an internal report concluded that the province's utility company was so badly managed that it had compromised the safety of its entire nuclear power system.
any technology too dangerous to be operated by people is bad tech.
Yeah, imagine that. People don't want to be prosecuted.
it's more than that: people, once they understand the whole client/server model, get really slaved to that idea. they use their p2p app as a client used to retreive stuff from servers.
this is why there hasn't been much outrage over the whole ftp/web sharing prosecution. joe average looks at the servers as being different, more dedicated. the servers as the "pushers and pimps" the clients are just "casual users and johns".
I'm looking forward to seeing how the spammers abuse the law, and how (hopefully) they strengthen the law in the future.
and keep strengthening and strengthening the law. why are we so eager to expand government control over an unfettered means of communication? because spam is "inconvenient"?
this is the thin edge of the wedge that gets the state to control what goes in your inbox.
You KNOW this is someone's actual name. I feel so bad for him.
yes. he played guitar for the band "x" who were quite popular in souther california during the 1980's. (the band is still together, btw, and you can catch them nov 21 and 22 in l.a. at the "house of blues").
maybe because you refuse to look? yes, cold fusion got a bad rap and may very well be a crock of... non-fusing stuff. but there are smart people who disagree:
"There's very strong evidence that low-energy nuclear reactions do occur. Numerous experiments have shown definitive results" -George Miley, who received the Edward Teller medal for innovative research in hot fusion and has edited Fusion Technology magazine for the American Nuclear Society
"Nuclear reactions can occur without high temperatures. Low-energy nuclear transformations can - and do - exist." - John Bockris, formerly a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry
"I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear." - Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International
voucher "socialism" (food stamps is the classic example) is a good way to not only redistribute spending power but focus it as well. the food stamp program in the u.s. is only partly there to prevent the poor from starving - it's also designed to prop up the agricultural sector. doubt me? food stamps are run by the department of agrictulture, not the department of welfare.
i made this exact same point two days ago right here. ah, well, duplication time:
from the copyright faq:
To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.
It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.
The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.
If someone steals a commercial CD, steals a blank CD-R, and then copies the commercial CD onto the CD-R, they are a thief, but they have not infringed copyright.
You can legally lend a commercial CD to a friend, give him a blank CD-R, let him use your computer, and help him burn the CD-R which he can keep for his own private use.
You can legally copy a commercial CD , keep the copy, and give your friend the original.
You cannot legally make the copy yourself and give your friend the copy.
Your friends Alice and Benoit really like the new commercial CD you just purchased. Alice borrows it and makes a copy for her own use. She then passes the commercial CD on to Benoit, who makes a copy for his own use. Benoit gives the commercial CD back to you. This is all perfectly legal.
However, if Alice had copied the commercial CD, given it back to you, and passed her copy on to Benoit to make a copy for his own use, then copyright would have "probably" been infringed. There is some doubt here because Alice's original intent is important. In the strictest terms, her copy was no longer just for her private use. Pretty strange considering that the end result of examples 5 and 6 are exactly the same!
p2p is the killer app of the internet. really. access to information (the web) and communication (email, chat) is nice, but people want stuff. it's like one big mall... and we know how much americans' love their malls.
however, if you have ever tried to get joe-average-desktop-user to set up gpg or pgp then you know that something has to be made easier! even the point-n-click solutions like winpt or mac-gpg (my fave!) make my dad's head ring. here's an example: i work with a guy who went to work for the nsa (that's right, super-spook central). about a year ago i asked him where his public key was so that i could send him some sensitive work-type stuff. his response? "i don't have any of that. it's too confusing".
this is a guy who the nsa chose to hire!
something has to be simplified if mom-n-pop (and nsa hires) are going to use crypto.
ah, you think it's funny - but it's true! the more a program does, the greater its potential for security flaws. thus, frymaster's first rule of secure programming: "your program shall do no more than what is absolutely required by the spec-n-rec[1]".
1. you got a spec-n-rec from the client? lucky you!
er, why would you think that? intellectual property has only become stronger over the last 20, 100, 500 years.
government regulation of economic rights parallels economic growth. when agriculture became the dominant economic model, feudalism and land-rights became entrenched. when capitalism and the industrial revolution made their debut, property rights becamed enshrined by the state. now that we are heading into a "post-industrial" (don't blame me for that phrase), information-based economy, intellectual property rights will becomed entrenched.
let's face it: the opensource folks like us are the diggers and godwinists of the information revolution. we will impact the nature of property rights, but not abolish them.
the following is ripped off from the copyright faq:
To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.
It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.
The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.
If someone steals a commercial CD, steals a blank CD-R, and then copies the commercial CD onto the CD-R, they are a thief, but they have not infringed copyright.
You can legally lend a commercial CD to a friend, give him a blank CD-R, let him use your computer, and help him burn the CD-R which he can keep for his own private use.
You can legally copy a commercial CD , keep the copy, and give your friend the original.
You cannot legally make the copy yourself and give your friend the copy.
Your friends Alice and Benoit really like the new commercial CD you just purchased. Alice borrows it and makes a copy for her own use. She then passes the commercial CD on to Benoit, who makes a copy for his own use. Benoit gives the commercial CD back to you. This is all perfectly legal.
However, if Alice had copied the commercial CD, given it back to you, and passed her copy on to Benoit to make a copy for his own use, then copyright would have "probably" been infringed. There is some doubt here because Alice's original intent is important. In the strictest terms, her copy was no longer just for her private use. Pretty strange considering that the end result of examples 5 and 6 are exactly the same!
you've already got one, m'lad. they're called the project for a new american century - the think tank that came up with the whole notion of making u.s. foreign and domestic policy more "pc" (patriotically correct). it's all on record here:
many places get weeks and even months without significant lighting at some point in the year
and many places aren't suitable for hydro generation. and many more places lack fossil fuels. so?
when it comes to alternative energies, we aren't looking for one silver bullet. a solid energy programme will rely on a diversity of generation methods as well as consumer and industrial-level conservation measures. when it's windy, use wind. when it's sunny, use solar. when neither is available, fall back on hydro or (god forbid) coal. and, of course, conserve, conserve, conserve.
the last time we had a grand-unified-energy-solution it was "too cheap to meter" nuclear power.
Make sure your market is not undermined by the competition, free or otherwise.
well put. i am tired of hearing that capitalism is based on competition and risk. it isn't. capitalism is based on mitigating risk as much as possible and eliminating the competition if feasible. all capitalist systems tend towards monopolism naturally.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.nbenrenb.elements.nb.ca/environews%20fi les/media/mediaarchives/97/sevshuts.htm
my favourite quote:
an internal report concluded that the province's utility company was so badly managed that it had compromised the safety of its entire nuclear power system.
any technology too dangerous to be operated by people is bad tech.
it's more than that: people, once they understand the whole client/server model, get really slaved to that idea. they use their p2p app as a client used to retreive stuff from servers.
this is why there hasn't been much outrage over the whole ftp/web sharing prosecution. joe average looks at the servers as being different, more dedicated. the servers as the "pushers and pimps" the clients are just "casual users and johns".
at least that's how they see it.
read the originial post, hard drives are packed "like cereal".
setteling may occur.
no. apple was always cool. it's just that people are only starting to realize it now. think about it:
and, despite all this, the computers still look nice.
very cool indeed!
and keep strengthening and strengthening the law. why are we so eager to expand government control over an unfettered means of communication? because spam is "inconvenient"?
this is the thin edge of the wedge that gets the state to control what goes in your inbox.
yes. he played guitar for the band "x" who were quite popular in souther california during the 1980's. (the band is still together, btw, and you can catch them nov 21 and 22 in l.a. at the "house of blues").
here is a photo of mr. doe
poor sucker.
they should try again!
apt-get upgrade
do you work for the riaa or something?
people buy books (and cd's) even though they can be garnered free over the 'net because:
maybe because you refuse to look? yes, cold fusion got a bad rap and may very well be a crock of... non-fusing stuff. but there are smart people who disagree:
quotes cribbed (using Copy-n-Paste[TM]) from the wired magazine article on cold fusion
give it a read.
voucher "socialism" (food stamps is the classic example) is a good way to not only redistribute spending power but focus it as well. the food stamp program in the u.s. is only partly there to prevent the poor from starving - it's also designed to prop up the agricultural sector. doubt me? food stamps are run by the department of agrictulture, not the department of welfare.
from the copyright faq:
To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.
It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.
The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.
i think they meant "cosmanaut".
size 7 1/2 please!
however, if you have ever tried to get joe-average-desktop-user to set up gpg or pgp then you know that something has to be made easier! even the point-n-click solutions like winpt or mac-gpg (my fave!) make my dad's head ring. here's an example: i work with a guy who went to work for the nsa (that's right, super-spook central). about a year ago i asked him where his public key was so that i could send him some sensitive work-type stuff. his response? "i don't have any of that. it's too confusing". this is a guy who the nsa chose to hire!
something has to be simplified if mom-n-pop (and nsa hires) are going to use crypto.
(oh, and this is my public key)
ah, you think it's funny - but it's true! the more a program does, the greater its potential for security flaws. thus, frymaster's first rule of secure programming: "your program shall do no more than what is absolutely required by the spec-n-rec[1]".
1. you got a spec-n-rec from the client? lucky you!
er, why would you think that? intellectual property has only become stronger over the last 20, 100, 500 years.
government regulation of economic rights parallels economic growth. when agriculture became the dominant economic model, feudalism and land-rights became entrenched. when capitalism and the industrial revolution made their debut, property rights becamed enshrined by the state. now that we are heading into a "post-industrial" (don't blame me for that phrase), information-based economy, intellectual property rights will becomed entrenched.
let's face it: the opensource folks like us are the diggers and godwinists of the information revolution. we will impact the nature of property rights, but not abolish them.
doubt me? read up on the diggers and william godwin. sounds like the oss movement today, right?
To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.
It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.
The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.
you've already got one, m'lad. they're called the project for a new american century - the think tank that came up with the whole notion of making u.s. foreign and domestic policy more "pc" (patriotically correct). it's all on record here:
official pnac site:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
analysis site 1:
http://www.pnac.info/
analysis site 2:
http://pnacrevealed.com/
read 'em and vote.
and many places aren't suitable for hydro generation. and many more places lack fossil fuels. so?
when it comes to alternative energies, we aren't looking for one silver bullet. a solid energy programme will rely on a diversity of generation methods as well as consumer and industrial-level conservation measures. when it's windy, use wind. when it's sunny, use solar. when neither is available, fall back on hydro or (god forbid) coal. and, of course, conserve, conserve, conserve.
the last time we had a grand-unified-energy-solution it was "too cheap to meter" nuclear power.
oops.
well put. i am tired of hearing that capitalism is based on competition and risk. it isn't. capitalism is based on mitigating risk as much as possible and eliminating the competition if feasible. all capitalist systems tend towards monopolism naturally.
flamebait.
i can barely wait for the action figures...
let's hope there isn't one for electricity too!
ridiculous of course. edison patented the light bulb, not the theory that electricity passing through resistance generates radiation!