Re:Openness is the first casualty of going public?
on
How does Google do it?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but why couldn't the response simple be something like. We believe we currently have the computing capacity to handle Y many hits per second. It is evenly distributed in X locations with the destruction of i of those facilities leaving us with X/i percent of Y many hits. We can add additional hardware at $Z/10000 hits.
Nothing in the information you asked for, other than the peak load they can handle, requires them to answer how many machines, what each machine can do etc..
How do they know this doesn't just show people are dirty lying bastards. I'd give up a random string of charachters I made up on the spot for a bar of chocolate!
Making software companies expouse their source code and eventually contribute it to the public domain would be a wonderfull change. It would both increase productivity and give us as individuals more control over our enviornment.
Of course many people would object that such regulation is invasive government intrustion into private buisness. There is a simple answer to this, make the copyright system work like the patent system. You may invent something and not tell anyone about it, however, if you want patent protection you must register your advancement and thus help all civilization. Make a similar rule for copyright. You must openly disclose your code if you want any copyright protection. This is no more government intrusion than exists now.
I have been in favor of this idea for sometime...although I am somewhat doubtfull if it will ever be enacted.
Apparently you know that the common usage of 'simple' or 'obviously' is "straightforward to a expert in that area" so why would it bother you.
These kinds of complaints are like L.A. banning using the term 'master/slave' wherein common usage is demanded to change because a few people are offended.
The loss of productivity and the sheer annoyance of changing our words so that some people who *delibrately* misinterpret the words (after all since you are complaining about it I can only assume you know that people aren't really using 'obvious' to mean 'obvious') can feel better outweight any benefit in terms of hurt feelings.
Actually it was my understanding that it was still illegal to melt down coins to redeem the base metals. I was under the impression that the metals in the penny are more valuable then the penny, but I may be mistaken.
Not true!! If the developer is not willing to liscensce their product patent law will force them to liscensce at something resembeling a reasonable price.
I think there is an important difference here. The private institution is NOT making money off of the students creative work. They are only making money off of having a DATABASE of student works. All the value is contained in the assembely of the information, nothing of the students is truly being used for a profit.
If information wants to be free then companies like this should be able to do there thing. If you believe in the advantageous of free and open information you have to be willing to accept things like this. If you don't like the profit motive start your own non-profit site that does this.
Okay, so there might be some interferance to ham radio or other radio sources. Sure, we would have to make sure that emergency radio services if affected were moved. Other than this so what?
Which is more important the 10,000 people who want to use ham radio to talk with truckers in wisconsin or highspeed access to the worldwide network? Protecting Ham Radio for interference is like holding up progress for the people who still watch black and white TVs.
Nearly everyone is connected to the internet now. We have portable internet devices that could be lugged around instead of Ham Radio. If people are really that nostalgic for radio I'm sure someone could put together an IRC type app for voice communication with simulated static etc.. etc..
I can't believe we would hold up such an important service for millions for a few hobbyists!
Now I'm usually a big supporter of personal rights and so forth but I simply can't see how this inconvieniences anyone let alone violates their rights.
First of all anytime you hand in a paper it is implicit that you give up certain rights to that paper. For instance, I don't think anyone would claim a prof. shouldn't be allowed to keep a copy of all papers turned in to later compare for plagerism. How is this really any different?
So what if a prof keeps a copy of every paper turned in to him and then highers a grad student to check new papers against the stack of old papers. In this case someone is clearly making money off of the papers (the grad student) but I still don't see any evidence of a rights violation.
Would it suddenly be a violation of rights if the department or the university maintained a file of all papers instead of the prof. I can't see a problem here, in fact I think many departments do engage in this sort of policy. Would creating a seperate administrative unit in the university which pays grad students to compare papers suddenly make this a violation of rights. If the university makes agreements with other universities to merge their plagerism checking effors is this a problem?
It seems all that has happened here is that the prof/university has subcontracted out the process of checking for plagerism (or at least the first check). I don't see any difference between contracting with a company or paying a graduate student.
Of course to be fair the company which detects plagirism should be prohibeted from using the papers in any other manner (selling them etc.. etc..). However, whether or not they actually include this guarantee in their user agreement practically this shouldn't be an issue. After all who would want a term paper you know is entered into an anti-cheating database?
No they didn't!! They had small amounts of nuclear fuel that produced some heat...nothing like a full scale nuclear reactor capable of going critical, neading control rods and all that crap.
As I understand they all used such a small amount of radioactive fuel (enough to be a big battery not a propulsion source) that if they exploded in the atmosphere it would be hardly harmfull at all.
This issue of eBOOK compatibility seems to be a red hearing to me. I purchase ebooks for my palm devices (now a treo 600) fairly regularly and only once have I run into a book I wanted that was not availible in a compatible format (and the contents of that book...short stories..were availible in a compatible version).
Not only do most books come in multiple formats so do most readers on mobile devices (no one is going to read an ebook on their PC...well some freak on slashdot might but except for computer related manuals it just isn't as practical or enjoyable as with something mobile). Furthermore many readers are distributed freely. I simply can't see how this is blocking sales.
Also almost every ebook currently on the market doesn't use many complicated formatting options requiring any innovative format. This isn't do to lack of a standart but because most normal books don't contain many illustrations and palm pilot devices are the best for pictoral information.
Still, I do support the attempt at a universal open format. However, as the stated goal of eBOOK formats is to *prevent* copying I won't be able to share ebooks with a friend anyway so it is at most a minor convience.
The problem is that even if they did have a legitamate claim their claim can't really cover what they are trying to do in any reasonable manner. They never even claim that any significant fraction of linux is built on infringing technology.
Suppose I had invented the computer with only a little help from an assistant (who perhaps now was dead). Then someone comes along and says that in some little piece of technology (say in the punch card reader mechanism..but I don't know this) my assistant had accidently copied it from them. Undoubtedly, if I knew what piece of technology was infringing I could easily engineer another solution. However, they won't tell me and demand royalties on every computer sold.
This goes beyond the pale even of using ridiculously overbroad patents to sue for money.
So we can get evil spying technology but we still don't get GPS capability with our new cell phones. Fucking wonderful.
So I just got a new treo 600 and like all new cell phones it has e911. This means it has a GPS reciever and all that shit in it, however, like most new cell phones it lacks the code or chip to do the GPS processing. If you can now get commercial spying services why the hell can't they enable a GPS service without an expansion card.
Seriously though this is a somewhat worrying trend. Not so much because of the lose of privacy, although that isn't good but because of the *differential* loss in privacy. I think it was David Brin who commented that this was the real problem and while I don't know his reasons I agree with him. If corporate execs were as likely to have their minor transgressions traced as teenagers we would learn to forgive these transgression that have happened since the begining of time. As it is we will once again blame it on the moral failings of the youth.
Ironically it seems that it is our concern for privacy that will cause the problems. We will only let surveilance happen in certain specialized areas, those areas that "morally good upright" citizens won't be in. It will be okay to surveill only those people who regularly come within some many feet of a known drug hangout...but not a buisnessman who buys his coke from a friend at work.
So the reason this is sooo hard to explain and the RIAA has a head start in this matter is so many people like yourself confuse illegal and immoral. Is it indeed ILLEGAL to download music files you don't own from the internet...however this does not imply immoral or even theft.
Rather then having a long debate about the origins or morality I propose the following as a reasonable principle people should be willing to agree on. Theft (or at least the immorall part of theft) is parasiting on others work to other people's disadvantage and your own advantage. In other words the real theft going on is the people who block (for nothing more than their own greed) progress etc.. etc..
For instance a government that (perfectly legally) taxed the people and then used that money merely for the enjoyment of the ruling class would be stealing!!
So why is the RIAA engaging in this sort of theft? Well, simply the following. It is perfectly possible for MORE people to enjoy the music while the artists (who really do the work in creating it) get MORE money as well. The RIAA is blocking this situation.
Simply put if music was availible on the internet and paid for in some manner where all the profits went to the authors (personally I favor a national tax with the moneys being reimbursed to artists in proportion both to people's rating of usefullness of the material to them and popularity...like canada and england's library reimbursment) things would be better. Even in the less desierable situation where music cost $1 for every CD worth of songs (rather than per song like in iTUNES) authors would be much better off. In other words the classical distribution system where 90% of all costs come from the physical printing, distribution middlemen etc.. is obsolete.
If this situation makes economic sense for everyone involved why don't we have it? After all isn't this what capitalism is about?
BECAUSE, the RIAA with the entrenched power of hoardes of copyrights (which they obtained through obscene monopoly style power...which is another reason to hate them) is resisting this change. The RIAA ONLY makes money from distribution, if normal distribution deals fall through for mp3.com models or other things they are screwed. The only reason the RIAA makes a few motions towards internet distribution is BECAUSE of people like us using the internet to pirate songs and they know if they don't do at least a half-assed measure they will be cut out of the loop entierly.
In short the RIAA is attempting to use copyright law, monopoly power over the artists and other unsavory tactics to UNNECESARILY tax the consumers and producers of music, i.e., to insert itself in the distribution system where it is no longer needed. They are the ones who are stealing.
IF the abstractness of this argument bothers you consider this. The RIAA is advocating a system which deprives poor children of music, educational opportunities etc.. etc.. because they haven't purchased them. A civilized society, realizing that these people couldn't have bought them in the first place, would devise a system allowing the have nots to use IP...after all it hurts no one and helps some.
Yes, it can be hard to see the evil of the RIAA, both because in a system based on the ownership of physical property it is easy to forget that IP really isn't property in the sense land, computers etc.. etc.. are property. Also many of the people on our side just want free music. I would be happy to pay a tax in return for unlimited information access (which in turn would spure more intellectual content creation...what copyright was supposed to do in the first place).
I realize this space isn't quite big enough to give a really detailed argument, anyone wishing to continue this conversation can email me.
Asking for sealed procedings is unfortunatly an all to common move in american justice nowdays, especially in divorce trials. The misapplication of this power is particularlably worrisome because it strikes at the heart of our open system of justice. If the people cannot see the miscarridge of justice they can't correct it.
While I doubt SCO is particularly worried about (by themselves) rousing congress to a leglislative remedy for computer copyright law (though they could be part of a larger trend that does so) they are worried about too many public eyes.
Look at how effective publicity and the internet have been in finding examples of prior art in software patent cases. Asking for closed procedings forces IBM to track down every potential witness individually by themselves. No doubt SCO is hoping that with an open source product with developers spread across the globe IBM won't be able to find the relevant people if they can't publisize their claim.
So how often have you guys seen other companies press releases that get the technical facts disastorously wrong? Why would SCO be any different? More than likely the message got screwed up by the time it made it to the press release.
Think about it, first of all SCO has no motive to engage in any kind of DoS attack against themselves. Even if this attack would reflect badly on the open source community (instead of making them look like robin hood) SCOs fate rests entierly at trial. Moreover IF SCO had decided to lie about an attack they wouldn't have made it a *succesfull* attack. They would have just issued a press release saying they were the target of a DDoS but their software/whatever prevented any damage. Even disregarding this if this was a hoax of their own making why would it last so long.
At the end of the day SCO still wants the software it is running to seem technically good. After all if no one is using linux who pays royalties? Faking this kind of attack is simply against their interest.
Could it have been an ordinary fuck-up that they claim was a DDoS? Well certainly, however given the fact that other systems on their net were working fine I find it tough to swallow the sysadmins couldn't just switch to another server (unless they were protesting SCOs legal attacks).
So while it is a *possibility* that SCO just had a network glitch we have no more reason to believe they are lying about the DDoS than when any other company claims to be such a victim. In fact as SCO is more likely to be such a victim (given the anger it has stirred up) their claim of a DDoS is even more reasonable than that of a generic company.
Is it not emminently more reasonable that some non-tech PR person screwed up on the technical details rather than some sort of convoluted conspiracy. It's far more believable that Johnson killed Kennedy than this crap
Yes, in fact I often find 3,000 deaths funny. Things simply are or are not funny regardless of their moral ramifications. It makes about as much sense to say "a sentece describing 3,000 deaths is not funny because it is so horrific" as it does to say "a sentence describing 3,000 deaths does not have 10 words because it is so horrific."
Sure there are sometimes when (out of respect, politeness etc..) you don't acknowledge or act on the humor of the situation. Laughing at most funerals is in bad taste (though when I die I want strippers at my wake!!). This does not change the underlying question of humor however.
Now personally I didn't find the comment very funny. Not for talking about 3,000 dead (hell there are plenty of jokes that involve much more horrific things) but just because it wasn't funny. However, the same dangerous impulse that tells people not to joke about things ends up telling people to censor their views.
The point being that to work Quantum crypto requires that extra step of comparing results with the other party, i.e. some sort of communication method which, while possible tapable is at least guaranteed to actually contain a response from the party you wish to speak to.
Simple explanation: without some sort of predistrubuted secret or known communication channel (not necessarily secure but guaranteed to not allow a blocker to impersonate the other party) you have no means of knowing WHOSE quantum crypto box you are talking too.
So even if this is really workable quantum cryptography, in which case it would only work on a direct fiber to fiber link. I don't see how it would give any benefit.
From a technical point of view Quantum cryptography is only secure against man in the middle attacks if you have a SEPERATE channell to the remote host that you are absolutely sure in fact goes to the right person. As long as all communication goes over the fiber nothing prevents a spy from splicing his own box into the line and negotiating a key using quantum cryptography for both parties. However, if you have some channell that you know reaches the other source you can just use Diffie-Helman or like protocal to negotiate a shared key without ever broadcasting it on the line.
The only think quantum cryptography does for you is take the public key component out of the equation. However from reading the article this box just uses quantum encryption to negotiate a key for 3-DES or similar. Seems to me that the public key is not the weakest link in the system. Also as it does packet based encryption you can still watch and time packets to observe keystrokes (I believe good ssh and the like programs wait for several seconds to try and send a bunch of keystrokes together, but a box that sits outside the computer can't decode the first layer of encryption to stick the packets together in a meaningfull way...though I could be wrong on this).
From a pragmatic point of view, since this is only going to work on an unbroken single fiber there is some limit to distance here. I'm sure someone else on slashdot knows about how long you can string fiber before you need a repeater or something. Wouldn't it be easier to just routinely check to make sure there is no middle man inserted in the wire (use diffie-helman or similar again so that someone JUST listening can't decode things). Even better, take a key generated on the first computer BY HAND to the other end of the communications loop. Better cheaper security with no new high tech gizmos.
Go up a couple posts there is a fairly involved discussion of this. In short it isn't clear if E is neurotoxic at the doses moderate users consume in. However, at high doses the evidence for neurotoxicity is fairly strong. For instance look at the post about the guy doing 8-12 pills a week. Ancedotally it is very common to see serious problems in people doing crazy amounts.
Also "loss of magic" is precisely this effect. It isn't a myth it really happens to some people.
Ohh and meth is clearly a neurotoxin in vitro (i.e. it will actually cause cells to die in a test tube unlike MDMA which seems to only have effect via one of its metabolites making MDMA neurotoxicity more controversial then meth neuroxot). Now at what dosage level this occurs at in humans isn't clear. However, there are meth addicts IVing something like half a gram at one point and that I thought was in the neurotoxic range.
Hell you don't have to convince me! I am perfectly content using in small doses but I was just pointing out it is very differnt than something like heroin. It is more like alcohol (which is known to cause brain damage as well) and unless consumed in moderation will screw you over. Opiates on the other hand can actually be consumed constantly in an increasing dosage spiral and as long as you have no ODs no permanent brain damage will occur.
No certainly not agreeing with me does not mean you haven't thought about it. Rather that comment and most of the comments were not designed to address the general question of why are we better off without a drug war but rather the specific arguments of the prior poster.
This is the reason everyone is pointing out that large company meth labs don't blow up. The original poster was using the explosiveness of underground meth labs as an argument against legalization. This is why I accused him of being stupid because he is assuming that a legal drug market works *exactly* the same way an illicit market works its just larger. Your arguments are better stated and a little more convincing.
However, I still disagree with them. For instance the question about companies making drugs. Both the UK and the netherlands are now giving heroin to heroin addicts. The heroin they buy is almost certainly provided by a private company which is making a profit to manufacture the stuff. This is strong real evidence that companies would in fact engage in these type of actions.
I mean hell what is a cartel but an illegal company. If you can find thousands of employees to engage in an illegal operation why couldn't you incorporate a legal one?
Ohh and my argument above was essentially that these drugs produce no physical damage not that they had no delitorous effects at all. Some drugs have much less harmful effects than others (and this would be a large benifit from legalization...the hoped for substitution of more damaging drugs with less damaging drugs).
As for the "high on the job" issue. First of all it isn't clear why this is going to be more of an issue with drug use than it would be for alcohol. Many of these hard drugs actually impair performance far less than alcohol. I would rather be driving with someone while they speedballed than while they were drunk...alcohol is absolutely amazing in its ability to impair people so why this cost would increase isn't clear. Also alot of the drug testing that goes on now is really gratuitous and not actually benificial. Blockbuster drug tests not because pot smoking clerks are really hurting their bottom line but because the owner is a religious nut case.
I also disagree with your claim that they can't pass as sober to others for a long period of time. On some drugs this is of course true...however the long term opiate addicts seem to be able to pass quite well. I mean methadone maintence (which is just always keeping them high on methadone...another opiate) is considered an appropriate rehabilitation therapy. Long ter marijuanna smokers certainly experience some noticeable effects (decreased short term memory etc..these all go away once they are abstinent) however unless you actually compare their behavior they can pass for sober. It is those damn tied die shirts and greatefull dead memorabilia which gives them away.
Yes perhaps we would suffer a loss in productivity as a result. I simply fail to see why this is really relevant. I doubt that the happiness of americans is really dependent on owning several TVs rather than one. We have long since passed the point where increased productivity is particularly usefull for keeping us alive it gets us more shit. This is small potatoes compared to keeping even a small number of people in jail.
Finally about the people in the shelter a couple points. First you need to distinguish cause and effect. Many of these people are drug addicts BECAUSE they can't maintain healthy interpersonal relationships etc. Moreover, a homeless shelter in no way reflects an unbiased sample...I mean you are guaranteeing you only find people with big problems. Drug use amoung investment bankers is particularly rampant but how many of them are at your homeless shelter (probably a few who used all their money on drugs...but I will talk about this in a second).
Opiates are a particularly good example drug to use. Both because it is one of the few with which we have experience with long term recreational usage (think of Coleridge and the other high functioning opiate addicts of that time) and long term medical usage so we have a good idea what its long term effects are. In addition it is not particularly physically toxic (nor cause neurotoxicity...I can substantiate that as well but I don't have the source on me) and can often be substituted for the other drugs (you can usually take away someones amphetamines and make them an opiate addict) and opiates are very cheap.
This is the second issue with deystroying lives I wanted to mention. Our experience with opiates suggests that the adicts can often maintain usefull jobs "opiate users will complete operant work requirements for their fix." The biggest delitorous factor screwing them over is probably the constant need to go score more drugs as well as the extreme cost. This is precisely why prescribing heroin to heroin addicts is now being seen as a usefull treatment option in the UK. It is not the essential nature of drug use that is causing problems but the huge monetary drain and the necessity to go to illicit dealers for the fix which is deystroying the addicts lives.
I would love to continue this conversation with you. I certainly do believe we have a moral obligation to stop evil and promote good however this doesn't mean we need to "do something." The impulse to say this is so terrible we should *do something* about it produces some of the worst changes in policy (thing of megan's law with registering sex offenders but no evidence that it actually reduces the number of offenses significantly). The situation with drug abuse is similar to when your friend starts dating someone you know is bad for them.
Sure you have a moral obligation to try and convince them they are hurting themselves. However, it would be far worse if you somehow forcibly broke them up then if you just accepted the shittiness of the world and realized there is nothing you can do. As I see it the role of the government in this situation is similar. Distribute accurate information of the harms of these drugs (no one believes DARE as it is obvious they actually lie...one puff of MJ will not screw over your life). Perhaps prevent flashy TV commercials for cocaine like they have for beer. Unfortunatly, if someone is undeterable in their quest to harm themselves you can't stop them except by inflicting even greater harm.
Also in my personal opinion they should be trying to make safer drugs that make people feel even better. We have no problem putting people on prozac to make them feel slightly happier...why can't the government develop a drug which is as safe to take long term as prozac but makes the user feel really fucking good? Ultimately this is the underlying problem...not that people become drug addicts but that they aren't happy enough with their lives that drug use seems like the appropriate solution.
Yes it does involve volatile compounds. However what I was trying to suggest is that while these compounds might be more dangerous than those we normally encounter in the home enviornment they are not particularly dangerous compared to normal lab reactants.
I have had to use HF in college lab...far more dangerous in my opinion than anything in meth production. However, unlike meth production this was done in a controlled enviornment with proper safety precautions, fume hoods etc.
In short I was suggesting that the danger of the compounds used in meth production probably doesn't exced the danger of coumponds regularly used in chemical plants. Therefore if meth was being produced by pharms we would not see a harm of increased explosions.
The indian bhemical spill (is this Bhopal?) is a good example that chemical plants are already dealing with much more toxic chemicals.
You claimed, not that all drugs produce addiction and tolerance, but that they all prduce physical damage! I fail to see how rebound headaches nor addiction constitute physical damage. I NEVER made the claim that opiates were not addictive (this is patently false) I only wished to point out they..administered in a carefully controlled setting are not physically toxic.
While it isn't true that anything administered in a medical setting isn't toxic. Some drugs really do have unavoidable toxicity to various organs associated with their use this really supports my argument. Yes ON THE STREET these drugs are causing harm but it is not an essential problem with the drug abuse but rather the routes of administration, overdoses etc.. Thus one would expect less harm to occur when they are made legally availible.
As for LSD check out on medline:
"Do Hallucinagens cause resdiual neurophysiological toxicity"
I agree ecstasy (an amphetamine) causes physical harm to the body I don't understand how this is relevant.
Certainly panic reactions sustained by LSD does not count as physical damage. I mean the page (to the extent to which usdoj is unbiased) is essentially only claiming that they have a trmatic experience which causes later anxiety. No claim is made about physical toxicity.
I am not going to continue this argument as you insistantly refuse to recognize the essential nature of my claim is NOT drugs are good but that the harm accrued from increased drug use is SMALL next to the harm incurred from the drug war.
We KNOW that millions of people who would not otherwise be in actual physical slavery (i.e. jail) would not be there in the abscence of the drug war. We KNOW that many of the delitorous consequences are a result of impurity, poor quality control education etc.. You have not given one iota of evidence that the harm caused by increase usage in the abscence of the drug war is worse than this. As the COMPARATIVE harms are the only thing a utilitarian (and in fact anyone) should be interested in you simply arent making an argument that the drug war should be continued.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but why couldn't the response simple be something like. We believe we currently have the computing capacity to handle Y many hits per second. It is evenly distributed in X locations with the destruction of i of those facilities leaving us with X/i percent of Y many hits. We can add additional hardware at $Z/10000 hits.
Nothing in the information you asked for, other than the peak load they can handle, requires them to answer how many machines, what each machine can do etc..
How do they know this doesn't just show people are dirty lying bastards. I'd give up a random string of charachters I made up on the spot for a bar of chocolate!
Making software companies expouse their source code and eventually contribute it to the public domain would be a wonderfull change. It would both increase productivity and give us as individuals more control over our enviornment.
Of course many people would object that such regulation is invasive government intrustion into private buisness. There is a simple answer to this, make the copyright system work like the patent system. You may invent something and not tell anyone about it, however, if you want patent protection you must register your advancement and thus help all civilization. Make a similar rule for copyright. You must openly disclose your code if you want any copyright protection. This is no more government intrusion than exists now.
I have been in favor of this idea for sometime...although I am somewhat doubtfull if it will ever be enacted.
Is this a codeword to say that SP2 won't let me rip CDs?
It seems like this is your problem not theirs.
Apparently you know that the common usage of 'simple' or 'obviously' is "straightforward to a expert in that area" so why would it bother you.
These kinds of complaints are like L.A. banning using the term 'master/slave' wherein common usage is demanded to change because a few people are offended.
The loss of productivity and the sheer annoyance of changing our words so that some people who *delibrately* misinterpret the words (after all since you are complaining about it I can only assume you know that people aren't really using 'obvious' to mean 'obvious') can feel better outweight any benefit in terms of hurt feelings.
Actually it was my understanding that it was still illegal to melt down coins to redeem the base metals. I was under the impression that the metals in the penny are more valuable then the penny, but I may be mistaken.
Not true!! If the developer is not willing to liscensce their product patent law will force them to liscensce at something resembeling a reasonable price.
And how exactly do you plan to hide where a naval battle group is docked?
I think there is an important difference here. The private institution is NOT making money off of the students creative work. They are only making money off of having a DATABASE of student works. All the value is contained in the assembely of the information, nothing of the students is truly being used for a profit.
If information wants to be free then companies like this should be able to do there thing. If you believe in the advantageous of free and open information you have to be willing to accept things like this. If you don't like the profit motive start your own non-profit site that does this.
Okay, so there might be some interferance to ham radio or other radio sources. Sure, we would have to make sure that emergency radio services if affected were moved. Other than this so what?
Which is more important the 10,000 people who want to use ham radio to talk with truckers in wisconsin or highspeed access to the worldwide network? Protecting Ham Radio for interference is like holding up progress for the people who still watch black and white TVs.
Nearly everyone is connected to the internet now. We have portable internet devices that could be lugged around instead of Ham Radio. If people are really that nostalgic for radio I'm sure someone could put together an IRC type app for voice communication with simulated static etc.. etc..
I can't believe we would hold up such an important service for millions for a few hobbyists!
Now I'm usually a big supporter of personal rights and so forth but I simply can't see how this inconvieniences anyone let alone violates their rights.
First of all anytime you hand in a paper it is implicit that you give up certain rights to that paper. For instance, I don't think anyone would claim a prof. shouldn't be allowed to keep a copy of all papers turned in to later compare for plagerism. How is this really any different?
So what if a prof keeps a copy of every paper turned in to him and then highers a grad student to check new papers against the stack of old papers. In this case someone is clearly making money off of the papers (the grad student) but I still don't see any evidence of a rights violation.
Would it suddenly be a violation of rights if the department or the university maintained a file of all papers instead of the prof. I can't see a problem here, in fact I think many departments do engage in this sort of policy. Would creating a seperate administrative unit in the university which pays grad students to compare papers suddenly make this a violation of rights. If the university makes agreements with other universities to merge their plagerism checking effors is this a problem?
It seems all that has happened here is that the prof/university has subcontracted out the process of checking for plagerism (or at least the first check). I don't see any difference between contracting with a company or paying a graduate student.
Of course to be fair the company which detects plagirism should be prohibeted from using the papers in any other manner (selling them etc.. etc..). However, whether or not they actually include this guarantee in their user agreement practically this shouldn't be an issue. After all who would want a term paper you know is entered into an anti-cheating database?
No they didn't!! They had small amounts of nuclear fuel that produced some heat...nothing like a full scale nuclear reactor capable of going critical, neading control rods and all that crap.
As I understand they all used such a small amount of radioactive fuel (enough to be a big battery not a propulsion source) that if they exploded in the atmosphere it would be hardly harmfull at all.
This issue of eBOOK compatibility seems to be a red hearing to me. I purchase ebooks for my palm devices (now a treo 600) fairly regularly and only once have I run into a book I wanted that was not availible in a compatible format (and the contents of that book...short stories..were availible in a compatible version).
Not only do most books come in multiple formats so do most readers on mobile devices (no one is going to read an ebook on their PC...well some freak on slashdot might but except for computer related manuals it just isn't as practical or enjoyable as with something mobile). Furthermore many readers are distributed freely. I simply can't see how this is blocking sales.
Also almost every ebook currently on the market doesn't use many complicated formatting options requiring any innovative format. This isn't do to lack of a standart but because most normal books don't contain many illustrations and palm pilot devices are the best for pictoral information.
Still, I do support the attempt at a universal open format. However, as the stated goal of eBOOK formats is to *prevent* copying I won't be able to share ebooks with a friend anyway so it is at most a minor convience.
Why am I bothering...I don't know.
The problem is that even if they did have a legitamate claim their claim can't really cover what they are trying to do in any reasonable manner. They never even claim that any significant fraction of linux is built on infringing technology.
Suppose I had invented the computer with only a little help from an assistant (who perhaps now was dead). Then someone comes along and says that in some little piece of technology (say in the punch card reader mechanism..but I don't know this) my assistant had accidently copied it from them. Undoubtedly, if I knew what piece of technology was infringing I could easily engineer another solution. However, they won't tell me and demand royalties on every computer sold.
This goes beyond the pale even of using ridiculously overbroad patents to sue for money.
So we can get evil spying technology but we still don't get GPS capability with our new cell phones. Fucking wonderful.
So I just got a new treo 600 and like all new cell phones it has e911. This means it has a GPS reciever and all that shit in it, however, like most new cell phones it lacks the code or chip to do the GPS processing. If you can now get commercial spying services why the hell can't they enable a GPS service without an expansion card.
Seriously though this is a somewhat worrying trend. Not so much because of the lose of privacy, although that isn't good but because of the *differential* loss in privacy. I think it was David Brin who commented that this was the real problem and while I don't know his reasons I agree with him. If corporate execs were as likely to have their minor transgressions traced as teenagers we would learn to forgive these transgression that have happened since the begining of time. As it is we will once again blame it on the moral failings of the youth.
Ironically it seems that it is our concern for privacy that will cause the problems. We will only let surveilance happen in certain specialized areas, those areas that "morally good upright" citizens won't be in. It will be okay to surveill only those people who regularly come within some many feet of a known drug hangout...but not a buisnessman who buys his coke from a friend at work.
So the reason this is sooo hard to explain and the RIAA has a head start in this matter is so many people like yourself confuse illegal and immoral. Is it indeed ILLEGAL to download music files you don't own from the internet...however this does not imply immoral or even theft.
Rather then having a long debate about the origins or morality I propose the following as a reasonable principle people should be willing to agree on. Theft (or at least the immorall part of theft) is parasiting on others work to other people's disadvantage and your own advantage. In other words the real theft going on is the people who block (for nothing more than their own greed) progress etc.. etc..
For instance a government that (perfectly legally) taxed the people and then used that money merely for the enjoyment of the ruling class would be stealing!!
So why is the RIAA engaging in this sort of theft? Well, simply the following. It is perfectly possible for MORE people to enjoy the music while the artists (who really do the work in creating it) get MORE money as well. The RIAA is blocking this situation.
Simply put if music was availible on the internet and paid for in some manner where all the profits went to the authors (personally I favor a national tax with the moneys being reimbursed to artists in proportion both to people's rating of usefullness of the material to them and popularity...like canada and england's library reimbursment) things would be better. Even in the less desierable situation where music cost $1 for every CD worth of songs (rather than per song like in iTUNES) authors would be much better off. In other words the classical distribution system where 90% of all costs come from the physical printing, distribution middlemen etc.. is obsolete.
If this situation makes economic sense for everyone involved why don't we have it? After all isn't this what capitalism is about?
BECAUSE, the RIAA with the entrenched power of hoardes of copyrights (which they obtained through obscene monopoly style power...which is another reason to hate them) is resisting this change. The RIAA ONLY makes money from distribution, if normal distribution deals fall through for mp3.com models or other things they are screwed. The only reason the RIAA makes a few motions towards internet distribution is BECAUSE of people like us using the internet to pirate songs and they know if they don't do at least a half-assed measure they will be cut out of the loop entierly.
In short the RIAA is attempting to use copyright law, monopoly power over the artists and other unsavory tactics to UNNECESARILY tax the consumers and producers of music, i.e., to insert itself in the distribution system where it is no longer needed. They are the ones who are stealing.
IF the abstractness of this argument bothers you consider this. The RIAA is advocating a system which deprives poor children of music, educational opportunities etc.. etc.. because they haven't purchased them. A civilized society, realizing that these people couldn't have bought them in the first place, would devise a system allowing the have nots to use IP...after all it hurts no one and helps some.
Yes, it can be hard to see the evil of the RIAA, both because in a system based on the ownership of physical property it is easy to forget that IP really isn't property in the sense land, computers etc.. etc.. are property. Also many of the people on our side just want free music. I would be happy to pay a tax in return for unlimited information access (which in turn would spure more intellectual content creation...what copyright was supposed to do in the first place).
I realize this space isn't quite big enough to give a really detailed argument, anyone wishing to continue this conversation can email me.
Asking for sealed procedings is unfortunatly an all to common move in american justice nowdays, especially in divorce trials. The misapplication of this power is particularlably worrisome because it strikes at the heart of our open system of justice. If the people cannot see the miscarridge of justice they can't correct it.
While I doubt SCO is particularly worried about (by themselves) rousing congress to a leglislative remedy for computer copyright law (though they could be part of a larger trend that does so) they are worried about too many public eyes.
Look at how effective publicity and the internet have been in finding examples of prior art in software patent cases. Asking for closed procedings forces IBM to track down every potential witness individually by themselves. No doubt SCO is hoping that with an open source product with developers spread across the globe IBM won't be able to find the relevant people if they can't publisize their claim.
So how often have you guys seen other companies press releases that get the technical facts disastorously wrong? Why would SCO be any different? More than likely the message got screwed up by the time it made it to the press release.
Think about it, first of all SCO has no motive to engage in any kind of DoS attack against themselves. Even if this attack would reflect badly on the open source community (instead of making them look like robin hood) SCOs fate rests entierly at trial. Moreover IF SCO had decided to lie about an attack they wouldn't have made it a *succesfull* attack. They would have just issued a press release saying they were the target of a DDoS but their software/whatever prevented any damage. Even disregarding this if this was a hoax of their own making why would it last so long.
At the end of the day SCO still wants the software it is running to seem technically good. After all if no one is using linux who pays royalties? Faking this kind of attack is simply against their interest.
Could it have been an ordinary fuck-up that they claim was a DDoS? Well certainly, however given the fact that other systems on their net were working fine I find it tough to swallow the sysadmins couldn't just switch to another server (unless they were protesting SCOs legal attacks).
So while it is a *possibility* that SCO just had a network glitch we have no more reason to believe they are lying about the DDoS than when any other company claims to be such a victim. In fact as SCO is more likely to be such a victim (given the anger it has stirred up) their claim of a DDoS is even more reasonable than that of a generic company.
Is it not emminently more reasonable that some non-tech PR person screwed up on the technical details rather than some sort of convoluted conspiracy. It's far more believable that Johnson killed Kennedy than this crap
Yes, in fact I often find 3,000 deaths funny. Things simply are or are not funny regardless of their moral ramifications. It makes about as much sense to say "a sentece describing 3,000 deaths is not funny because it is so horrific" as it does to say "a sentence describing 3,000 deaths does not have 10 words because it is so horrific."
Sure there are sometimes when (out of respect, politeness etc..) you don't acknowledge or act on the humor of the situation. Laughing at most funerals is in bad taste (though when I die I want strippers at my wake!!). This does not change the underlying question of humor however.
Now personally I didn't find the comment very funny. Not for talking about 3,000 dead (hell there are plenty of jokes that involve much more horrific things) but just because it wasn't funny. However, the same dangerous impulse that tells people not to joke about things ends up telling people to censor their views.
The point being that to work Quantum crypto requires that extra step of comparing results with the other party, i.e. some sort of communication method which, while possible tapable is at least guaranteed to actually contain a response from the party you wish to speak to.
Simple explanation: without some sort of predistrubuted secret or known communication channel (not necessarily secure but guaranteed to not allow a blocker to impersonate the other party) you have no means of knowing WHOSE quantum crypto box you are talking too.
So even if this is really workable quantum cryptography, in which case it would only work on a direct fiber to fiber link. I don't see how it would give any benefit.
From a technical point of view Quantum cryptography is only secure against man in the middle attacks if you have a SEPERATE channell to the remote host that you are absolutely sure in fact goes to the right person. As long as all communication goes over the fiber nothing prevents a spy from splicing his own box into the line and negotiating a key using quantum cryptography for both parties. However, if you have some channell that you know reaches the other source you can just use Diffie-Helman or like protocal to negotiate a shared key without ever broadcasting it on the line.
The only think quantum cryptography does for you is take the public key component out of the equation. However from reading the article this box just uses quantum encryption to negotiate a key for 3-DES or similar. Seems to me that the public key is not the weakest link in the system. Also as it does packet based encryption you can still watch and time packets to observe keystrokes (I believe good ssh and the like programs wait for several seconds to try and send a bunch of keystrokes together, but a box that sits outside the computer can't decode the first layer of encryption to stick the packets together in a meaningfull way...though I could be wrong on this).
From a pragmatic point of view, since this is only going to work on an unbroken single fiber there is some limit to distance here. I'm sure someone else on slashdot knows about how long you can string fiber before you need a repeater or something. Wouldn't it be easier to just routinely check to make sure there is no middle man inserted in the wire (use diffie-helman or similar again so that someone JUST listening can't decode things). Even better, take a key generated on the first computer BY HAND to the other end of the communications loop. Better cheaper security with no new high tech gizmos.
Go up a couple posts there is a fairly involved discussion of this. In short it isn't clear if E is neurotoxic at the doses moderate users consume in. However, at high doses the evidence for neurotoxicity is fairly strong. For instance look at the post about the guy doing 8-12 pills a week. Ancedotally it is very common to see serious problems in people doing crazy amounts.
Also "loss of magic" is precisely this effect. It isn't a myth it really happens to some people.
Ohh and meth is clearly a neurotoxin in vitro (i.e. it will actually cause cells to die in a test tube unlike MDMA which seems to only have effect via one of its metabolites making MDMA neurotoxicity more controversial then meth neuroxot). Now at what dosage level this occurs at in humans isn't clear. However, there are meth addicts IVing something like half a gram at one point and that I thought was in the neurotoxic range.
Hell you don't have to convince me! I am perfectly content using in small doses but I was just pointing out it is very differnt than something like heroin. It is more like alcohol (which is known to cause brain damage as well) and unless consumed in moderation will screw you over. Opiates on the other hand can actually be consumed constantly in an increasing dosage spiral and as long as you have no ODs no permanent brain damage will occur.
No certainly not agreeing with me does not mean you haven't thought about it. Rather that comment and most of the comments were not designed to address the general question of why are we better off without a drug war but rather the specific arguments of the prior poster.
This is the reason everyone is pointing out that large company meth labs don't blow up. The original poster was using the explosiveness of underground meth labs as an argument against legalization. This is why I accused him of being stupid because he is assuming that a legal drug market works *exactly* the same way an illicit market works its just larger. Your arguments are better stated and a little more convincing.
However, I still disagree with them. For instance the question about companies making drugs. Both the UK and the netherlands are now giving heroin to heroin addicts. The heroin they buy is almost certainly provided by a private company which is making a profit to manufacture the stuff. This is strong real evidence that companies would in fact engage in these type of actions.
I mean hell what is a cartel but an illegal company. If you can find thousands of employees to engage in an illegal operation why couldn't you incorporate a legal one?
Ohh and my argument above was essentially that these drugs produce no physical damage not that they had no delitorous effects at all. Some drugs have much less harmful effects than others (and this would be a large benifit from legalization...the hoped for substitution of more damaging drugs with less damaging drugs).
As for the "high on the job" issue. First of all it isn't clear why this is going to be more of an issue with drug use than it would be for alcohol. Many of these hard drugs actually impair performance far less than alcohol. I would rather be driving with someone while they speedballed than while they were drunk...alcohol is absolutely amazing in its ability to impair people so why this cost would increase isn't clear. Also alot of the drug testing that goes on now is really gratuitous and not actually benificial. Blockbuster drug tests not because pot smoking clerks are really hurting their bottom line but because the owner is a religious nut case.
I also disagree with your claim that they can't pass as sober to others for a long period of time. On some drugs this is of course true...however the long term opiate addicts seem to be able to pass quite well. I mean methadone maintence (which is just always keeping them high on methadone...another opiate) is considered an appropriate rehabilitation therapy. Long ter marijuanna smokers certainly experience some noticeable effects (decreased short term memory etc..these all go away once they are abstinent) however unless you actually compare their behavior they can pass for sober. It is those damn tied die shirts and greatefull dead memorabilia which gives them away.
Yes perhaps we would suffer a loss in productivity as a result. I simply fail to see why this is really relevant. I doubt that the happiness of americans is really dependent on owning several TVs rather than one. We have long since passed the point where increased productivity is particularly usefull for keeping us alive it gets us more shit. This is small potatoes compared to keeping even a small number of people in jail.
Finally about the people in the shelter a couple points. First you need to distinguish cause and effect. Many of these people are drug addicts BECAUSE they can't maintain healthy interpersonal relationships etc. Moreover, a homeless shelter in no way reflects an unbiased sample...I mean you are guaranteeing you only find people with big problems. Drug use amoung investment bankers is particularly rampant but how many of them are at your homeless shelter (probably a few who used all their money on drugs...but I will talk about this in a second).
Opiates are a particularly good example drug to use. Both because it is one of the few with which we have experience with long term recreational usage (think of Coleridge and the other high functioning opiate addicts of that time) and long term medical usage so we have a good idea what its long term effects are. In addition it is not particularly physically toxic (nor cause neurotoxicity...I can substantiate that as well but I don't have the source on me) and can often be substituted for the other drugs (you can usually take away someones amphetamines and make them an opiate addict) and opiates are very cheap.
This is the second issue with deystroying lives I wanted to mention. Our experience with opiates suggests that the adicts can often maintain usefull jobs "opiate users will complete operant work requirements for their fix." The biggest delitorous factor screwing them over is probably the constant need to go score more drugs as well as the extreme cost. This is precisely why prescribing heroin to heroin addicts is now being seen as a usefull treatment option in the UK. It is not the essential nature of drug use that is causing problems but the huge monetary drain and the necessity to go to illicit dealers for the fix which is deystroying the addicts lives.
I would love to continue this conversation with you. I certainly do believe we have a moral obligation to stop evil and promote good however this doesn't mean we need to "do something." The impulse to say this is so terrible we should *do something* about it produces some of the worst changes in policy (thing of megan's law with registering sex offenders but no evidence that it actually reduces the number of offenses significantly). The situation with drug abuse is similar to when your friend starts dating someone you know is bad for them.
Sure you have a moral obligation to try and convince them they are hurting themselves. However, it would be far worse if you somehow forcibly broke them up then if you just accepted the shittiness of the world and realized there is nothing you can do. As I see it the role of the government in this situation is similar. Distribute accurate information of the harms of these drugs (no one believes DARE as it is obvious they actually lie...one puff of MJ will not screw over your life). Perhaps prevent flashy TV commercials for cocaine like they have for beer. Unfortunatly, if someone is undeterable in their quest to harm themselves you can't stop them except by inflicting even greater harm.
Also in my personal opinion they should be trying to make safer drugs that make people feel even better. We have no problem putting people on prozac to make them feel slightly happier...why can't the government develop a drug which is as safe to take long term as prozac but makes the user feel really fucking good? Ultimately this is the underlying problem...not that people become drug addicts but that they aren't happy enough with their lives that drug use seems like the appropriate solution.
Yes it does involve volatile compounds. However what I was trying to suggest is that while these compounds might be more dangerous than those we normally encounter in the home enviornment they are not particularly dangerous compared to normal lab reactants.
I have had to use HF in college lab...far more dangerous in my opinion than anything in meth production. However, unlike meth production this was done in a controlled enviornment with proper safety precautions, fume hoods etc.
In short I was suggesting that the danger of the compounds used in meth production probably doesn't exced the danger of coumponds regularly used in chemical plants. Therefore if meth was being produced by pharms we would not see a harm of increased explosions.
The indian bhemical spill (is this Bhopal?) is a good example that chemical plants are already dealing with much more toxic chemicals.
You claimed, not that all drugs produce addiction and tolerance, but that they all prduce physical damage! I fail to see how rebound headaches nor addiction constitute physical damage. I NEVER made the claim that opiates were not addictive (this is patently false) I only wished to point out they..administered in a carefully controlled setting are not physically toxic.
While it isn't true that anything administered in a medical setting isn't toxic. Some drugs really do have unavoidable toxicity to various organs associated with their use this really supports my argument. Yes ON THE STREET these drugs are causing harm but it is not an essential problem with the drug abuse but rather the routes of administration, overdoses etc.. Thus one would expect less harm to occur when they are made legally availible.
As for LSD check out on medline:
"Do Hallucinagens cause resdiual neurophysiological toxicity"
I agree ecstasy (an amphetamine) causes physical harm to the body I don't understand how this is relevant.
Certainly panic reactions sustained by LSD does not count as physical damage. I mean the page (to the extent to which usdoj is unbiased) is essentially only claiming that they have a trmatic experience which causes later anxiety. No claim is made about physical toxicity.
I am not going to continue this argument as you insistantly refuse to recognize the essential nature of my claim is NOT drugs are good but that the harm accrued from increased drug use is SMALL next to the harm incurred from the drug war.
We KNOW that millions of people who would not otherwise be in actual physical slavery (i.e. jail) would not be there in the abscence of the drug war. We KNOW that many of the delitorous consequences are a result of impurity, poor quality control education etc.. You have not given one iota of evidence that the harm caused by increase usage in the abscence of the drug war is worse than this. As the COMPARATIVE harms are the only thing a utilitarian (and in fact anyone) should be interested in you simply arent making an argument that the drug war should be continued.