You know, in thinking about it more, you're right in saying that at least the title suggested that there was some approach beyond additions to OOP. Probably the author looking for more views.
The article didn't represent XP as a "replacement" for OOP, unless you only skimmed it. From the article:
Most of the post-OOP initiatives do not aim to supplant object-oriented programming; they seek to refine or improve or reinvigorate it.
And your comment that OOP problems are the same everywhere and mostly people oriented is also addressed in the part of the article about 'pattern programmers':
The pattern movement [...] suggests instead that programmers are [...] stewards of a body of knowledge gained by experience and passed along by tradition and apprenticeship.
Your comments that compilers should complain about magic numbers sounds good, as well as the "don't take others' toys" comment (myFoo.getList().calculateMarbleSize().insertInto( table)).
Your next sentence mentions tools though, and at least in Java, there are tools to detect those for the meantime, PMD looks like a good one.
I've had some success with using tools like these and some peer review, which is mostly peers running the tool on the whole codebase and saying, "Why is this like this" when you write something that breaks it.
The word I see there is "generative", which I interpreted to be something quite different from the generics and templates discussions that happen with C/C++ and soon Java.
Some people using OO incorrectly does not mean that the entire concept is in error (insert baby_bathwater.comment).
The statment "... OO is anything but straightforward when you think about all the layers that go into it." is a hint at the underlying problem, I think. If you have to think about the layers, your model has some problems.
The functional system you describe with the module system sounds like it is building some very nice layers. I'm not saying it can't be done without OO.
What I am saying is that OO (and OO languages like Java) encourage you to do it "the right way". You can write spaghetti code in Java, but it takes some doing. You have to sprinkle a lot of static keywords around, and make a lot of classes that don't make sense.
Coversely, to write clean, modularized code in most fuctional languages, you have to be more "disciplined" and stay out of things that you shouldn't be in.
I suppose, in conclusion, I would say that OO leads to very clean, straightforward code when the concepts are well understood and applied. Understanding and applying these concepts is not a simple task, however, and I'll admit that in the time I've been doing it (~7 years) I don't have it cold.
This very example tends to lend credibility to the group describedin the article as "craft" programmers.
Showing that slate isn't the proper material by building a wall and seeing it fall sounds like a good proof until the stonemason comes and says, "don't stack it against the grain... see?" and builds one that stands just fine.
Its a line from the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian".
The people saying the line are a group of Judeans (Jews) who are complaining about being conquered by the Romans.
The People's Front of Judea are discussing why they hate the Romans. Unfortunately, their discussion goes awry as the Romans are trying to build a solid empire and have been building some pretty decent things for them.
So, being fair minded people, the People's Front of Judea acknowledges that the Romans are doing a pretty good job of providing people wine, setting up irrigation, sanitizing the cities, enforcing public order, building roads, providing fresh water, and in general providing for the public health.
But other than that... they're scum that must be thrown off!
Good, you've given more explanation for why France and Russia oppose the action than any news source I've seen yet.
Still, even if this is their real concern, ignoring them, and the principles the UN was founded on, is not the right course of action. Why hasn't our "fine" president stood forth with this debt as the prime reason for their opinion?
You also didn't approach the issue of why we've been told there's so much urgency: weapons of mass destruction. We don't have proof of them, no matter how much our president eludes to "sekrit gov'ment files".
Its true that Iraqis are dying, and that's a tragedy. But again, ignoring the systems set in place to resolve disputes and going directly to war is yet another tragedy, and it isn't going to help things. With no broad coalition in place, with only scant support, and with obvious signs of American imperialism, I don't see a "safe, stable, democratic Iraq" in our future.
Look at what we did with/to Afghanistan if you want evidence of our abilities at nation building. That attack was about as clearly justified as they come (and I support it). What have we done since then? We have forces stationed there, but they all reside in Kabul, leaving the rest of the countryside to return to the rule of regional warlords. This is exactly the situation that caused people to support the Taliban in the first place. Our president didn't even remember Afghanistan in the most recent budget proposal. I'm supposed to believe that things will be different with Iraq?
The bottom line for me is: I don't buy it. I don't buy it that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that can reach us, I don't buy it that we were motivated by altruism, and I don't believe we'll replace Iraq with anything resembling stable. I do believe we've done incredible damage to the systems and principles that give us any hope for peace and freedom.
-Zipwow
(and don't even get me started on ignoring the constitution at home... what a fine example to set for new republics...)
There is nothing even remotely democratic about the UN because...
And how democratic is a unilateral decision to invade? I'll admit that its not "everyone is equal", but its a step above anarchy or empire-building.
...Iraq agree [sic] to let the UN inspectors look for them and they were supposed to coopperate [sic], they did not
True enough, but the resolution that sent the inspectors clearly did not authorize the invasion. Even our leaders don't believe that, no matter how much they try to spin it now. Otherwise, why else would they have even discussed the second initiative?
I'm not sure what you're driving at with economic considerations, considering the UN sanctions on Iraq mean that pretty much nobody's making any significant money from them. Or if your "credit balance" comment is meant to suggest differently, please explain what you mean by that.
Also, please explain how the United States attacking Iraq despite the reservations of several other major powers allows other residents to "put all of their cards on the table"?
There's no question that, all other things unchanged, the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. What I don't like is the other things in the world we've changed by removing him this way. (this quote stolen from another poster, my apologies for not quoting him/her)
Nobody's arguing that Saddam's a nice guy. What many of the anti-war protesters are arguing is telling the UN security council to "STFU" and plodding ahead just the same.
That damage to world relations, I believe, is far greater than waiting longer to get people organized.
And, I don't believe for a minute that the US has any proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The two attempts to show this proof we've seen, communications and photographs, were so poor that they were shown to be incorrect (I read: faked) within a week of their release to authorities.
Claims that "we can't tell, because it would risk lives" are pure smoke. For one, its not like showing Hans Blix and the president of France the information is the same as posting it on the net. For another, if you have the proof and its this important, withdraw or extract those informants.
I'm not against removing Saddam. I am against ignoring the other residents on this planet. I think its absurd to think that we're going to "bring democracy and conflict resolution" to a nation by ignoring the democratic processes that the world has set up to resolve conflicts.
From skimming the article, there's an "Advanced mode" that lets you set health and stuff, so I think you could set it up that way. I don't know if you can adjust speed, but that would be interesting as well: slow and powerful vs fast and fragile.
From reading the manual, I think the ones linked can change channels, TG's site warns you to get different channel models for multiplayer, which makes me think it can't be changed, which sucks.
These are farily sophisticated, with changing behavior according to damage taken, and a couple of modes to ignore "friendly fire".
I don't know how the price compares, the TG ones are $60 each, I think that's in the ballpark.
The question I have is: are the beams compatible? What if I shoot a tank with my old laser tag pistol? Granted, I haven't come up with a reason I'd want to do that, but I'll bet that someone could.
This sort of thing is like the first step in negotiations. "How much? A million. A dollar. How about 500k? Done." What if you had asked for two million?
The negotiations are happening up-front in congress:
"we almost had the votes for this, we can probably accomplish that."
and more deceptively in the public:
"Look how we compromised! There's three awful bills we didn't even pass!"
This, of course is like a murderer saying, "I'm not a bad guy, look at all the people I didn't shoot!"
I like the poster that referenced a bumper sticker:
I love my country. Its the government I'm afraid of.
Since other posters have already indicated that gcj/does/ lead to better performance, I think I have a cause for your performance increase beyond "Java sux":
Re-implementation removed the bottleneck.
What kind of profiling did you do against your original Java application? Where was the time being spent? I've worked on some pretty high-performance java applications, and have found them to be quite scalable.
If you're talking about GUI responsiveness (not client/server or high processing interactions), then you may have a point. All the nefarious interactions between the platform-specific GUI toolkits and their OS of choice (this applies both to Windows and Linux) do a lot of very specific optimizations that just can't be done as well cross platform.
Interestingly, the original AWT used components based on native ones for just this reason, but that turned out to be problematic.
Anyway, if you have the intention of supporting your claim that your application had performance problems due to Java itself, I'd be interested in hearing about your profiling process.
Which would make it marginally more useful, since it takes longer to bake stuff than it does to microwave it.
The pictures are of a small thing about the size of a microwave, but the text of the article seems to indicate that it just heats things (the peltier heaters are just regular heat, right?)
Still not terribly useful, I mean, will it punch a hole in the bag and whatnot as well?
The part of the article where Yahoo is using their other services is the important one.
You do a search for the New York Yankees, and the current game score shows up in the list of results.
This is what Google was talking about in an interview a while ago, making the search engine more useful in breaking news. Its this desire that drives news.google.com (which I also like).
So you're right, that's the only thing that will help, but it seems to be what Yahoo is trying.
I see your points, its not like he's being tortured (posts saying this is as bad as Saddam are going too far), but even if the gov't "knows something we don't", I think its still the wrong thing to do.
When I say this, I'm reading "knows something we don't" as "believes he's guilty of something". This kind of indefinite incarceration can definitely be used as harassment in order to get him to testify against someone else. This coerced testimony shouldn't be admissiable, as its entirely possible that its a lie in order to get out of jail. Coercion is like that.
Also, I'm sure that even if they haven't said it, and even if they don't intend it, he's got to be thinking that they could do the same thing to his family. Again, strong coercion.
If there were some kind of limitations on this, that would change everything. Like having to disclose what criminal proceeding he's being held for, or if there were a maximum amount of time he could be held. Of course, I'd say the maximum amount of time is something non life-interrupting like two days, otherwise a week in the clink is still a steep punishment for 'suspicion' without an actual trial. And, of course, all this would have to be subject to a judge's approval.
He is not allowed to comment, at least according to the Wired article:
"For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called 'material witness' in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon."
You couldn't be more wrong when you say, "Just because a few people are held doesn't mean that due process isn't being followed." This is exactly what's happening.
You're right when you say that the constitution doesn't spell out what "due process" is, but completely wrong when you say that defining it is the legislature's job. In the US political system, defining (aka interpreting) the law is the court system.
As for your constiutional quote and comment on "due process" (which is interpreted by the Judicial branch, not the legislative)... there are some things we know about this case, things that are facts rather than opinions:
This man has been held for two weeks. This man has not been charged with a crime. The amount of time he can remain in this state is indefinite.
Knowing only this, I can honestly state that he has been deprived of due process.
I don't care if he's a mass murderer. Our constitution is supposed to guarantee that we cannot be held without being charged for a crime.
The fact that he's not allowed to speak for himself is just another damage on top of that one.
I wasn't saying that Mitnick was innocent (he wasn't), I was saying that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. You can see this sentiment in my original post.
You'll notice that I, in fact, did not defend Mitnick's actions. Instead of painting everyone who knows the definition of our rights under the constitution as a "mob-thinker and a wacko", maybe you should get in touch with the current state of the rest of the world?
The only conclusions I've jumped to were clearly:
He's being held without a charge, He's being held in isolation (which was reported).
Is the reason you can't see the rational people because you assume that anyone with this opinion is irrational?
You'll notice they didn't interview him, either. And unless I've misread it, its not because he declined to comment, its because he's in isolation and not *allowed* to comment.
That's the crime.
And as for changing what was done with Kevin Mitnick, I don't seem to remember him going free for violation of his civil rights. I seem to remember him finally getting to trial, and being sentenced all the same.
Not until these practices are made ineffective for getting results (results here defined as convictions, etc) will they stop. That's why evedence without a warrant, etc is inadmissable.
You've got no concept of the idea of "chilling effect" and "slippery slope".
The primary purpose of CD rippers is to pirate music as well, so by your argument, these too should be illegal. There isn't any difference.
Many products are primarily used illegally, but the cost of the chilling effect on the economy of making those things illegal is too great. That's why selling VHS filters is legal, selling copied tapes isn't.
One could argue that a multimedia PC with a large harddrive with a DVD player and high-speed CD burner's primary purpose is illegal. Even if you buy this product with the full intent of breaking the law, you're not guilty until you've actually, get this, broken the law
Think of the harm that policing products on 'intent' would do. What PC configurations are 'malicous'? What about combinations of hardware purchases? What are the fines for this? How do I prove intent in court? What are the opportunities for harassment? With this sort of approach, it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to show that any given person might be doing something illegal. (He bought a crowbar and a big sack! Get him!)
How do you stop this? Bust the people providing ROMs. They are breaking the law, and do deserve to go to jail or be fined.
There are cases of products that have *no* legal use (cable descramblers), and even in this case, it is legal to sell the plans, and even to construct the product. It is not legal to use or sell it. This protection exists so that electronics enthusiasts and engineers can continue to freely discuss ideas, without having to worry that even though they didn't break the law, they could be construed to be "intending" to break the law. Nevermind that "how does cable scrambling work" is a very legitimate question if you're an engineer working on encryption, probably as an example of what *not* to do.
Have you read the arguments against the DMCA? These describe very well the problems that trying to police this "thoughcrime" introduce.
Determining intent in a purchase is extremely difficult, and generally doesn't get you anywhere. The "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns" argument is at least plausible. Making emulators illegal will guarantee that only criminals have emulators, obviously harming the market.
Don't agree? Consider every CD ripper being illegal. Isn't that a harm?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, in thinking about it more, you're right in saying that at least the title suggested that there was some approach beyond additions to OOP. Probably the author looking for more views.
-Zipwow
And your comment that OOP problems are the same everywhere and mostly people oriented is also addressed in the part of the article about 'pattern programmers':
Your comments that compilers should complain about magic numbers sounds good, as well as the "don't take others' toys" comment (myFoo.getList().calculateMarbleSize().insertInto
Your next sentence mentions tools though, and at least in Java, there are tools to detect those for the meantime,
PMD looks like a good one.
I've had some success with using tools like these and some peer review, which is mostly peers running the tool on the whole codebase and saying, "Why is this like this" when you write something that breaks it.
-Zipwow
The word I see there is "generative", which I interpreted to be something quite different from the generics and templates discussions that happen with C/C++ and soon Java.
-Zipwow
Some people using OO incorrectly does not mean that the entire concept is in error (insert baby_bathwater.comment).
The statment "... OO is anything but straightforward when you think about all the layers that go into it." is a hint at the underlying problem, I think. If you have to think about the layers, your model has some problems.
The functional system you describe with the module system sounds like it is building some very nice layers. I'm not saying it can't be done without OO.
What I am saying is that OO (and OO languages like Java) encourage you to do it "the right way". You can write spaghetti code in Java, but it takes some doing. You have to sprinkle a lot of static keywords around, and make a lot of classes that don't make sense.
Coversely, to write clean, modularized code in most fuctional languages, you have to be more "disciplined" and stay out of things that you shouldn't be in.
I suppose, in conclusion, I would say that OO leads to very clean, straightforward code when the concepts are well understood and applied. Understanding and applying these concepts is not a simple task, however, and I'll admit that in the time I've been doing it (~7 years) I don't have it cold.
Just my $.02
-Zipwow
Amen!
This very example tends to lend credibility to the group describedin the article as "craft" programmers.
Showing that slate isn't the proper material by building a wall and seeing it fall sounds like a good proof until the stonemason comes and says, "don't stack it against the grain... see?" and builds one that stands just fine.
-Zipwow
Its a line from the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian".
The people saying the line are a group of Judeans (Jews) who are complaining about being conquered by the Romans.
The People's Front of Judea are discussing why they hate the Romans. Unfortunately, their discussion goes awry as the Romans are trying to build a solid empire and have been building some pretty decent things for them.
So, being fair minded people, the People's Front of Judea acknowledges that the Romans are doing a pretty good job of providing people wine, setting up irrigation, sanitizing the cities, enforcing public order, building roads, providing fresh water, and in general providing for the public health.
But other than that... they're scum that must be thrown off!
Its comedy...
-Zipwow
Good, you've given more explanation for why France and Russia oppose the action than any news source I've seen yet.
Still, even if this is their real concern, ignoring them, and the principles the UN was founded on, is not the right course of action. Why hasn't our "fine" president stood forth with this debt as the prime reason for their opinion?
You also didn't approach the issue of why we've been told there's so much urgency: weapons of mass destruction. We don't have proof of them, no matter how much our president eludes to "sekrit gov'ment files".
Its true that Iraqis are dying, and that's a tragedy. But again, ignoring the systems set in place to resolve disputes and going directly to war is yet another tragedy, and it isn't going to help things. With no broad coalition in place, with only scant support, and with obvious signs of American imperialism, I don't see a "safe, stable, democratic Iraq" in our future.
Look at what we did with/to Afghanistan if you want evidence of our abilities at nation building. That attack was about as clearly justified as they come (and I support it). What have we done since then? We have forces stationed there, but they all reside in Kabul, leaving the rest of the countryside to return to the rule of regional warlords. This is exactly the situation that caused people to support the Taliban in the first place. Our president didn't even remember Afghanistan in the most recent budget proposal. I'm supposed to believe that things will be different with Iraq?
The bottom line for me is: I don't buy it. I don't buy it that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that can reach us, I don't buy it that we were motivated by altruism, and I don't believe we'll replace Iraq with anything resembling stable. I do believe we've done incredible damage to the systems and principles that give us any hope for peace and freedom.
-Zipwow
(and don't even get me started on ignoring the constitution at home... what a fine example to set for new republics...)
And how democratic is a unilateral decision to invade? I'll admit that its not "everyone is equal", but its a step above anarchy or empire-building.
True enough, but the resolution that sent the inspectors clearly did not authorize the invasion. Even our leaders don't believe that, no matter how much they try to spin it now. Otherwise, why else would they have even discussed the second initiative?
I'm not sure what you're driving at with economic considerations, considering the UN sanctions on Iraq mean that pretty much nobody's making any significant money from them. Or if your "credit balance" comment is meant to suggest differently, please explain what you mean by that.
Also, please explain how the United States attacking Iraq despite the reservations of several other major powers allows other residents to "put all of their cards on the table"?
-Zipwow
Is this:
There's no question that, all other things unchanged, the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. What I don't like is the other things in the world we've changed by removing him this way. (this quote stolen from another poster, my apologies for not quoting him/her)
Nobody's arguing that Saddam's a nice guy. What many of the anti-war protesters are arguing is telling the UN security council to "STFU" and plodding ahead just the same.
That damage to world relations, I believe, is far greater than waiting longer to get people organized.
And, I don't believe for a minute that the US has any proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The two attempts to show this proof we've seen, communications and photographs, were so poor that they were shown to be incorrect (I read: faked) within a week of their release to authorities.
Claims that "we can't tell, because it would risk lives" are pure smoke. For one, its not like showing Hans Blix and the president of France the information is the same as posting it on the net. For another, if you have the proof and its this important, withdraw or extract those informants.
I'm not against removing Saddam. I am against ignoring the other residents on this planet. I think its absurd to think that we're going to "bring democracy and conflict resolution" to a nation by ignoring the democratic processes that the world has set up to resolve conflicts.
-Zipwow
From skimming the article, there's an "Advanced mode" that lets you set health and stuff, so I think you could set it up that way. I don't know if you can adjust speed, but that would be interesting as well: slow and powerful vs fast and fragile.
-Zipwow
They're more "tank looking", which is neat.
From reading the manual, I think the ones linked can change channels, TG's site warns you to get different channel models for multiplayer, which makes me think it can't be changed, which sucks.
These are farily sophisticated, with changing behavior according to damage taken, and a couple of modes to ignore "friendly fire".
I don't know how the price compares, the TG ones are $60 each, I think that's in the ballpark.
The question I have is: are the beams compatible? What if I shoot a tank with my old laser tag pistol? Granted, I haven't come up with a reason I'd want to do that, but I'll bet that someone could.
-Zipwow
This sort of thing is like the first step in negotiations. "How much? A million. A dollar. How about 500k? Done." What if you had asked for two million?
The negotiations are happening up-front in congress:
"we almost had the votes for this, we can probably accomplish that."
and more deceptively in the public:
"Look how we compromised! There's three awful bills we didn't even pass!"
This, of course is like a murderer saying, "I'm not a bad guy, look at all the people I didn't shoot!"
I like the poster that referenced a bumper sticker:
I love my country. Its the government I'm afraid of.
-Zipwow
Since other posters have already indicated that gcj /does/ lead to better performance, I think I have a cause for your performance increase beyond "Java sux":
Re-implementation removed the bottleneck.
What kind of profiling did you do against your original Java application? Where was the time being spent? I've worked on some pretty high-performance java applications, and have found them to be quite scalable.
If you're talking about GUI responsiveness (not client/server or high processing interactions), then you may have a point. All the nefarious interactions between the platform-specific GUI toolkits and their OS of choice (this applies both to Windows and Linux) do a lot of very specific optimizations that just can't be done as well cross platform.
Interestingly, the original AWT used components based on native ones for just this reason, but that turned out to be problematic.
Anyway, if you have the intention of supporting your claim that your application had performance problems due to Java itself, I'd be interested in hearing about your profiling process.
-Zipwow
The bn.com link is broken for me, here's the correct ISBN:
0596003773
Which would make it marginally more useful, since it takes longer to bake stuff than it does to microwave it.
The pictures are of a small thing about the size of a microwave, but the text of the article seems to indicate that it just heats things (the peltier heaters are just regular heat, right?)
Still not terribly useful, I mean, will it punch a hole in the bag and whatnot as well?
-Zipwow
The part of the article where Yahoo is using their other services is the important one.
You do a search for the New York Yankees, and the current game score shows up in the list of results.
This is what Google was talking about in an interview a while ago, making the search engine more useful in breaking news. Its this desire that drives news.google.com (which I also like).
So you're right, that's the only thing that will help, but it seems to be what Yahoo is trying.
-Zipwow
I see your points, its not like he's being tortured (posts saying this is as bad as Saddam are going too far), but even if the gov't "knows something we don't", I think its still the wrong thing to do.
When I say this, I'm reading "knows something we don't" as "believes he's guilty of something". This kind of indefinite incarceration can definitely be used as harassment in order to get him to testify against someone else. This coerced testimony shouldn't be admissiable, as its entirely possible that its a lie in order to get out of jail. Coercion is like that.
Also, I'm sure that even if they haven't said it, and even if they don't intend it, he's got to be thinking that they could do the same thing to his family. Again, strong coercion.
If there were some kind of limitations on this, that would change everything. Like having to disclose what criminal proceeding he's being held for, or if there were a maximum amount of time he could be held. Of course, I'd say the maximum amount of time is something non life-interrupting like two days, otherwise a week in the clink is still a steep punishment for 'suspicion' without an actual trial. And, of course, all this would have to be subject to a judge's approval.
-Zipwow
He is not allowed to comment, at least according to the Wired article:
"For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called 'material witness' in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon."
You couldn't be more wrong when you say, "Just because a few people are held doesn't mean that due process isn't being followed." This is exactly what's happening.
You're right when you say that the constitution doesn't spell out what "due process" is, but completely wrong when you say that defining it is the legislature's job. In the US political system, defining (aka interpreting) the law is the court system.
As for your constiutional quote and comment on "due process" (which is interpreted by the Judicial branch, not the legislative)... there are some things we know about this case, things that are facts rather than opinions:
This man has been held for two weeks.
This man has not been charged with a crime.
The amount of time he can remain in this state is indefinite.
Knowing only this, I can honestly state that he has been deprived of due process.
I don't see how any rational person can disagree.
-Zipwow
Thanks for the correction. Different figure, same story, right? He probably sold some stock and donated some of the money. Good for him.
This kind of action combined with all the raging patriotism makes my stomach hurt.
-Zipwow
Everyone seems to be missing this point:
It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not.
I don't care if he's a mass murderer. Our constitution is supposed to guarantee that we cannot be held without being charged for a crime.
The fact that he's not allowed to speak for himself is just another damage on top of that one.
I wasn't saying that Mitnick was innocent (he wasn't), I was saying that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. You can see this sentiment in my original post.
You'll notice that I, in fact, did not defend Mitnick's actions. Instead of painting everyone who knows the definition of our rights under the constitution as a "mob-thinker and a wacko", maybe you should get in touch with the current state of the rest of the world?
The only conclusions I've jumped to were clearly:
He's being held without a charge,
He's being held in isolation (which was reported).
Is the reason you can't see the rational people because you assume that anyone with this opinion is irrational?
-Zipwow
You'll notice they didn't interview him, either. And unless I've misread it, its not because he declined to comment, its because he's in isolation and not *allowed* to comment.
That's the crime.
And as for changing what was done with Kevin Mitnick, I don't seem to remember him going free for violation of his civil rights. I seem to remember him finally getting to trial, and being sentenced all the same.
Not until these practices are made ineffective for getting results (results here defined as convictions, etc) will they stop. That's why evedence without a warrant, etc is inadmissable.
-Zipwow
No kidding! Am I right in reading that his "sizeable sum" was $5000?
$5k doesn't seem like a sizeable sum for an Intel contractor.
-Zipwow
You've got no concept of the idea of "chilling effect" and "slippery slope".
The primary purpose of CD rippers is to pirate music as well, so by your argument, these too should be illegal. There isn't any difference.
Many products are primarily used illegally, but the cost of the chilling effect on the economy of making those things illegal is too great. That's why selling VHS filters is legal, selling copied tapes isn't.
One could argue that a multimedia PC with a large harddrive with a DVD player and high-speed CD burner's primary purpose is illegal. Even if you buy this product with the full intent of breaking the law, you're not guilty until you've actually, get this, broken the law
Think of the harm that policing products on 'intent' would do. What PC configurations are 'malicous'? What about combinations of hardware purchases? What are the fines for this? How do I prove intent in court? What are the opportunities for harassment? With this sort of approach, it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to show that any given person might be doing something illegal. (He bought a crowbar and a big sack! Get him!)
How do you stop this? Bust the people providing ROMs. They are breaking the law, and do deserve to go to jail or be fined.
There are cases of products that have *no* legal use (cable descramblers), and even in this case, it is legal to sell the plans, and even to construct the product. It is not legal to use or sell it. This protection exists so that electronics enthusiasts and engineers can continue to freely discuss ideas, without having to worry that even though they didn't break the law, they could be construed to be "intending" to break the law. Nevermind that "how does cable scrambling work" is a very legitimate question if you're an engineer working on encryption, probably as an example of what *not* to do.
Have you read the arguments against the DMCA? These describe very well the problems that trying to police this "thoughcrime" introduce.
-Zipwow
Exactly what I thought. How would getting 1000 free songs when I buy a car be any kind of incentive when its all free anyhow?
"Free air with any purchase!" whoo.
-Zipwow
Hunting isn't illegal. Gun shops in those areas are not illegal either. Anecdotal proof:
:
Los Angeles Gun Club Indoor Pistol,1375 E 6th St., Los Angeles, CA 90021. Phone: (213)612-0931.
listed on
http://www.webcom.com/gun_guy/rangesca.htm
Determining intent in a purchase is extremely difficult, and generally doesn't get you anywhere. The "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns" argument is at least plausible. Making emulators illegal will guarantee that only criminals have emulators, obviously harming the market.
Don't agree? Consider every CD ripper being illegal. Isn't that a harm?
-Zipwow