Democracy and freedom aren't about prosperity. You can be poor and quite free. Democracy is about the legitimacy of the individual, whose voice and vote should count for more than any other single interest or group.
Crap.
Democracy and freedom are barely related. Democracy is just a way of choosing leaders. As Churchill said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others. America isn't about democracy, it's about freedom. That's why the Bill of Rights begins with the five most beautiful words in the language, "Congress shall make no law..."
As you said, you can be poor and free. Most folks would find that preferable to being comfortable in chains. I'd rather be a starving artist with the freedom to do what I want than a postal worker with a guaranteed (dull) lifetime job.
Four percent of the "nodes" on the 'net is a lot of nodes, depending on what they call nodes. If they mean hosts, then they're talking about, what, a half a million? Even if thyey're only referring to routers, 4% of the world's routers is a lot of routers in a lot of different locations.
And while that might be within the capabilities of some hacker, hack attacks are pretty temporary at worst; it's hard to imagine anybody being able to hold "own" 4% of the world's routers for any length of time without getting caught. To do any serious damage, it would take explosives, lot of them. And well-aimed ones at that, so we can rule out Russian-built missiles. Ryder vans, of course, are another story.
It's certainly an interesting study, but it's also a case of researchers using a scary headline to puff their research. If there were enough explosions to blow up 4% of all the routers, I think the 'net would be the least of our worries.
... and the converse is that people who *do* want to compete on price *will* make their sites available to price comparisons. So this particular ruling, despite the fact that's a little loopy, is hardly a threat to e-commerce.
The real problem, as with all IP laws, would be with enforcement. There's simply no way to protect tiny little chunks of intellectual property without creating a police state.
And the big players always have an advantage in these matters; they have "property" that's valuable enough that it justifies hiring lawyers. Tell a cop that somebody stole your car, and he'll at least try to help. Tell a cop that somebody stole your idea and he'll laugh at you. If the police won't help you protect your "property", then it isn't property, it's privilege.
The notion that the oil companies can buy off competing technologies and squash them is silly. For starters, if a competing technology really were better, then it would be more economical to buy the technology and promote it, rather than squash it.
For another thing, the oil industry is extremely competitive; nobody has a big enough chunk of the market to benefit from any sort of monoploy position. Even OPEC has to lower their prices as often as they raise them. When they try to restict production to keep the price up, one or more of their members eventually suffers a cash crunch, and they start cheating on their quotas, and then the price drops again.
Known reserves of oil today are greater than they were 30 years ago. This is because we're still discovering oil faster than we burn it. Some day, that trend will change; when we start burning it faster than we can find it, then the price will increase dramatically, and alternatives will start to make economic sense. But there will still be enough known reserves of oil to last more than 100 years at current consumprion rates, and usage will decrease when the price starts to rise.
So, in summary, there will come a time, perhaps in the next couple of decades, when the price of oil will REALLY shoot up. Then you'll see other technologies start to catch on.
Hardly a fan of PETA here, but I think there's some validity to this ruling.
Of all the Intellectual Property laws, trademarks are undeniably justified. Heck, a trademark is your identity, and having the law protect it benefits both buyer and seller. It adds certainty to the transaction.
The peta.org site wasn't a parody of a copyrighted work, but rather an attempt to use confusion over identity to present an opposing message. If they had put up a site that was a take-off on PETA's design and a parody of their message, that would be one thing, but that's not what they did.
So, even though PETA is a bunch of loonies, they should be entitled to protect their identity just like everybody else.
Geez, gang. Everybody here is hyped up with the usual arguments against censorware. Some folks are taking this seriously, talking about the theory and the programming of it.
Read the damned Wired article. They report that the results are essentially random. They report that the company won't release the software, even under NDA. They report that the company claims that it was tested by an external lab, but won't name the lab.
This isn't a story about censorware, it's a story about an apparent hoax.
I'll second that emotion. I've used many PCPC Silencer power supplies, and they're nearly inaudible in a quiet room. The CPU coolers aren't quite as nice, I've had inconsistent results with them. Some are very quiet, some are less so, and they always seem to get noisier after the fan has some wear on it.
You need to write to an e-mail address and explain why you want it. It also says that the formats for earlier versions of Word are no longer available.
This is a very good thing, but note that it is not "free of IP restrictions." GPL and LGPL both make restrictions on redistribution, and rely on copyright laws to enforce those resatrictions. To be sure, the restrictions are intended to advance a generally admirable agenda, but the only way to truly release something without any IP restrictions is to release it into the public domain.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but lately I've been thinking that it's preferable to renounce one's claims to intellectual property altogether. The restrictions in the GPL and LGPL do not seem to advance the use of free software, they simply thwart commercial use of it. But commercial use is part of freedom, too.
I continue to be amazed that folks on the left still try to push this issue. 'Net access is getting cheaper and easier every year, and will continue to do so for some time. With devices like the iOpener and ePods, 'net access now costs about the same as buying a TV and subscribing to cable.
The real "Digital Divide" is between people who want access to the 'net, and those who couldn't care less about it. No economic action will ever bridge that gap.
This morning's Wall Street Journal has a front-page article that puts Shiller's theories in better perspective. Since it's subscription-only, I won't bother to post a link. But it's front-page both in print and online, and worth reading.
Shiller participated in a meeting with Fed Head Alan Greenspan and others in 1996, Shiller taking the side that the market had become irrational. This meeting led Greenspan to pose the oft-repeated QUESTION as to whether "irrational exuberance" had become the driving force in the market. The Dow was at about 4000 back then.
The article goes on to explain how attempts to prove Shiller's theories failed, how Greenspan's thinking has evolved since then, and how gains in productivity have proven to be real. And of course, the market has soared since then, despite repeated highly-publicized warnings that it is a "bubble." Of course, the market might undergo further correction, but there seems little chance that it will return to the levels of 1996, which Shiller thought were overvalued even then.
Unfortunately, Shiller joins a long list of public figures who continue to be listened to, even after they've been proven wrong. It brings to mind the case of Robert McNamara; he was CEO at Ford when they introduced the Edsel, and LBJ was so impressed that he brought McNamara to Washington in the early 60's to run the Vietnam war. On the basis of that record, he wrote a bestselling book a couple of years ago.
It's pretty refreshing to read an article like this. I've seen from the inside the efforts that some.com startups make to analyze their clickstream data, when they should be spending their money elsewhere. It seems like a Silicon Valley phenomenon. The thinking seems to be, "If we have all this database power, it MUST be useful somehow." But the marketing folks at the very same company, when they go to buy advertising, are interested in raw CPM's.
The article contains the wonderful quote, "If you want to sell cars you advertise on the cars page." That little bit of wisdom is a whole lot cheaper than hiring a bunch of DBA's to tell you the same thing (or worse, to tell you something different). But in the Valley, technology rules, even when it's wrong.
When Linux first started getting attention from the market, the prevailing wisdom was, "Well, if you can't make money selling the software, then the way to be profitable is to sell support."
Linuxcare, unfortunately, approached support in the least imaginative way; selling support to end-users (or vendors), just as the proprietary software vendors and support companies had been doing. But it turns out that Linux users don't really need that kind of support. This is a different market.
There ARE companies approaching the "support" issue in imaginative ways. Cygnus/Red Hat, Lineo, Transmeta, etc. sell "support" by providing custom development and specialized implementations. That's probably the approach that will work best.
Slashdot Mirror
My first reaction is say this is silly, it will never fly.
But this is in Europe, so the laws just might accomodate such goofiness.
Shrug.
Seems like it would be easy enough for a browser to implement a feature that warns if a page is loading content from multiple domains.
If they wanted to get really fancy, they'd let the user accumulate an "okay" list and a "don't load from multiple domains" list.
Democracy and freedom aren't about prosperity. You can be poor and quite free. Democracy is about the legitimacy of the individual, whose voice and vote should count for more than any other single interest or group.
Crap.
Democracy and freedom are barely related. Democracy is just a way of choosing leaders. As Churchill said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others. America isn't about democracy, it's about freedom. That's why the Bill of Rights begins with the five most beautiful words in the language, "Congress shall make no law..."
As you said, you can be poor and free. Most folks would find that preferable to being comfortable in chains. I'd rather be a starving artist with the freedom to do what I want than a postal worker with a guaranteed (dull) lifetime job.
Four percent of the "nodes" on the 'net is a lot of nodes, depending on what they call nodes. If they mean hosts, then they're talking about, what, a half a million? Even if thyey're only referring to routers, 4% of the world's routers is a lot of routers in a lot of different locations.
And while that might be within the capabilities of some hacker, hack attacks are pretty temporary at worst; it's hard to imagine anybody being able to hold "own" 4% of the world's routers for any length of time without getting caught. To do any serious damage, it would take explosives, lot of them. And well-aimed ones at that, so we can rule out Russian-built missiles. Ryder vans, of course, are another story.
It's certainly an interesting study, but it's also a case of researchers using a scary headline to puff their research. If there were enough explosions to blow up 4% of all the routers, I think the 'net would be the least of our worries.
Darn site seems to be slashdotted, it won't load for me.
Damned sysadmins.
... and the converse is that people who *do* want to compete on price *will* make their sites available to price comparisons. So this particular ruling, despite the fact that's a little loopy, is hardly a threat to e-commerce.
The real problem, as with all IP laws, would be with enforcement. There's simply no way to protect tiny little chunks of intellectual property without creating a police state.
And the big players always have an advantage in these matters; they have "property" that's valuable enough that it justifies hiring lawyers. Tell a cop that somebody stole your car, and he'll at least try to help. Tell a cop that somebody stole your idea and he'll laugh at you. If the police won't help you protect your "property", then it isn't property, it's privilege.
It isn't news that somebody is giving out free Free Software.
What would be news is if Microsoft or Sun gave out Free copies to reviewers, instead of free ones.
Of course, if they did that, they might not get such favorable reviews. But then, it would be just that more newsworthy, wouldn't it?
The notion that the oil companies can buy off competing technologies and squash them is silly. For starters, if a competing technology really were better, then it would be more economical to buy the technology and promote it, rather than squash it.
For another thing, the oil industry is extremely competitive; nobody has a big enough chunk of the market to benefit from any sort of monoploy position. Even OPEC has to lower their prices as often as they raise them. When they try to restict production to keep the price up, one or more of their members eventually suffers a cash crunch, and they start cheating on their quotas, and then the price drops again.
Known reserves of oil today are greater than they were 30 years ago. This is because we're still discovering oil faster than we burn it. Some day, that trend will change; when we start burning it faster than we can find it, then the price will increase dramatically, and alternatives will start to make economic sense. But there will still be enough known reserves of oil to last more than 100 years at current consumprion rates, and usage will decrease when the price starts to rise.
So, in summary, there will come a time, perhaps in the next couple of decades, when the price of oil will REALLY shoot up. Then you'll see other technologies start to catch on.
The pictures posted illustrate the need for an open-source focus-fixer program.
Hardly a fan of PETA here, but I think there's some validity to this ruling.
Of all the Intellectual Property laws, trademarks are undeniably justified. Heck, a trademark is your identity, and having the law protect it benefits both buyer and seller. It adds certainty to the transaction.
The peta.org site wasn't a parody of a copyrighted work, but rather an attempt to use confusion over identity to present an opposing message. If they had put up a site that was a take-off on PETA's design and a parody of their message, that would be one thing, but that's not what they did.
So, even though PETA is a bunch of loonies, they should be entitled to protect their identity just like everybody else.
>> hypeing a bogus product.
Um, that's kinda what I meant when I used the word "hoax."
Geez, gang. Everybody here is hyped up with the usual arguments against censorware. Some folks are taking this seriously, talking about the theory and the programming of it.
Read the damned Wired article. They report that the results are essentially random. They report that the company won't release the software, even under NDA. They report that the company claims that it was tested by an external lab, but won't name the lab.
This isn't a story about censorware, it's a story about an apparent hoax.
I used to play RPS in college with a bunch of guys who were on acid. They whooped my ass consistently, but they never knew it.
I'll second that emotion. I've used many PCPC Silencer power supplies, and they're nearly inaudible in a quiet room. The CPU coolers aren't quite as nice, I've had inconsistent results with them. Some are very quiet, some are less so, and they always seem to get noisier after the fan has some wear on it.
At one time, you could download the specs for the binary file format. Now, according to:
http://support.micro soft.com/support/kb/articles/Q211/6/41.ASP
You need to write to an e-mail address and explain why you want it. It also says that the formats for earlier versions of Word are no longer available.
For what it's worth.
Well that is indeed very cool.
This is a very good thing, but note that it is not "free of IP restrictions." GPL and LGPL both make restrictions on redistribution, and rely on copyright laws to enforce those resatrictions. To be sure, the restrictions are intended to advance a generally admirable agenda, but the only way to truly release something without any IP restrictions is to release it into the public domain.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but lately I've been thinking that it's preferable to renounce one's claims to intellectual property altogether. The restrictions in the GPL and LGPL do not seem to advance the use of free software, they simply thwart commercial use of it. But commercial use is part of freedom, too.
Cool.
I wonder if they'll sell those cigarettes with the dollar sign on the label?
I continue to be amazed that folks on the left still try to push this issue. 'Net access is getting cheaper and easier every year, and will continue to do so for some time. With devices like the iOpener and ePods, 'net access now costs about the same as buying a TV and subscribing to cable.
The real "Digital Divide" is between people who want access to the 'net, and those who couldn't care less about it. No economic action will ever bridge that gap.
There's just something incongruous about the idea of a government agency monitoring our communications to ensure privacy.
This morning's Wall Street Journal has a front-page article that puts Shiller's theories in better perspective. Since it's subscription-only, I won't bother to post a link. But it's front-page both in print and online, and worth reading.
Shiller participated in a meeting with Fed Head Alan Greenspan and others in 1996, Shiller taking the side that the market had become irrational. This meeting led Greenspan to pose the oft-repeated QUESTION as to whether "irrational exuberance" had become the driving force in the market. The Dow was at about 4000 back then.
The article goes on to explain how attempts to prove Shiller's theories failed, how Greenspan's thinking has evolved since then, and how gains in productivity have proven to be real. And of course, the market has soared since then, despite repeated highly-publicized warnings that it is a "bubble." Of course, the market might undergo further correction, but there seems little chance that it will return to the levels of 1996, which Shiller thought were overvalued even then.
Unfortunately, Shiller joins a long list of public figures who continue to be listened to, even after they've been proven wrong. It brings to mind the case of Robert McNamara; he was CEO at Ford when they introduced the Edsel, and LBJ was so impressed that he brought McNamara to Washington in the early 60's to run the Vietnam war. On the basis of that record, he wrote a bestselling book a couple of years ago.
It's pretty refreshing to read an article like this. I've seen from the inside the efforts that some .com startups make to analyze their clickstream data, when they should be spending their money elsewhere. It seems like a Silicon Valley phenomenon. The thinking seems to be, "If we have all this database power, it MUST be useful somehow." But the marketing folks at the very same company, when they go to buy advertising, are interested in raw CPM's.
The article contains the wonderful quote, "If you want to sell cars you advertise on the cars page." That little bit of wisdom is a whole lot cheaper than hiring a bunch of DBA's to tell you the same thing (or worse, to tell you something different). But in the Valley, technology rules, even when it's wrong.
When Linux first started getting attention from the market, the prevailing wisdom was, "Well, if you can't make money selling the software, then the way to be profitable is to sell support."
Linuxcare, unfortunately, approached support in the least imaginative way; selling support to end-users (or vendors), just as the proprietary software vendors and support companies had been doing. But it turns out that Linux users don't really need that kind of support. This is a different market.
There ARE companies approaching the "support" issue in imaginative ways. Cygnus/Red Hat, Lineo, Transmeta, etc. sell "support" by providing custom development and specialized implementations. That's probably the approach that will work best.
Who do they think they are? Metallica?
It's not a retouched photo, just a bad scan.
It IS a model car, though. Shot with a pinhole lens. Those things in front are saw blades.