I concede that there is an impact due to precedence. It is possible that if I run a large, well known pro-hacking/cracking/phreaking web site and post the DeCSS source, I would probably lose if the appeals court writes a convincing argument (and I don't raise any new issues).:-)
But lets quickly examine what happens if the MPAA loses. They will still sue people who post the DeCSS source anyway. Why because the law still stands. The problem is the law, not the silly ass courts. The judicial just isn't that important, you have to sue for relief, and even if you think you'll win, there are no guarantees for either side. Facts differ. I am not Eric Corley, and I do not run 2600. Read the decision, he got killed for running 2600 by the judge. If the appeals court comes up with some really cool judgement based on different reasoning, maybe (though its unlikey) I would not be able to manufacture a DeCSS of my own (I probably would not be allowed to put it on my web page at least). But the MPAA has to come get me to enforce it, and they have to get you and everyone else, and they foot the bill. They have to pay for it every single time. I appreciate Eric Corley fighting the good fight, but I am not worried about losing my freedoms in this one. If the MPAA gets really aggressive and starts going after anyone who tries to develop DeCSS I get concerned, but that isn't really a rational fear. It is just one silly case.
Actually I care much more about the DMCA being revoked than this silly case. The real solution is to circumvent the whole silly courtroom, and call your congressman and tell him why you cannot vote for someone who supports the DMCA. You can't affect the stupid court anyway (maybe Bush will ignore their ruling like past presidents!)
Mainly I was trying to illustrate (a bit colorfully I admit) how irrelevant the judicial branch is compared to the other two branches -- even though the media (and ACLU, EFF, Lawyers, Judges, etc.) would have you believe otherwise.:-).
There is a third point, Corley doesn't have to do anything cause the court tells him too, law enforcement has to enforce the ruling even after the court presides. (and as law enforcement is part of the executive branch, they don't have to follow the court's wishes, the branches are equal, they do what the chief exec tells them to do).
Perjoratives aside, there is one salient question here. (and I have parents, and am relatively simple, so I guess I am a simple child). Hopefully your post will get modded up to 1 . . . I guess.
Your question: "Why bother submitting [a brief] if the impact of the case falls only on Coreley/2600 and the MPAA?"
I'd like to know that as well. Hot and bothered liberals like Stallman and useless (though well intentioned) orgs like eff don't surprise me for getting worked up about this. They associate much importance to what documents say. I am more pragmatic, to me it matters only in how documents are enforced. That is the basis of my position -- and as it turns out the way our legal society works (isn't it illegal to have sex in positions other than missionary in most states, why aren't you hot and bothered about that? Cause it isn't enforced). Surely you realize the MPAA cannot sue everyone. So without executive enforcement, this case doesn't affect me. But why did all those other people sign it. Well, if given that document, I would sign it. Hell, I agree with everything in it, but that doesn't make it affect me. In alot of ways, words don't matter, enforcement does. Get the executive involved, and I might be concerned, but as it is, I'm rooting for Corley, and unworried if he loses. Come get me MPAA, first of all the facts will be different enough that precedent won't apply (you did read the decision right, most of it was based on the besmirched rep of 2600). You can't drag my name through the mud like you did Corley, and I won't try and make it political, I'll try to win (that is the biggest problem with ACLU, ie EFF, they are too worried about politics, rather than winning -- some of the witness discovery stuff was ridiculous).
I didn't goto law school (one class was enough), but I don't get the impression you did either. Be careful where you cast your stones.
What is being defined is the relief to grant to MPAA against Eric Corley. Nothing else. No matter how many times you guys talk about precedent or scope and reach (another way to say precendent), it doesn't make it so. Scope and reach are only in the relief provided in this case, stop adding more importance to it than exists. MPAA must sue for relief, so I am not impacted until MPAA sues me. Period. I can't be anymore blunt than that.
Your last statement is telling, criminal cases can only be brought be the executive branch which implies executive backing. Then you should be worried, but this trial is meaningless to you (unless you are Eric Corley). Only when the executive enforces this law does it become a concern for people not being directly sued.
Again (see above), there has to be executive backing (a different branch of government) for it to really stop me.
In this case, the executive backing is the willingness of the mpaa lawyers to file suit against me, so that relief may be sought. Legislature passes laws (Congress passed the DMCA), and the judicial branch interprets them (ie DeCSS violates the DMCA), but the executive enforces them (in lieue of the person having the crime commited against them). There is no executive backing (and there probably cannot be, unless the attorney general becomes a huge activist -- Ashcroft isn't), so I can do whatever I want until the mpaa files suit against me. Precedent may mean that I will be required to stop, but that still doesn't stop you. (precedent doesn't much matter with todays activist judges anyway). I see the precedent comments rolling in, and I don't know how to describe the fact that judicial relief isn't the same as executive enforcement). Only the government (executive branch), can impose relief to parties without a trial -- i.e. arrest me and seize all my computer stuff until nothing decss remains. Otherwise you have to sue for relief.
I must not be doing a good job of explaining this, someone with a good civics background help explain please.
It doesn't matter. Basically you're saying that taking away decss impacts me indirectly. But only in that now decss is gone. I can still write my own decss (or hire someone to write it for me). The mpaa has to file suit to stop me. So while I may be delayed, there has been no relief granted against me, there is no reason I cannot have and use a decss until the mpaa comes after me.
A law has no impact on me unless it has executive backing (in this case the willingness of the mpaa to file suit against individuals) which isn't done by the judicial branch (and so this court case cannot grant relief against me). I stand by my first statement, let the court interpret the constitution any rotten way they want. They only take away decss, not my ability to generate my own decryption.
The most important piece of insight about court cases came from my dad (a lawyer) a few weeks back.
He pointed out that, when all is said and done, only two parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) are impacted by a court decision. It is in fact meaningless to everyone else. They can interpret the Constitution any rotten way they want, but only two parties are impacted. I bring this up, because at first I thought this kind of crap (banning DeCSS) was going to make being a programmer (my beloved profession) insufferable in 15 years. But it won't, cause the court is only one arm of the government, and is no more or less corrupt than any other. Witness, the election, sure we were impacted because we may care who the president is, but only Bush and Gore were able to receive relief. In this case only MPAA receives relief (though they don't deserve it). Every other piece of code that breaks the DMCA has to have an injunction brought against it as well. This does not stop you from hacking other copy encryptions (even CSS), it just stop DeCSS. Let them ban it, maybe I'll start my own CSS decryption project and they'll have to come after me. Then you write your own, and they come after you. It still doesn't matter. Trials only affect two parties.
And thank goodness I might add, otherwise I might of sat up nights worrying (and I used to think about this kind of stuff alot) about something as insignificant as the judicial branch.:-)
Perhaps his example was poor, but the question is still pretty solid. Why is he not free to access and copy signals being beamed into his home (source is irrelevant as long as he is not trying to cheat anyone -- i.e. if the signal were not free he would not pay for access to it).
The better examples below are related to copy'ing Digital TV broadcasts -- which the FCC is also going to ban, but the actual question relates to signal ownership and signal possesion. In the land of digital media, possesion is no longer 9/10'ths of the law. You are not free to access or use a signal in your possesion, even if you do not want it.
It is also important to note that you have made a good point as well. If my intent is to cheat the signal provider or anyone else by using a signal I would otherwise have purchased, then the law is being broken -- and the medium is irellevant (e.g. the law would be broken if you were using land you would otherwise have purchased to accomplish your goal). I would also like to add, that I amost didn't get your point because of the negativity surrounding it. Its easier on my brain if you just provide logical explanations.
I think this is a horrible trap for a programmer (or anyone else to fall into). This implies that happiness and fulfillment come from the outside, rather than the inside. I've worked on alot of defense software, that could be considered to have been more of a detriment to society rather than a benefit, but that isn't a healthy way for me to look at it (and it isn't really true, anyway). I take the fulfillment from how interesting the challenges posed in the project are to me, and whether the outcomes of the project (e.g. satisfaction at having managed tremendous complexity) caused me to view the project positively.
Abrash, qualified his statement, by saying it was true for him, I think you need to do so as well. The idea that your values are adequate for measuring anyone elses fulfillment is dangerous. (If the engineers that built the atomic bomb used someone else's guide to fulfillment we probably wouldn't have nuclear medicine or nuclear power today).
I don't disagree with anything you say in this post -- and I don't think you disagree with anything I said. But I do think it is important to note that for code to be reused, it must first be used. Code is used thru its interface only. Thus for use (much less reuse) to occur, the interface must be useful. Structuring may be important in making a piece of code work correctly without spending lots of money, but it doesn't matter if the interface is poor. I am simply wary of people who place implementation above interface. Fixing implementation is relatively easy (low impact, assuming the interface was correctly specified), changing a broken interface can bring a system to its knees (imagine if the interface to the str* function family was changed).
I tried to keep the point simple. But it still stands in the corrected form that you state it. You are reimbursed for actual damage.
However, it is important to remember that substantial punitive damages are for special circumstances (e.g. I had some malicious intent in not paying the $5, not that I felt like buying a couple packs of baseball cards instead).
And this follows nicely into my point that the justice system exists to punish offenders equivalent to the crime they commit. It is not to disproportionately levy sentence on those that commit crimes.(unfortunately this is sometimes done, thinking that the system is a detterent for future criminals, but there is no proof that this works).
The courts were not setup with the thought that we would become a society of victims. That, in a sense causes the system to collapse upon itself, just because someone feels especially victimized doesn't mean they should get a (stronger or even any) legal remedy.
If you take the view that the victim has to live with it for life, than your real belief is that this crime is deserving of a life sentence.
That is the basis of the US justice system. That a debt must be repaid in full. If I violate a contract that would have made me give you $5, then I am liable for $5. Not $50, because you have to live with the fact that I broke my word for the rest of your life.
The ideas of jail as a tool for reform was abandoned years ago in the US. It is supposed to be a deterrent, but I think there have been studies showing that it no longer deters either. The only thing it is used for that it actually accomplishes is punishement. Which is unfortunate, but I suspect that deterring and reforming prisons would cost more than society might be willing to bear.
For $1500, you can't get a system that I would call best bang for the buck. Instead you'll have to make compromises, which is fine -- compromises can sound good too.
At that amount, you'll have to be willing to trade size for money if you want high quality. I personally would not make this trade. I think speakers make lousy funiture, and people will set their drinks on them.
So I would still go smallish. I like Definitive Technology equipment, its a good brand out of America (foreign A/V equipment is not high quality for the most part, imo). Paradigm and Infiniti have some good stuff, but I think Klipsch is too harsh an tinny. For about $1100, you could aprobably get 2 procinema 200's, c2 center, and a 10" subwoofer. This would sound good, and be small, but that only means you have 400 left for a reciever (at your price range you can't good seperates (amp, etc.)). At that rate we'll have to go foreign on your receiver. Yamaha is the only brand that hits that price point with much quality. Yamaha rates there amps like the big boys, so 60 watts/channel will be plenty. If you go Aiwa or Sony or even Pioneer you'll need more like 90 watts/channel.
If you must have 5.1 sound, you'll have to buy a package. I think there is one called Take 5 (from Canada, the 51st state), that gets good reviews. But remember companies pay for the reviews so take them with a grain of salt.
If you really wanted to go gang for the buck you could get Denon AVR 1100 recever (~$900).
And then not buy ok speakers (but they would be big or they would be bad).
We really can't talk speaker bang for the buck without spending all of your $1500.
Sorry. If I were you I would just save my money for a couple more months.
I disagree. Essentially this point of view leads to implementation focus instead of interface focus. For the most part, I don't care how a module works, only that it does. I do care how I get that module to work for me. Structure turns out to have nothing to do with public interface design (and very little to do with private interface design, other than making functions). It is unfortunate that slashdot posted this stupid article. You can watch the author rant on news: comp.object. He goes by topmind there. His name is the least obnoxious part of him. His understanding of OO is not very deep. But comp.object is pretty smalltalk biased, so the objections you get usually aren't very interesting either.
Nah, you've been poisoned by popular languages. Lisp is an object oriented language that does not make this requirement or this sytax. From what I understand, Dylan is an even more potent language. The most popular OO languages are not a very good example of OO theory. Not even those noisy small talkers.
That is not wrong. If it wasn't offered there many of us would have no ability to get the information. Information should be free (as in speech), right. Why isn't everone yelling at this greedy grad student for trying to horde his information and control it. RMS would have no problems with this sight as long as they credit the original author. Information is information, whether it be music, code, or dissertation. You simply don't get it.
This is an argument for wimps. Crack should be legal too. It's got to do with personal freedom, none of this silly crap you mention. If you want to legalize marijuana, fine, but don't screw around with it, legalize cocaine, steroids, heroin, etc. And remember that kids are going to abuse cocaine and smack much the same way they abuse alcohol now. There are repercussions to legalizing drugs, but I'm not afraid of them, my guess is that you are. Just because your buddies get high on the weekend, don't pretend its important, fight for freedom because it is important to us as responsible human beings (that's the problem with Nader btw, he'll give you mary j, but not crack. He doesn't believe in freedom, he believes in getting high on the weekend. How anyone could vote for that buffoon is a mystery for me. I support Browne).
TkDiff is a very good diff tool. Almost identical to cleardiff if you've ever used clearcase. It is integrated with tkcvs, which I also strongly endorse (although I use the command line for some of the hairier stuff). Search on TkCVS and TkDiff. Terminal diff (along with just about every other visual terminal tool) sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
I concede that there is an impact due to precedence. It is possible that if I run a large, well known pro-hacking/cracking/phreaking web site and post the DeCSS source, I would probably lose if the appeals court writes a convincing argument (and I don't raise any new issues). :-)
But lets quickly examine what happens if the MPAA loses. They will still sue people who post the DeCSS source anyway. Why because the law still stands. The problem is the law, not the silly ass courts. The judicial just isn't that important, you have to sue for relief, and even if you think you'll win, there are no guarantees for either side. Facts differ. I am not Eric Corley, and I do not run 2600. Read the decision, he got killed for running 2600 by the judge. If the appeals court comes up with some really cool judgement based on different reasoning, maybe (though its unlikey) I would not be able to manufacture a DeCSS of my own (I probably would not be allowed to put it on my web page at least). But the MPAA has to come get me to enforce it, and they have to get you and everyone else, and they foot the bill. They have to pay for it every single time. I appreciate Eric Corley fighting the good fight, but I am not worried about losing my freedoms in this one. If the MPAA gets really aggressive and starts going after anyone who tries to develop DeCSS I get concerned, but that isn't really a rational fear. It is just one silly case.
Actually I care much more about the DMCA being revoked than this silly case. The real solution is to circumvent the whole silly courtroom, and call your congressman and tell him why you cannot vote for someone who supports the DMCA. You can't affect the stupid court anyway (maybe Bush will ignore their ruling like past presidents!)
:-).
Mainly I was trying to illustrate (a bit colorfully I admit) how irrelevant the judicial branch is compared to the other two branches -- even though the media (and ACLU, EFF, Lawyers, Judges, etc.) would have you believe otherwise.
There is a third point, Corley doesn't have to do anything cause the court tells him too, law enforcement has to enforce the ruling even after the court presides. (and as law enforcement is part of the executive branch, they don't have to follow the court's wishes, the branches are equal, they do what the chief exec tells them to do).
Perjoratives aside, there is one salient question here. (and I have parents, and am relatively simple, so I guess I am a simple child). Hopefully your post will get modded up to 1 . . . I guess.
Your question: "Why bother submitting [a brief] if the impact of the case falls only on Coreley/2600 and the MPAA?"
I'd like to know that as well. Hot and bothered liberals like Stallman and useless (though well intentioned) orgs like eff don't surprise me for getting worked up about this. They associate much importance to what documents say. I am more pragmatic, to me it matters only in how documents are enforced. That is the basis of my position -- and as it turns out the way our legal society works (isn't it illegal to have sex in positions other than missionary in most states, why aren't you hot and bothered about that? Cause it isn't enforced). Surely you realize the MPAA cannot sue everyone. So without executive enforcement, this case doesn't affect me. But why did all those other people sign it. Well, if given that document, I would sign it. Hell, I agree with everything in it, but that doesn't make it affect me. In alot of ways, words don't matter, enforcement does. Get the executive involved, and I might be concerned, but as it is, I'm rooting for Corley, and unworried if he loses. Come get me MPAA, first of all the facts will be different enough that precedent won't apply (you did read the decision right, most of it was based on the besmirched rep of 2600). You can't drag my name through the mud like you did Corley, and I won't try and make it political, I'll try to win (that is the biggest problem with ACLU, ie EFF, they are too worried about politics, rather than winning -- some of the witness discovery stuff was ridiculous).
I didn't goto law school (one class was enough), but I don't get the impression you did either. Be careful where you cast your stones.
NO.
What is being defined is the relief to grant to MPAA against Eric Corley. Nothing else. No matter how many times you guys talk about precedent or scope and reach (another way to say precendent), it doesn't make it so. Scope and reach are only in the relief provided in this case, stop adding more importance to it than exists. MPAA must sue for relief, so I am not impacted until MPAA sues me. Period. I can't be anymore blunt than that.
Your last statement is telling, criminal cases can only be brought be the executive branch which implies executive backing. Then you should be worried, but this trial is meaningless to you (unless you are Eric Corley). Only when the executive enforces this law does it become a concern for people not being directly sued.
Again (see above), there has to be executive backing (a different branch of government) for it to really stop me.
In this case, the executive backing is the willingness of the mpaa lawyers to file suit against me, so that relief may be sought. Legislature passes laws (Congress passed the DMCA), and the judicial branch interprets them (ie DeCSS violates the DMCA), but the executive enforces them (in lieue of the person having the crime commited against them). There is no executive backing (and there probably cannot be, unless the attorney general becomes a huge activist -- Ashcroft isn't), so I can do whatever I want until the mpaa files suit against me. Precedent may mean that I will be required to stop, but that still doesn't stop you. (precedent doesn't much matter with todays activist judges anyway). I see the precedent comments rolling in, and I don't know how to describe the fact that judicial relief isn't the same as executive enforcement). Only the government (executive branch), can impose relief to parties without a trial -- i.e. arrest me and seize all my computer stuff until nothing decss remains. Otherwise you have to sue for relief.
I must not be doing a good job of explaining this, someone with a good civics background help explain please.
It doesn't matter. Basically you're saying that taking away decss impacts me indirectly. But only in that now decss is gone. I can still write my own decss (or hire someone to write it for me). The mpaa has to file suit to stop me. So while I may be delayed, there has been no relief granted against me, there is no reason I cannot have and use a decss until the mpaa comes after me.
A law has no impact on me unless it has executive backing (in this case the willingness of the mpaa to file suit against individuals) which isn't done by the judicial branch (and so this court case cannot grant relief against me). I stand by my first statement, let the court interpret the constitution any rotten way they want. They only take away decss, not my ability to generate my own decryption.
The most important piece of insight about court cases came from my dad (a lawyer) a few weeks back.
:-)
He pointed out that, when all is said and done, only two parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) are impacted by a court decision. It is in fact meaningless to everyone else. They can interpret the Constitution any rotten way they want, but only two parties are impacted. I bring this up, because at first I thought this kind of crap (banning DeCSS) was going to make being a programmer (my beloved profession) insufferable in 15 years. But it won't, cause the court is only one arm of the government, and is no more or less corrupt than any other. Witness, the election, sure we were impacted because we may care who the president is, but only Bush and Gore were able to receive relief. In this case only MPAA receives relief (though they don't deserve it). Every other piece of code that breaks the DMCA has to have an injunction brought against it as well. This does not stop you from hacking other copy encryptions (even CSS), it just stop DeCSS. Let them ban it, maybe I'll start my own CSS decryption project and they'll have to come after me. Then you write your own, and they come after you. It still doesn't matter. Trials only affect two parties.
And thank goodness I might add, otherwise I might of sat up nights worrying (and I used to think about this kind of stuff alot) about something as insignificant as the judicial branch.
Perhaps his example was poor, but the question is still pretty solid. Why is he not free to access and copy signals being beamed into his home (source is irrelevant as long as he is not trying to cheat anyone -- i.e. if the signal were not free he would not pay for access to it).
The better examples below are related to copy'ing Digital TV broadcasts -- which the FCC is also going to ban, but the actual question relates to signal ownership and signal possesion. In the land of digital media, possesion is no longer 9/10'ths of the law. You are not free to access or use a signal in your possesion, even if you do not want it.
It is also important to note that you have made a good point as well. If my intent is to cheat the signal provider or anyone else by using a signal I would otherwise have purchased, then the law is being broken -- and the medium is irellevant (e.g. the law would be broken if you were using land you would otherwise have purchased to accomplish your goal). I would also like to add, that I amost didn't get your point because of the negativity surrounding it. Its easier on my brain if you just provide logical explanations.
I think this is a horrible trap for a programmer (or anyone else to fall into). This implies that happiness and fulfillment come from the outside, rather than the inside. I've worked on alot of defense software, that could be considered to have been more of a detriment to society rather than a benefit, but that isn't a healthy way for me to look at it (and it isn't really true, anyway). I take the fulfillment from how interesting the challenges posed in the project are to me, and whether the outcomes of the project (e.g. satisfaction at having managed tremendous complexity) caused me to view the project positively.
Abrash, qualified his statement, by saying it was true for him, I think you need to do so as well. The idea that your values are adequate for measuring anyone elses fulfillment is dangerous. (If the engineers that built the atomic bomb used someone else's guide to fulfillment we probably wouldn't have nuclear medicine or nuclear power today).
I don't disagree with anything you say in this post -- and I don't think you disagree with anything I said. But I do think it is important to note that for code to be reused, it must first be used. Code is used thru its interface only. Thus for use (much less reuse) to occur, the interface must be useful. Structuring may be important in making a piece of code work correctly without spending lots of money, but it doesn't matter if the interface is poor. I am simply wary of people who place implementation above interface. Fixing implementation is relatively easy (low impact, assuming the interface was correctly specified), changing a broken interface can bring a system to its knees (imagine if the interface to the str* function family was changed).
True.
I tried to keep the point simple. But it still stands in the corrected form that you state it. You are reimbursed for actual damage.
However, it is important to remember that substantial punitive damages are for special circumstances (e.g. I had some malicious intent in not paying the $5, not that I felt like buying a couple packs of baseball cards instead).
And this follows nicely into my point that the justice system exists to punish offenders equivalent to the crime they commit. It is not to disproportionately levy sentence on those that commit crimes.(unfortunately this is sometimes done, thinking that the system is a detterent for future criminals, but there is no proof that this works).
The courts were not setup with the thought that we would become a society of victims. That, in a sense causes the system to collapse upon itself, just because someone feels especially victimized doesn't mean they should get a (stronger or even any) legal remedy.
If you take the view that the victim has to live with it for life, than your real belief is that this crime is deserving of a life sentence.
That is the basis of the US justice system. That a debt must be repaid in full. If I violate a contract that would have made me give you $5, then I am liable for $5. Not $50, because you have to live with the fact that I broke my word for the rest of your life.
The ideas of jail as a tool for reform was abandoned years ago in the US. It is supposed to be a deterrent, but I think there have been studies showing that it no longer deters either. The only thing it is used for that it actually accomplishes is punishement. Which is unfortunate, but I suspect that deterring and reforming prisons would cost more than society might be willing to bear.
For $1500, you can't get a system that I would call best bang for the buck. Instead you'll have to make compromises, which is fine -- compromises can sound good too. At that amount, you'll have to be willing to trade size for money if you want high quality. I personally would not make this trade. I think speakers make lousy funiture, and people will set their drinks on them. So I would still go smallish. I like Definitive Technology equipment, its a good brand out of America (foreign A/V equipment is not high quality for the most part, imo). Paradigm and Infiniti have some good stuff, but I think Klipsch is too harsh an tinny. For about $1100, you could aprobably get 2 procinema 200's, c2 center, and a 10" subwoofer. This would sound good, and be small, but that only means you have 400 left for a reciever (at your price range you can't good seperates (amp, etc.)). At that rate we'll have to go foreign on your receiver. Yamaha is the only brand that hits that price point with much quality. Yamaha rates there amps like the big boys, so 60 watts/channel will be plenty. If you go Aiwa or Sony or even Pioneer you'll need more like 90 watts/channel. If you must have 5.1 sound, you'll have to buy a package. I think there is one called Take 5 (from Canada, the 51st state), that gets good reviews. But remember companies pay for the reviews so take them with a grain of salt. If you really wanted to go gang for the buck you could get Denon AVR 1100 recever (~$900). And then not buy ok speakers (but they would be big or they would be bad). We really can't talk speaker bang for the buck without spending all of your $1500. Sorry. If I were you I would just save my money for a couple more months.
I disagree. Essentially this point of view leads to implementation focus instead of interface focus. For the most part, I don't care how a module works, only that it does. I do care how I get that module to work for me. Structure turns out to have nothing to do with public interface design (and very little to do with private interface design, other than making functions). It is unfortunate that slashdot posted this stupid article. You can watch the author rant on news: comp.object. He goes by topmind there. His name is the least obnoxious part of him. His understanding of OO is not very deep. But comp.object is pretty smalltalk biased, so the objections you get usually aren't very interesting either.
Nah, you've been poisoned by popular languages. Lisp is an object oriented language that does not make this requirement or this sytax. From what I understand, Dylan is an even more potent language. The most popular OO languages are not a very good example of OO theory. Not even those noisy small talkers.
That is not wrong. If it wasn't offered there many of us would have no ability to get the information. Information should be free (as in speech), right. Why isn't everone yelling at this greedy grad student for trying to horde his information and control it. RMS would have no problems with this sight as long as they credit the original author. Information is information, whether it be music, code, or dissertation. You simply don't get it.
This is an argument for wimps. Crack should be legal too. It's got to do with personal freedom, none of this silly crap you mention. If you want to legalize marijuana, fine, but don't screw around with it, legalize cocaine, steroids, heroin, etc. And remember that kids are going to abuse cocaine and smack much the same way they abuse alcohol now. There are repercussions to legalizing drugs, but I'm not afraid of them, my guess is that you are. Just because your buddies get high on the weekend, don't pretend its important, fight for freedom because it is important to us as responsible human beings (that's the problem with Nader btw, he'll give you mary j, but not crack. He doesn't believe in freedom, he believes in getting high on the weekend. How anyone could vote for that buffoon is a mystery for me. I support Browne).
TkDiff is a very good diff tool. Almost identical to cleardiff if you've ever used clearcase. It is integrated with tkcvs, which I also strongly endorse (although I use the command line for some of the hairier stuff). Search on TkCVS and TkDiff. Terminal diff (along with just about every other visual terminal tool) sucks.