Man, I'm kindof new to corporate America, but that just doesn't make any sense to me at all. At my place of employment, I listen to MP3s all day long. From my iPod. It's battery powered. I don't even need my company's electricity in order for it to work fine. If my company did something like a "clean desk policy" I'd be furious. That's totally different.
If I were to spend time during my workday actually collecting new mp3s, it'd detract a lot from the amount of work I do. Hell, I spend hours at a time organizing my mp3 collection. I don't see what I have to gain from corporate music sharing, let alone what my company has to gain from it.
There are many computer stores in my area that will sell me a computer with no OS on it. In fact, they outnumber the compusa/officedepot/etc chains. Their storefronts are much smaller, but there's one at every mall. That is a considerably higher penetration than compusa. They have names like "Ace's Computers" and they'll sell you exactly what you ask them for. To imply that most home users are somehow barred from using them is absurd. They deal with home users all day long, every day.
"MS tax" applies to businesses that have chosen to invest money in Microsoft products, and did not invest in alternatives. Now their costs would be way too high to switch, so Microsoft charges slightly less than that cost. This, of course, is nothing like a real tax. AC's comment was totally on point. Your comment was totally incorrect. Or, show how I'm wrong.
The point of better nuclear weapons simulation is determining whether or not our existing nukes will still function as designed, after they've gone through radioactive decay.
More computer nuke simulation -> less nuke tests.
Since we don't do tests anymore, if we do better nuke simulation, then we will need less redundancy in our weapons. We'll be able to dismantle more nukes.
More computer nuke simulation -> less real nukes.
As much as I hate the cowboy, he's done more to reduce the nuclear weapons capability of the US than any other president since the buildup began.
You are exactly right. God is a human computer user in the year 2743. He's trying to decide what to buy his girlfriend for her birthday, so he's decided to make a computational model of the universe so that he can check which gift is the one that's most likely to help him get lucky tonight.
He wants it to be accurate, so he's modeling every moment since the year 2001.
You've made a great point about how presumptive all religions are.
All of those acceptable countermeasures are legal already. They already poison P2P networks. That's kosher to me, so long as they don't violate any existing laws. And I'm anti-copyright. It's just inefficient, so they want to be able to DOS you. They already sue violators. That's kosher to me as well, but it is also inefficient. Any new legislation in this direction would be seriously upsetting. I don't even use P2P networks, and I don't use the internet to help me violate copyright. Nevertheless, I'm sure that such legislation would degrade my ability to use the internet for legitimate purposes.
Except that their use of the description "post modern" implies that they are refering to the art movement, not the date. They are two different things, both well defined. Somehow, I imagine that you knew that, and just chose to feign ignorance. That's annoying.
To suggest that we've already reached and breached the modern age of computation is awfully self-congratulatory. We've had computers for what, 65 years? When we've had computers for 1000 years, then I'd be comfortable suggesting that we had reached the age of "modern" programming. People say "postmodern" way way too easily.
Postmodern programming will begin *after* the first self aware computer chooses to program its own destruction. Then we can begin to discuss postmodernism and programming at the same time.
I hope this moderator doesn't get killed in metamod.
The post is interesting. Because the poster is out of his mind. I was curious if this whole sniper thing would drive some DC residents out of their minds.
The obvious response: the question isn't whether "standing up to evil" means offending anyone, ACLU lawyer or otherwise. The question is whether your description of "standing up to evil" requires the suspension of our rights as guaranteed by the constitution.
I'm curious how you think such an obsession with freedom (as the ACLU would request it) could lead to tyranny.
The chat is actually encrypted. If you gzip each comment, decrypt the result (56 bit encryption. Thank God for crypto export laws.), you'll see that they're actually exchanging compressed tcp/ip packets. They're using this IRC channel as a transport for their encrypted IRC session on another server, where they are coordinating their efforts to destroy Al Qaeda.
Um. Not hype. Structural problems. You're right. I just feel that those structural problems are due to idiotic investors. Companies were/are not sufficiently transparent for investors to see their structural problems. Greed lead executives to fraud in several companies. That's illegal, and it should be. Greed also leads large investors to accept an unnacceptable level of corporate transparency. That's not illegal, it's just stupid. And it's the way our markets are run. I'm just trying to say that I don't think our current problems aren't due to illegal behavior.
Some forms of autism make one not like to be around people. I wonder if I have some of that.
No. You don't. Talk to an autistic kid for a few minutes, and your wondering will be over. What you are describing is the way all people behave. I'm not quite sure why you think it's at all uncommon.
The logistics of how artists derive earnings from their work is really irrelevant. The earnings in the 70th year is not a motivator. They could earn more by investing at prime than by writing a better novel.
Melville's and Shakespeare's descendants wouldn't have made any money, because Melville and Shakespeare sold the rights to their work. Shakespeare's work, for example, was under a perpetual copyright for a while, and the money stayed with the publishers.
The present value of earnings that far in the future is very very low. So artists sell those future earnings. Dr. Suess & others like him are the incredible exception.
Of course, fraud is wrong. People who commit fraud should be punished. The current punishments for this sort of fraud may be too low.
But I do not believe that fraud caused our current economic problems. Dumbass investors did. Most of their mistakes were not the result of other people's fraud.
I don't really understand how you got to those questions from my post. I thought I was pretty clear.
The correct answer to this question is so straightforward that I don't understand why it keeps getting asked.
I get a benefit right now from the copyright on my works that last longer than my life: I can sell those rights, and buy myself lunch. Income for the survivors is a red herring. In one of the first attempts to extend copyright, many people pointed to the example of Dante's granddaughter. Due to a number of misfortunes, she was destitute. Shouldn't we extend copyright, so that this sort of travesty can never happen again?
Of course, Dante's works, at that time, were covered by a perpetual copyright. This just didn't help his granddaughter because he had sold those rights to a publisher. Copyrights that last longer than Dante's life helped Dante, not his heirs.
The reason that it's so disappointing when people ask this question is that it shows they aren't thinking nearly hard enough about the problem. Because there's still a hole in my argument, but if you haven't gotten that far, you'll never see it: The value of the 70th year of income from my copyright is worth almost nothing today. Sure, someone might pay a million dollars for rights to a Tom Clancy novel 70 years from now. But Tom Clancy could get that million dollars by investing $20,000 in treasury bonds. That's a tiny fraction of the current value of the copyright. That indicates to me that Clancy does not create anything in order to get those royalties.
First of all, no one blames our current economic situation on the big name fraud cases. You act as if Enron and Tyco are responsible for telco death and the dotcoms. Our current economic situation is a necessary result of the idiocy exhibited by every single investor. Enron and co. didn't help, but they're not the cause.
Also. Destroying a company is not illegal. Seriously. There are cases where destroying a company could be in the best interest of the shareholders. The only issue in this discussion is fraud. You are correct; the penalties for this sort of fraud may be too low. Keep it straight.
I'm still hesitant to accept that it's the government's job to keep people honest. It's the investor's job to not invest in companies that aren't completely transparent. In order to have a stable economy, investors are going to need to insist on a much higher standard than fraud. Just because someone isn't fraudulent doesn't mean they're a good investment. Our current problem can be blamed on investors. Simple.
And, as a side note, your example of completely unregulated markets (heroin and cocaine) are actually the most heavily regulated markets. Obviously. They are illegal. If they were unregulated, then you could make heroin and cocaine in your back yard, and there would be no black market, no traffickers, and no violence. That's the most worthless argument I've ever heard. You don't know any free markets because we don't live in a free market. That's why all the free market capitalists are so ornery.
Why the hell do you want a live TV stream on your cell phone? Is that what you thought cell-phone IP was for? My dad can surf the web/check email/etc on his laptop while he's sitting in the middle of san francisco bay because of his cellphone.
It's a regular modem, though. Every little improvement would help. Isn't laptop use the point of mobile internet?
Say what? In absolutely every regard, all of the changes discussed in this patch are for the single purpose of controlling access to content on my computer. If I do as little as a "chmod 600" on some of my bad poetry, that is intended to control access to a work. If someone tells you how to use a joystick driver to break into my computer, run arbitrary code, and thus read my poetry, they have violated the law under the DMCA. Tell me how I'm wrong.
You are exactly wrong. If I have copyrighted materials on my computer (and since copyright is automatic in the US, I do.) and then someone tells you how to break into my computer, they have violated the DMCA. The Linux kernel is an access control device. Everyone agrees. That's the law.
I guarantee you, we'd all be happy to keep politics out of software. Unfortunately, that's completely impossible with or without the DMCA. Copyright is sufficient to bring politics into the software.
Supposedly, it's not up to Redhat. The DMCA is about a criminal felony. If Redhat were able to decide who to prosecute for a criminal felony, then we would not all have equal protection under the law, and the DMCA would be unconstitutional.
That's why Adobe said, "Oh, nevermind. Skyalarov is fine with us." but the feds had to keep pressing. Perhaps they kept pressing just as a formality, but whatever.
You can make a transactional FS without journalling. You can make a journalling FS without transactions. That's all I'm saying.
And I was unclear: Mac OS X does not require many reboots at all. However, most of the times that I shut down my machine, it does a consistency check on boot. It shouldn't be dirty. Dunno what it's doing in there.
Dunno if you're trolling or not, but you'll have to explain how Nick DePlume and his site, Think Secret are less journalistic than any other website. I have yet to read a single thing on his site that wasn't completely accurate. He always explains exactly how well confirmed his news is.
The NYT recently posted an article suggesting that Apple was making a cellular telephone. Their only source was the fact that Jaguar's features seemed like they would nicely compliment a cell phone.
What has he ever done to betray his readers' trust? Defend your statement.
Journalling isn't about data integrity. Data integrity can be ensured in a number of different ways that all have different pros and cons.
Many of them work with journalling.
All that the bullet point "journalling" guarantees is that checking the file system takes less time. Really. That is all. Some good journalling FSs are also better at maintaining file system integrity. This is not because of their journalling nature. If you run a commercial website, you may desire journalling because you don't want your servers to spend 2 hours doing fsck after your power comes back.
Similarly, if all you do is play everquest and other games, you might crash often, and spend a lot of time doing filesystem integrity checks with a non-journalling file system. This'll be a big deal for Mac OS X users, just 'cause there are a number of non-crash situations where our FS dirty bit is set, so we have to wait during too many regular boots.
A troll is someone who says something only because they want to create a reaction. If someone says something that is guaranteed to create a reaction, that doesn't necessarily mean they're a troll. They might honestly feel that way. I hope you all get it in metamod.
Pauly isn't trolling. I find it pretty hard to imagine that they even made trolls back in the sub-400 user days at slashdot.
You might *disagree* with him. That's a great reason to *reply*, not mod down.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I'm kindof new to corporate America, but that just doesn't make any sense to me at all. At my place of employment, I listen to MP3s all day long. From my iPod. It's battery powered. I don't even need my company's electricity in order for it to work fine. If my company did something like a "clean desk policy" I'd be furious. That's totally different.
If I were to spend time during my workday actually collecting new mp3s, it'd detract a lot from the amount of work I do. Hell, I spend hours at a time organizing my mp3 collection. I don't see what I have to gain from corporate music sharing, let alone what my company has to gain from it.
There are many computer stores in my area that will sell me a computer with no OS on it. In fact, they outnumber the compusa/officedepot/etc chains. Their storefronts are much smaller, but there's one at every mall. That is a considerably higher penetration than compusa. They have names like "Ace's Computers" and they'll sell you exactly what you ask them for. To imply that most home users are somehow barred from using them is absurd. They deal with home users all day long, every day.
"MS tax" applies to businesses that have chosen to invest money in Microsoft products, and did not invest in alternatives. Now their costs would be way too high to switch, so Microsoft charges slightly less than that cost. This, of course, is nothing like a real tax. AC's comment was totally on point. Your comment was totally incorrect. Or, show how I'm wrong.
The point of better nuclear weapons simulation is determining whether or not our existing nukes will still function as designed, after they've gone through radioactive decay.
More computer nuke simulation -> less nuke tests.
Since we don't do tests anymore, if we do better nuke simulation, then we will need less redundancy in our weapons. We'll be able to dismantle more nukes.
More computer nuke simulation -> less real nukes.
As much as I hate the cowboy, he's done more to reduce the nuclear weapons capability of the US than any other president since the buildup began.
You are exactly right. God is a human computer user in the year 2743. He's trying to decide what to buy his girlfriend for her birthday, so he's decided to make a computational model of the universe so that he can check which gift is the one that's most likely to help him get lucky tonight.
He wants it to be accurate, so he's modeling every moment since the year 2001.
You've made a great point about how presumptive all religions are.
All of those acceptable countermeasures are legal already. They already poison P2P networks. That's kosher to me, so long as they don't violate any existing laws. And I'm anti-copyright. It's just inefficient, so they want to be able to DOS you. They already sue violators. That's kosher to me as well, but it is also inefficient. Any new legislation in this direction would be seriously upsetting. I don't even use P2P networks, and I don't use the internet to help me violate copyright. Nevertheless, I'm sure that such legislation would degrade my ability to use the internet for legitimate purposes.
Except that their use of the description "post modern" implies that they are refering to the art movement, not the date. They are two different things, both well defined. Somehow, I imagine that you knew that, and just chose to feign ignorance. That's annoying.
To suggest that we've already reached and breached the modern age of computation is awfully self-congratulatory. We've had computers for what, 65 years? When we've had computers for 1000 years, then I'd be comfortable suggesting that we had reached the age of "modern" programming. People say "postmodern" way way too easily.
Postmodern programming will begin *after* the first self aware computer chooses to program its own destruction. Then we can begin to discuss postmodernism and programming at the same time.
I hope this moderator doesn't get killed in metamod.
The post is interesting. Because the poster is out of his mind. I was curious if this whole sniper thing would drive some DC residents out of their minds.
The obvious response: the question isn't whether "standing up to evil" means offending anyone, ACLU lawyer or otherwise. The question is whether your description of "standing up to evil" requires the suspension of our rights as guaranteed by the constitution.
I'm curious how you think such an obsession with freedom (as the ACLU would request it) could lead to tyranny.
The chat is actually encrypted. If you gzip each comment, decrypt the result (56 bit encryption. Thank God for crypto export laws.), you'll see that they're actually exchanging compressed tcp/ip packets. They're using this IRC channel as a transport for their encrypted IRC session on another server, where they are coordinating their efforts to destroy Al Qaeda.
Um. Not hype. Structural problems. You're right. I just feel that those structural problems are due to idiotic investors. Companies were/are not sufficiently transparent for investors to see their structural problems. Greed lead executives to fraud in several companies. That's illegal, and it should be. Greed also leads large investors to accept an unnacceptable level of corporate transparency. That's not illegal, it's just stupid. And it's the way our markets are run. I'm just trying to say that I don't think our current problems aren't due to illegal behavior.
Some forms of autism make one not like to be around people. I wonder if I have some of that.
No. You don't. Talk to an autistic kid for a few minutes, and your wondering will be over. What you are describing is the way all people behave. I'm not quite sure why you think it's at all uncommon.
Yeah. Well. VCs and investment bankers are a much bigger problem than individuals. But that's still idiotic investors.
The logistics of how artists derive earnings from their work is really irrelevant. The earnings in the 70th year is not a motivator. They could earn more by investing at prime than by writing a better novel.
Melville's and Shakespeare's descendants wouldn't have made any money, because Melville and Shakespeare sold the rights to their work. Shakespeare's work, for example, was under a perpetual copyright for a while, and the money stayed with the publishers.
The present value of earnings that far in the future is very very low. So artists sell those future earnings. Dr. Suess & others like him are the incredible exception.
Of course, fraud is wrong. People who commit fraud should be punished. The current punishments for this sort of fraud may be too low.
But I do not believe that fraud caused our current economic problems. Dumbass investors did. Most of their mistakes were not the result of other people's fraud.
I don't really understand how you got to those questions from my post. I thought I was pretty clear.
The correct answer to this question is so straightforward that I don't understand why it keeps getting asked.
I get a benefit right now from the copyright on my works that last longer than my life: I can sell those rights, and buy myself lunch. Income for the survivors is a red herring. In one of the first attempts to extend copyright, many people pointed to the example of Dante's granddaughter. Due to a number of misfortunes, she was destitute. Shouldn't we extend copyright, so that this sort of travesty can never happen again?
Of course, Dante's works, at that time, were covered by a perpetual copyright. This just didn't help his granddaughter because he had sold those rights to a publisher. Copyrights that last longer than Dante's life helped Dante, not his heirs.
The reason that it's so disappointing when people ask this question is that it shows they aren't thinking nearly hard enough about the problem. Because there's still a hole in my argument, but if you haven't gotten that far, you'll never see it: The value of the 70th year of income from my copyright is worth almost nothing today. Sure, someone might pay a million dollars for rights to a Tom Clancy novel 70 years from now. But Tom Clancy could get that million dollars by investing $20,000 in treasury bonds. That's a tiny fraction of the current value of the copyright. That indicates to me that Clancy does not create anything in order to get those royalties.
I have bricks that are more insightful.
First of all, no one blames our current economic situation on the big name fraud cases. You act as if Enron and Tyco are responsible for telco death and the dotcoms. Our current economic situation is a necessary result of the idiocy exhibited by every single investor. Enron and co. didn't help, but they're not the cause.
Also. Destroying a company is not illegal. Seriously. There are cases where destroying a company could be in the best interest of the shareholders. The only issue in this discussion is fraud. You are correct; the penalties for this sort of fraud may be too low. Keep it straight.
I'm still hesitant to accept that it's the government's job to keep people honest. It's the investor's job to not invest in companies that aren't completely transparent. In order to have a stable economy, investors are going to need to insist on a much higher standard than fraud. Just because someone isn't fraudulent doesn't mean they're a good investment. Our current problem can be blamed on investors. Simple.
And, as a side note, your example of completely unregulated markets (heroin and cocaine) are actually the most heavily regulated markets. Obviously. They are illegal. If they were unregulated, then you could make heroin and cocaine in your back yard, and there would be no black market, no traffickers, and no violence. That's the most worthless argument I've ever heard. You don't know any free markets because we don't live in a free market. That's why all the free market capitalists are so ornery.
Why the hell do you want a live TV stream on your cell phone? Is that what you thought cell-phone IP was for? My dad can surf the web/check email/etc on his laptop while he's sitting in the middle of san francisco bay because of his cellphone.
It's a regular modem, though. Every little improvement would help. Isn't laptop use the point of mobile internet?
Say what? In absolutely every regard, all of the changes discussed in this patch are for the single purpose of controlling access to content on my computer. If I do as little as a "chmod 600" on some of my bad poetry, that is intended to control access to a work. If someone tells you how to use a joystick driver to break into my computer, run arbitrary code, and thus read my poetry, they have violated the law under the DMCA. Tell me how I'm wrong.
You are exactly wrong. If I have copyrighted materials on my computer (and since copyright is automatic in the US, I do.) and then someone tells you how to break into my computer, they have violated the DMCA. The Linux kernel is an access control device. Everyone agrees. That's the law.
I guarantee you, we'd all be happy to keep politics out of software. Unfortunately, that's completely impossible with or without the DMCA. Copyright is sufficient to bring politics into the software.
Supposedly, it's not up to Redhat. The DMCA is about a criminal felony. If Redhat were able to decide who to prosecute for a criminal felony, then we would not all have equal protection under the law, and the DMCA would be unconstitutional.
That's why Adobe said, "Oh, nevermind. Skyalarov is fine with us." but the feds had to keep pressing. Perhaps they kept pressing just as a formality, but whatever.
You can make a transactional FS without journalling. You can make a journalling FS without transactions. That's all I'm saying.
And I was unclear: Mac OS X does not require many reboots at all. However, most of the times that I shut down my machine, it does a consistency check on boot. It shouldn't be dirty. Dunno what it's doing in there.
Dunno if you're trolling or not, but you'll have to explain how Nick DePlume and his site, Think Secret are less journalistic than any other website. I have yet to read a single thing on his site that wasn't completely accurate. He always explains exactly how well confirmed his news is.
The NYT recently posted an article suggesting that Apple was making a cellular telephone. Their only source was the fact that Jaguar's features seemed like they would nicely compliment a cell phone.
What has he ever done to betray his readers' trust? Defend your statement.
Journalling isn't about data integrity. Data integrity can be ensured in a number of different ways that all have different pros and cons.
Many of them work with journalling.
All that the bullet point "journalling" guarantees is that checking the file system takes less time. Really. That is all. Some good journalling FSs are also better at maintaining file system integrity. This is not because of their journalling nature. If you run a commercial website, you may desire journalling because you don't want your servers to spend 2 hours doing fsck after your power comes back.
Similarly, if all you do is play everquest and other games, you might crash often, and spend a lot of time doing filesystem integrity checks with a non-journalling file system. This'll be a big deal for Mac OS X users, just 'cause there are a number of non-crash situations where our FS dirty bit is set, so we have to wait during too many regular boots.
Oh, come on, moderators.
A troll is someone who says something only because they want to create a reaction. If someone says something that is guaranteed to create a reaction, that doesn't necessarily mean they're a troll. They might honestly feel that way. I hope you all get it in metamod.
Pauly isn't trolling. I find it pretty hard to imagine that they even made trolls back in the sub-400 user days at slashdot.
You might *disagree* with him. That's a great reason to *reply*, not mod down.