound 12 years old, or incredibly stupid, or possibly both.
Slashdot Mirror
No surprise he's against patents. As of about a year ago, Lulu was getting sued by some loon who claimed to hold a patent on print on demand systems.
How does "I'm a big fan of both copyrights and patents" get interpreted as 'against' patents? All he says is that patents and copyrights are like Vitamin D - essential in the right quantities, deadly if you take too much.
Specifically, this quote: Don't most government-endowed monopolies have chilling unintended consequences on the markets they're supposed to protect?
No. Especially in cases where an overly large capital investment is needed to develop a technology, a temporary monopoly on the resulting deliverable is often needed to encourage or enable the investors in said technology to build it in the first place.
Copyright gives incredible power to the top publishers (with a lock on book stores), the recording industry, and the movie distributors.
Actually, it gives such power to me too, an independent software engineer. I can (and do) use copyrights to help me ensure that my time gets reasonably and profitably compensated. If this were not so, I would not develop nearly as much software, and that would be bad for all involved.
Government's monopoly on violence prevents the average person from defending their property, and use of the monopoly outside of our borders causes anger towards our citizens.
In the US, anyone can perform a citizen's arrest as a peace officer. In almost all jurisdictions, citizens have the right to lethal self-defense. (guns, etc.) I'm not sure if you're promoting the idea that US Citizens should be able to wage ware oversees without being part of the military? Your logic gets pretty weak, here.
Government's monopoly on prescription drugs causes the costs to skyrocket (death sentence for the poor) and useful drugs to be delayed for years.
Government monopolies on prescription drugs keep unsafe, sham products from flooding the marketplace. Take a look at your email inbox if want to see lots of examples of these: names like "Vi4gra" and "p3n15 3nl4rgemint".
Temporary monopolies granted by patents allow drug companies to invest huge sums of money (to the tune of 315 million dollars per drug) to research, develop and test (for safety) the numerous and highly beneficial pharmaceuticals available today. By keeping the patent term reasonable, "generic" drugs are available after the drug companies have reaped their profits to then make them affordable to the impoverished.
Government's monopoly on patent licensing is no different. The playing field is far from level. Drug companies would initially have to charge more to sell their meds, or sell through doctors groups (where generics might be contractually offlimits for those doctors). Patents don't protect bootlegs anyway, which get more pervasive as the web gets larger.
What are you saying here? I can't make heads or tails of it...
For our society to grow, we need to accept that monopolies are always bad, and only government can create them. There are no natural monopolies. The 4 or 5 times there might have been in the past I'd argue weren't meant to last, but they're gone anyway.
For our society to grow, we need to understand when monopolies are appropriate and when they are simply stupid. Like most GPL software, it's best when it's used for infrastructure (eg: highways, basic telecommunications, etc) and at its worst when used for end-use products. (eg: spatulas, carpets, televisions, etc)
> What's not to like?
The fact that it's not legal?
Why do you think it's not legal? By all appearances, allofmp3.com is following copyright law, and the US legal definition of copyrights specifically allows for personal importation of copyrighted material, so long as such imported material is legally distributed in the country of origin.
Therefore, if it's legal in Russia, and I'm importing the music under terms legal in Russia, it appears to be legal here. I'm not publishing anything, so it's not P2P. Is there anything I'm missing?
The rest of your post is so much ego-stroking about encoding formats - I download 192 Kbps MP3s that sound wonderful. However, AllofMP3 allows for downloads in MP3, WMA, OGG, MPEG4, and MPC formats, at up to 320 Kb!
Is that good enough for your iBook?
I've been using allofmp3.com for my music. It's a foreign website, they've signed agreements with the Russian RIAA-equivalent, and as far as I know, it's entirely legal to buy music there.
It's fast, I find the songs I want, the formats are unencumbered with DRM, and I pay a good price. ($0.15 per song is typical)
What's not to like?
However, how has evolution been "repeatedly tested"?
I'd strongly recommend reading up on it! $30 spent at the local Barnes and Nobles can enlighten you immensely on virtually any subject you choose - as a function of knowledge gained against cost in time and money, B & N is damn hard to beat.
But, let's make it simple: take a bunch of rabbits of mixed colors. Kill all the black ones. Breed them like this for a few generations, and tell me how many black ones get born 10 generations hence?
What most ID IDiots don't realize is that not only is evolution a very well demonstrated concept, virtually all of modern agriculture depends on the truth of its precepts! For, if the concept of "survival of the fittest" were not generally true, corn could not be made to breed larger kernels through selective breeding, and every breed of dog at the dog show would have always existed.
ID is truly as rediculous as it sounds. Genetic drift can be VERY accurately calculated. Comparing that to the difference between modern-day humans and modern-day chimpanzees show a genetic drift of about 1.6 %. Yes, you are 98.4% Monkey. Knowing how fast the human genome is evolving means we can calculate that modern day humans drifted from the chips about 5 million years ago. Lots of corroborating evidence is found in archaeology and paleontology digs, along with radio carbon dating, and numerous other techniques.
Knowing the outcome of any one of these various techniques doesn't prove anything. The fact that so many of these techniques match up nicely provides alot of evidence to support the idea that people evolved from chimps. The fact that there is *no* evidence to disprove it despite over 100 years of looking for it simply adds that much more.
Remember, it can't be proven to be 100% true, and we routinely refine and enhance the theory. This doesn't "disprove" anything - it merely highlights the strength of the Scientific method - a process that, over time, tends to truth.
evolution has deep scientific background, despite not being a proven fact.
Evolution is not a proven fact in the same way that gravity is not a proven fact. The word "theory" throws people because the scientific definition is different than the plain English.
In plain English, a "theory" is defined as "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.". Pretty clearly not something you should put any undue trust into.
In Science, a "theory" is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.". Note the emphasis on being repeatedly tested, and that it can be used to make predictions of natural phenomena.
In short, the Scientific definition of theory pretty closely matches the English definition for fact: "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences". Since a Scientific theory has been repeatedly tested, we can be pretty sure it's pretty factual.
Or, put another way, a scientific theory can never be proven 100% right because we can never be absolutely sure that all aspects of the theory are correct. Isaac Newton cooked up the first mathematically supported theory of gravity, a theory that works perfectly well on Earth and in simple circumstances. But, in space, with extreme velocities and accellerations, Newtonian gravity theory becomes ambiguous and inaccurate.
It was Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that refined the older Newtonian theory and filled in the missing pieces.
If you ever have to deal with ID nuts, see if you can't get them to state that Evolution is "only a theory". Then, being very, very obvious and very quiet, hold out a pen, and let it drop on the table. Then, with the flattest, most rude, deadpan voice you can muster, say "Gravity is just a theory".
Slowly pick it up, and drop the pen again. And again. Let them blab their way to silence. (it might take a while)
Then, go click the lightswitch on and off again. Explain to them that electro-magnetism is more (gasp!) theory, not proven to be 100% true.
Then, ask them why they trust science when they drive their car, and they trust science when they swallow an aspirin, and why they trust science when they fly, or watch television, or drink floridated water, and why they trust science when they drive their tractors, and why they trust science when they drink homogenized milk, and why they trust science when they don their clothes made with nylon, and why they trust science when they talk on the cordless or cellular phone, and why they trust science when they swallow a vitamin pill, and why they trust science when they mow their lawns, and why they trust science when they watch dishes with their dishwasher, and why they trust science to identify the history of events when solving a crime, and why they trust science to identify the rightful father of a baby using DNA testing.
And then ask them why they don't trust science when to identify their other ancestry.
(PS: definitions come from Dictionary.com)
I think it is quite wrong to teach ID in schools, not because it's a weird theory but because children in school have learned to believe everything they are taught (I know I was) and don't have the critical thinking required to question those things and decide on their own (that comes later, about at the end of highschool/beginning of college). I remember some pretty outrageous things teachers told us (they obviously didn't know any better) that I believed until much later, and it's a sad realisation when you think that if something like this is false, everything else could be, as well.
You make an excellent case for the abolition of schools! Why should we continue to spend money on a system that results in children that learn to believe everything they are taught? Why should we support a system that is widely acknowledged to be failing our children and our nation at a time when we need them to work more than ever before?
Think about it: Children are born scientists - they spend the first 5 years of their lives exploring their world around them, conducting hundreds of ad-hoc experiments every day. So what do we do? We take them away from the rich experiences of their immediate environment, and instead contain them into a classroom where they are force-fed "facts" that they then have to regurgitate, using humiliation and false reward in a brutal, pavlovian fashion, without question or interaction.
Then, in a brutal display of irony, we then try to cram "science" down their throats, as though memorizing facts constituted science. Forget the passion and awe of scientific discovery, the wonder of imagining and the thrill of experimentation! Instead of enriching our children's lives with the discovery process, of learning how Science works as an interactive process of imagination and discovery, they're forced to memorize the periodic table of elements and the words "xylem" and "phloem" to pass a test, soon forgotten.
It should be proof to all how deeply embedded into the very fabric of humanity curiosity and science is, since it continues to exist, even with the extensive use of the above methods to discourage it!
The state of Kansas has, on this day, taken one giant leap backwards for mankind.
Ever heard of NDISWRAPPER??
What many people don't realize is that a binary driver interface has already been developed, only without the central control or oversight needed to make sure it works well.
It's not only possible, it's not only inevitable, It's already happening!
I'd recommend putting together some kind of standardized binary driver interface, only put it in userland where it won't crash the O/S, and treat O/S crashes from buggy drivers as a bug, not the buggy driver.
I'd be happy to pay the performance price of usermode drivers if it meant I could *finally* use my small office inkjet printer/scanner on Linux.
I have a number of production servers to this day still running RedHat Linux 7.2. They are patched and up to date, even though RedHat axed support for RedHat long ago. I spend very little time doing so, because Progeny came to the rescue allowing me to milk another couple years out of otherwise perfectly happy, capable, production servers.
Also, there's the Fedora Legacy project which has picked up RedHat 7.3 as well, providing yet another option for administrators of "axed support" distros.
Let me ask you this - what companies or groups have stepped up to the plate to support Win9x after Microsoft's abandoning of the platform?
I guess Windows is really not that open, is it?
I bought one of these some years ago. The Audiovox 9155 GPX. No fancy pictures, color screens or downloadable ringtones.
It's a tri-mode phone, the best I've ever had. I get reception EVERYWHERE, and I love it! Battery life is acceptable, a few days between charges, or 4-5 hours of talk time on a full charge. With a $40 cable, I can plug it into my laptop and get Internet access anywhere, though it burns up my minutes.
About a year ago, it was dropped into a puddle, and stopped working. I bought another phone, an Audiovox picture phone. I hated it. I kept getting voice mail messages. (missed calls) I tried another, and got the same thing.
But, the puddled phone dried up, and started working again! It remains on my hip to this day, and to this day, Verizon has $200 credit on account for another phone...
No, it's like fining somebody for leaving their door unlocked and _not_ getting burglarized.
No, it's like fining somebody for not having a fence around their property and not getting burglarized.
No, It's like fining somebody without a yard for having a yard that door is burglarized and locked, authentication som... What was I saying again?
it's amazing how stuff always manages to get "leaked". It's too bad some extra money didn't get "leaked" in to my bank account. I suppose it's a good way to get stuff tested without being responsible for it's results.
Actually, leaks can serve a very useful purpose for a software. Think about it:
1) Generate buzz about upcoming developments.
2) Get feedback on features that haven't yet been officially announced, especially those with some controversy.
3) Not worry about support agreements, effectively bypassing any laws or requirements about "merchantibility".
4) You can cripple the release (eh, leak) any way you like and nobody will complain, so you can give it away freely without much worry.
5) Get all the above without any expectation of support or official backing,
Marketing, tech support, and needed feedback, all for free? Of course "leaks" happen - why wouldn't they? You're reading this, aren't you? Isn't that proof that it works?
Hey, if it means anything, I've been doing Linux-only for about 5 years, and it pays off pretty nicely.
...
It's hard to think of something nicer than an ongoing service contract that requires a few hours per month reviewing log files, while the customer is blissfully happy because they just don't have to worry about things anymore
I take you you have little/no experience working with small businesses?
My "not credible" numbers are very typical for scenarios I work in. In this world of small enterprises, it's very normal to run an entire business with just a single server. Bitch all you want to about whatever security issues, I sure have.
Small business owners tend to have a case of megalomania. If they can pet the box, they "own" it. Thus, they'll spend $2,000 on a server rather than $25/mo on a managed solution because they can pet the box, even as they explain about the increased downtime because they don't have a dedicated admin, like their ISP.
Just because it's not true in your world, doesn't mean it isn't true!
No, the mail server is a dedicated box, and thee are limits to how many processes it will spawn. What it will do is queue a bunch of messages and work through the backlog. I can build a $3k box (plus the cost of a storage array if needed) that will handle a 20Mbit stream of mail all day long. This isn't rocket science.
Perhaps this should start out as "no my mail server is a dedicated box..."?
See, there are other people in the world than yourself. And, while it's not hard to put together a Linux/sendmail server that can handle a 20 Mb stream, building one that also runs, oh, say, a web server, WebDAV, SQL, and a few other services useful to a small business may lead you to places where it's not true anymore. And, since SCSI drives are expensive, you'll typically see a smaller (maybe 20 GB) drive on it on your small business, entry level server that's a year or two old. With an average email sizing about 50k, 50k * 1 million adds up to 50,000,000,000 - whoops! Your hard drive just got seriously whumped!
Plus, your "20 Mb stream" server doesn't take into account anything at all resource-intensive, such as SpamAssassin, anti-virus, greylisting, or most of the other, processor-intensive functions now in common use. In reality, your baseline "20 Mb stream" server only proves that a modern SCSI drive can read/write data at a rate greater than 20 Mbps.
Congratulations! I'm thoroughly unimpressed. Come back when you have something relevant to say.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
/. is not making the (your) world a better place, why the !@#!@ are you wasting your time reading this post?
Maybe offtopic, maybe not. But, your sig got to me. What a steaming load of bullsh17!
So, your world isn't better because of the technology of electricity powering your computer? Or the vaccines that you've taken since birth to prevent terrible, painful, and deadly diseases? What about the air conditioners that keep your house at a desireable temperature, year round? Or the lights by which you type this evening?
Come on, man! Technology is an integral part of humanity! Many think of humanity as what you are when you are naked in the shower, without any clothing or technology Except, that the use of tools (technology) in our genetic line comes before modern man, as does the clothing! Technology is not only one of the factors that makes us human, it has allowed our very species to evolve to make us who and what we are.
The chair you sit on as you read this is as human as the finger you use to type your response to this post. And, if being here, posting on
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it does him good
.... I could go on, and on, and on, and on.
Sounds good, but just rediculous when you think about it. Examples of "worse tyranny":
1) Force a man to pay for something he does not want because you think it will hurt him.
2) Force a man to pay for something desired by the ruling class, to hell with whether or not it hurts him.
3) Force a man to sit and rot in prison, unable to even distract himself from his misery with work routines because he disagrees with the ruling class.
4) Force a man to occupy a particular position in society, with no hope or opportunity of improvement or self-betterment.
5)
PS: I'm a populist libertarian.
Well, this thread is stale, but I want to make one more point.
Your issue of how few people really care isn't, I feel, cause for apathy - rather, it highlights how important the activist really is.
Suddenly, you realize how critically important it is to care, and how much power you can amass if/when you do. At the age of 21, I was involved with an organization that promoted strict adherence to constitutional guidelines. We had a cable-access TV show, and routinely got mention in the local newspapers. (at least weekly mention, and more than a few front pages) In fairly short order, we had hundreds of attendees - it's easy to pick out a few hundred people willing to get together, attend a lecture, and drink a beer or two when you have a televised reach in the tens of thousands of homes!
Suddenly, you might realize how much power is wielded by those who give a damn!
Try a Google News for Yucca Mountain
Results 1 - 20 of about 384 for yucca mountain.
Theres tons out there in print in this issue, and there has been all through the Bush Administration.
Since when does google having just 384 results on any topic mean there's TONS?
I tried several times to come up with things that would result in just 384 results.
"steel reserve msi" "Steel Reserve" is a cheap malt liquor. MSI is a manufacturer of motherboards. How screwy can you get? How about 126,000 matches?
Ok, how about mixing Underwear and a KVM switch???? - got 128,000 results. Come on. Underwear, and a KVM switch? Come on, 128,000 results?!?!?!?
So, what about mixing Redondo Beach and Scientology - Ultra-materialism meets wacko. Still has 21,600 articles. This is like mixing night and apples. WTF???!?!?
Sorry, but having just 384 results for "yucca mountain" on google means it's virtually unheard of.
It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
I'll go one further - I don't believe that people are even really capable of truly selfless behavior. Every gift however magnanimous, holy, or other-serving, is truly and only done for self - feeling good, satisfying a feeling of guilt, impressing the ole' lady so you get some tonight, whatever. No, I'll go two further - I believe that once you do away with the silly idea of "pure" giving, it's much easier to appreciate and love people for who and what they are! And, this doesn't detract from the positive effects caused by the selfish behavior.
There are people who really want to be known as the selfless, giving type. One person I feel is that way helped me out when I was a child, going through some abusive situations with my dad's wives. I can recognize that she has this desire to appear selfless and giving, and that she carefully arranges her surroundings so that people have lots of opportunities to see and publicly recognize her "selflessness". As an adult, I find this just a little amusing, but there are few people on this earth I owe more to for my current state of well being, and I love her very dearly for it.
She deserves it, too, and I make sure she knows it.
I spend lots of time on my children. I home school, all 5 of them. I feel it this is my best option for having well-adjusted, intelligent, successful children. I also recognize that my reasons for putting out all this effort (and it's a h377 of a lot of work) is primarily selfish. When I'm an old guy, I want my kids to know in their hearts that I was good to them and loved them, and gave them the best chance I could for their happiness. I want to be able to confidently brag about how good I was as a father, and I already enjoy being the parent who answers questions on how to raise happy, successful kids. My kids (now age 8-16) are intelligent, strong, capable, and hardworking. It makes me feel good knowing I've taken the role of father and done well with it.
I donate time and money to the Homeschool Association of California and I'm happy to do so. It makes me feel good, giving to a cause greater than myself.
Selfish? Yeah, perhaps. But the result is that I have 5 happy, well-adjusted children that show all indications of being roaring successes at life, and I think this is a good thing.
Don't bother trying to find out if somebody's being selfish when they give - everybody is. It's OK! Instead, take a look at what their particular form of selfishness benefits, and enjoy or discredit from there. You'll find it's alot easier to love somebody when you do away with the stupid idea of "pure" giving, and just decide on whether you like what they're doing!
Lets organize and make a difference.
OK, let's. I assume that this is a call to join a foundation, organization, or movement. What have you decided to call this organization? What's the mission statement? What are the goals of the organization? Meeting times? Rallies?
Yep, I just might be interested. Really.
If you're serious, that is - but I don't think you are. See, if you were, you'd have to stretch yourself outside of your current "comfort zone", which currently includes your computer, and quite possibly your mother's basement, but not much else.
But, if you WERE serious, and you REALLY DID put out enough effort to register a domain name, make a website, put together some business cards, talk to REAL LIVE PEOPLE (instead of your laptop) at real, live events, you'd find out very quickly what real, live people think. You'd grow immensely, as a result. Your skills at working with people, and your earning power would be forever improved, and your understanding of your true role in society would be much, much firmer.
You would forever be a bigger, better person.
I dare you to put together an organization of at least 100 members towards your cause. In order to be a "member", they have to have contributed at least $10 in CASH towards your cause's war chest. (And, I know you can do it, because I did)
Oh yeah! One of these days, the CEO of one of the largest, fastest-growing telecommunications companies will realize that by blurting something out while half sloshed at a party, he's committed his multi-billion dollar company to something where 80% of their customer base are going to leave, and they'll be bankrupt and everybody will be so sad, and they'll all know it was that one Friday night...
Yeah man. that's it... right.
/Sarcasm
Get a clue.
There can be some improvement, particularly with managing symlinks.
/usr/tunes to /usr/local/tunes. Later, you symlink /usr/local/tunes/YMCA.mp3 => ~/my_favorite_song.mp3. Now, you have a symlink that relies on both the existence of "/usr/tunes/" AND symlink "/usr/local/tunes >> /usr/tunes". Thus, while deleting 1st ("/usr/local/tunes => /usr/tunes") symlink doesn't actually delete anything, it does cause ~/my_favorite_song.mp3 to become unworkable.
1) When you move a destination object, symlinks don't follow the target . This leaves "broken" symlinks that refer to nothing. Why doesn't the mv command move these too?
2) When you symlink a symlinked folder, the root symlink is ignored. Let's say you symlink
3) Symlinks cause all kinds of weirds around chrooted file systems , especially ones on a different underlying filesystem. If you're not very careful, nothing is as it seems! Files go nowhere, files are accessable only sometimes, etc. It's logical when you understand and appreciate a symlink for what it is, just a referral, but it can be maddening when security contexts get distorted around a chroot...
Your assertion that "pay once, get bugfixes free" is not acceptable is flawed. I payed to have a working product. If they didn't do a good enough job to keep it working in the future, then they need to fix that FOR FREE. No need for bug fixes or anti-virus if there aren't any flaws in the first place.
So don't buy software unless it comes with "bugfexes for free".
If that truly is "right", then enough people will decide such, and that will become the predominant business model.
Software can be sold as a product, which is what you assume. Under these terms, there's a strong, implicit promise of "merchantability", which basically means that it does what the vendor said it would do, no questions asked.
But, software can be (and in my company's case, is) sold as part of a suite of services, of which the actual software is only part. For many organizations, the cost of hosting an application can be quite high, and for these cases, externally hosted applications can be very reasonable.
So, while you have a legitimate case to be made, I feel that the forever-changing landscape of computers, technology, and legal requirements (my company's software is designed to enforce legal compliance to California law) can be enough to compel somebody to want to just write a check periodically and "forget about it". Our customers worry much less about backups, hosting, viruses, worms, server crashes, software conflicts, O/S upgrades, etc. (We don't offer to support their client systems, but we may do that too, soon)
Buy what you think is reasonable. The marketplace will decide.
Care to explain why Time Warner doesn't have to let a startup use their cable plant but Verizon does?
Sure, since it's obvious you haven't figured it out... historically, Cable and Telephone were just different. They had different needs, they served different purposes, and different regulations as a result.
Enter TCP/IP which commoditizes communications over any medium such that the medium itself is irrelevant. Suddenly, enterprises that have been completely unrelated for many decades start competing head to head. (Cable companies vs. Telephony)
Suddenly, phone companies can start distributing movies. (it won't be long now) Suddenly, cable companies can start routing phone calls. (already started for some customers) Communication = communication = communication - the very definition of "commodity".
It's not at all unlike the water situation in California - there are plenty of "water treaties" with local indian tribes and other entities that are kept alive because of the historical context of the agreement - not because it actually makes sense anymore. The tribe is gone, most of the "members" are out of the area, yet the treaty remains, and will likely do so unless a disaster happens, or the legal corpus finally dissolves. (unlikely any time soon - selling water is quite profitable!)
The contracts have to "catch up" to reality - it will be a while. Relax, and enjoy a good beer while you're waiting.
PS: Excessive use of profantiy, such as "fuck", "shit" and "damn" make you sound like trailer trash. Using alternative terms, such as "evil consumer-rapists", or perhaps "indifferent monopolists" make you sound intelligent, insightful, and perhaps worth listening to, while "evil fuckers" either makes you sound 12 years old, or incredibly stupid, or possibly both.