How is pointing out that privacy invasion isn't a uniquely liberal issue acknowledging that Democrats are anti-privacy and fewer liberties? Unless of course you're the kind of rightwinger who sees everything that way, no matter what the facts are.
BTW, by far the biggest jumps in government size since WWII have been by Eisenhower, then Nixon, then Reagan, then Bush. Each of them multiplied the size of the government, rather than the fractional increments during Democratic administrations. But why would facts matter when you've got Republican slogans to repeat instead?
Anonymous fascist Coward, the FISA Court is stopping the NSA from wiretapping you. Telecom abuse. Which is most certainly Slashdot material.
But since you're so insane that you think the FISA Court is engaged in "mindless anti-administration bashing", who cares what you think? Karl Rove, is that you, now that you've "retired" and have time to pollute Slashdot instead of trolling on DKos?
Bush's military used those weapons on Americans in New Orleans after Katrina.
The National Guard is now trained in Iraq to use them on civilians in cities. Those Guard will soon be restationed back in the USA. As economic collapses and more Katrina-scale disasters repeatedly "threaten public safety".
How's that working out for you? This story is about The Man wiretapping you without a warrant. How's that weapon working?
Is it working as good for you as it is for the Bloods and the Crips? As good as for the Branch Davidians in Waco?
But then, you think anyone should have a nuke who can afford it. Bin Laden can afford it, but you can't.
Thank you for demonstrating the kind of dementia that says the Second Amendment guarantees any weapon, no matter how powerful, to you. Rather than just ensuring that the US would use militias, rather than a standing army, that supplied themselves with weapons, rather than the government supporting a huge arsenal and a huge arms industry. Which wrong path you gun fetishists have kept driving us down for generations. And bringing along with it all the shooting deaths here in the US, and all the military adventurism worldwide that now includes Iraq.
Congratulations, you've gotten the Constitution and common sense so wrong that you've broken the country and helped kill millions of people.
This story is tagged "slashkos". As if a story about the FISA Court objecting to unwarranted (pun intended:P) invasions of Americans' privacy is somehow a "liberal" issue.
I remember when "Conservatives" used to be the most sensitive Americans to government invasion of personal lives. When "Conservatives" used to swear to lay down their very lives to prevent "big government" from gaining unbalanced power over people.
That was a long time ago. Those "Conservatives" are dead, or sold out to the lust for power and the money it brings.
Today's "Conservatives" will sell any liberty for any illusion of "security". And even a geek blog like Slashdot can notice. "Slashkos" indeed.
Is there any way to use the OpenStep source, perhaps in combo with Darwin (and maybe NetBSD or something) to produce a completely open source OS that will run OSX apps without porting the apps?
It sounds like the kind of research that Sun would sponsor, to compete with Apple. Run Mac apps on Sun HW, or maybe now on IBM HW in some kind of Solaris/OpenStep "container".
You know, I'd be interested in discussing this with you, if you weren't such an asshole to lead off your disagreement with the uncalled for "bullshit".
No I don't understand, because what you just said was fairly incomprehensible, even just following your inconsistent tenses.
But mainly because American publishing was built on piracy, including founders (and great writers) like Franklin.
Or rather because no one, not the Constitution or myself, has advocated unlimited right to copy. To the contrary, I explicitly supported the Constitution's protection of the privilege of exclusivity (fraudulently called copyright) for limited times only.
Unlimited freedom to create would include unlimited freedom to copy, as copying is part of creation. As Picasso said, "all artists borrow - great artists steal". All the greatest art is just updated folk art. Without using and adapting prior art, no one can create anything, or even learn to create anything purely original, when that does happen (exceedingly rarely).
The First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is not perfectly unlimited, like any practical freedom in the material world. But the compromise that copyright represents is a balance. Originally not so arbitrary, as its 17 years marks the transition of "pop" content into "folk" content as the original population becomes the "folks" of the next generation. We've blown that balance. The new one is not, as you claim in your strawman, "unlimited copying", but rather just times short enough to reflect the current economic tradeoffs.
Maybe 17 years is still enough for all content. Probably software should be copyright somewhere around 3-5 years. Possibly movies should be 5-10, if not 17. Books are probably good at 17. Newspapers and magazines probably should be copyright exclusive for weeks or months at most. Compiled stats and "pure databases" that are just samples of the real world (or of virtual worlds) probably something like 15 minutes, maybe hours or days. But nothing should last longer than 17 years. After that, it's just arbitrary grabbing value at the expense of freedom. Even while the value is then mostly created by its audience perpetuating its popularity.
That is what freedom would look like in the 21st Century. Entirely consistent with its vision from the late 18th.
If Sun had bought Apple any of the many times it's been rumored the past decade or more, then IBM mainframes might be running OSX right now.
OTOH, if IBM had bought Apple any of the many times it's been rumored the past decade or more, then Sun might be going out of business right now, without this IBM contract keeping them in business.
Copyright renewal beyond the hugely "generous" time that is merely the "first chance to default" makes the time unlimited. If it were limited, then even the Mickey Mouse span would also come with a "no renewals" clause.
That link to the supposedly "fringe theories" that Wickramsinghe supposedly has in addition to his comet origin theory shows nothing of the kind. All that it says there is that some Creationists in 1981 foolishly tried to use Wickramsinghe as a witness for Creationism - but Wickramsinghe said Creationism is claptrap. In a perfectly circular argument, this Slashdot summary is now slandering Wickramsinghe as a Creationist by citing a page that features Wickramsinghe precisely because he is not a Creationist.
For even more perfect circularity, the person referencing Wickramsinghe in that debate (in defense of evolution) mocked Wickramsinghe because he has maintained since at latest 1981 that Earth's organic evolution began in comets. Which is exactly what this story is about, with now over a quarter century of Wickramsinghe's consistent science.
Wickramsinghe might be wrong. But this circus of supposed geeks just casting doubt on his work without any science in their "counterarguments" is a worthless opposition.
Homeostasis and reproduction are good criteria for defining life, which these things could qualify as if they exist outside the simulation.
If they show these organized interstellar materials can process, store and transmit info, then they're not just "alive". They're "intelligent life".
We should devise experiments to search for them to actually exist in anything close to their simulated form. But we should be careful not to disrupt or threaten them with any probes. What if they created us, and decide to shut us down?
The entire matter relates to copying. We still respect the difference between copying and interpreting content. That distinction needs to be leveraged to undermine the overreach of copyright. For example, the Harry Fox Agency claims its copyright on sheet music lets it stop people from publishing their interpretations of music they've heard in written instructions (such as tablature format or standard musical notation).
The entire control revolves around who has the right to copy. The definition of "copy" needs to be revised to accommodate the legitimate recirculation of info that these days adds value to the original, even when it can sometimes compete with it. The technology, the economics, and the culture have changed to promote science and useful arts through less restricted copying.
I agree. Patent and copyright protection are based on the requirement that all the details are disclosed. Encoded content should not get that protection. Only published human readable content - source code - can be so protected.
Binary only code can not be protected. So it will be disadvantaged.
Your idea is good. And though it's far from current practice, keep in mind that persistence with a good idea that well models real practice is the key to seeing the model applied in new rules.
And publishing the idea widely, without restriction;).
All content is copyrighted whenever it's published. Everyone carries mobile phones with mics, and soon cameras will be universal. By then, speech and image recognition will be accurate enough for copyright holders to claim infringement whenever they have any evidence, however unreliable, to make the claim.
The copyright industry will force everyone to keep quiet all the time. But the phones will still ring in movie theaters - they just won't be able to record the movie without getting caught.
The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The current overreaching copyright regime inhibits, rather than promotes, the progress of science and useful arts. It secures for unlimited times to parties other than authors, like publishers and agencies, exclusive rights. That inhibit, rather than promote the progress that justifies the Constitution's original compromise with our inalienable freedom to express ourselves, even by copying another's content.
At one time, for a few hundred years, economics meant copyright was the compromise between perfect freedom and perfect commerce. But now technology and global interconnectedness have reduced the time in which exclusivity is justifiable, even as corporations have extended the "limited times" to longer, indefinitely long, periods.
We have to scrap this thing and start over with new limited times, shorter than the original 17 years (a human generation) of the late 1700s. Or it will scrap us, as it has already done for far too long.
The most important question for any word processor is "what file formats can it read/write?"
Word processors all have to read/write at least MS Word.doc format. Because most documents we exchange are in that format. They usually add their own format, for the same reasons MS invented its own: to lock you in to that app, even years after the reasons you originally used it might not have any value at all.
They'll all claim that their own new app features can be stored only in their own new format. But that's a bunch of crap. They should all read/write both.doc and XML (with a public DTD and descriptive specs). Postscript/PDF would be nice, especially if Adobe lets people import PDF for editing.
But PDF is just another bell/whistle. What we need is a standard, open storage/exchange format. If Adobe commits to that, they just might have a winner. Otherwise, they shouldn't waste our time with yet another format we'll need to interconvert all the time, instead of productive work.
Is one of the two electron spin states in a higher energy state than the other? In other words, does an electron require more (or less) energy to switch from "UP" to "DOWN" than the reverse flip? Or are both spin energy states the same?
If there is an energy difference, how big is it (minimum theoretical)? And how much is the minimum (theoretical) energy required to flip the state? I'm not talking about today's first generation flippers, which probably consume much more energy than is theoretically required. And I'm not talking about the typical processes for collecting electrons in one state, which merely sorts the existing electrons by their existing state, and doesn't actually flip them.
You're an anonymous fool. The system should survive the NIC in a desktop dying. It doesn't matter how hard it is to replace. Its dying shouldn't take out the system.
It's getting to the point where I don't even need to read the rest of a comment, when I just see it's an AC who uses the word "dumbass". You're invariably dumbasses. Don't whine to me about how you don't know how to make a fault tolerant network in a critical system like an airport, just because you've got a crappy job where they make you find and replace NICs.
Slashdot Mirror
How is pointing out that privacy invasion isn't a uniquely liberal issue acknowledging that Democrats are anti-privacy and fewer liberties? Unless of course you're the kind of rightwinger who sees everything that way, no matter what the facts are.
BTW, by far the biggest jumps in government size since WWII have been by Eisenhower, then Nixon, then Reagan, then Bush. Each of them multiplied the size of the government, rather than the fractional increments during Democratic administrations. But why would facts matter when you've got Republican slogans to repeat instead?
Anonymous fascist Coward, the FISA Court is stopping the NSA from wiretapping you. Telecom abuse. Which is most certainly Slashdot material.
But since you're so insane that you think the FISA Court is engaged in "mindless anti-administration bashing", who cares what you think? Karl Rove, is that you, now that you've "retired" and have time to pollute Slashdot instead of trolling on DKos?
You still have your guns. Liberals haven't taken any from you.
But you also still obviously have your paranoia and schizophrenic disconnection from reality.
I wish someone would take your guns before you hurt someone.
Bush's military used those weapons on Americans in New Orleans after Katrina.
The National Guard is now trained in Iraq to use them on civilians in cities. Those Guard will soon be restationed back in the USA. As economic collapses and more Katrina-scale disasters repeatedly "threaten public safety".
How's that working out for you? This story is about The Man wiretapping you without a warrant. How's that weapon working?
Is it working as good for you as it is for the Bloods and the Crips? As good as for the Branch Davidians in Waco?
But then, you think anyone should have a nuke who can afford it. Bin Laden can afford it, but you can't.
Thank you for demonstrating the kind of dementia that says the Second Amendment guarantees any weapon, no matter how powerful, to you. Rather than just ensuring that the US would use militias, rather than a standing army, that supplied themselves with weapons, rather than the government supporting a huge arsenal and a huge arms industry. Which wrong path you gun fetishists have kept driving us down for generations. And bringing along with it all the shooting deaths here in the US, and all the military adventurism worldwide that now includes Iraq.
Congratulations, you've gotten the Constitution and common sense so wrong that you've broken the country and helped kill millions of people.
This story is tagged "slashkos". As if a story about the FISA Court objecting to unwarranted (pun intended :P) invasions of Americans' privacy is somehow a "liberal" issue.
I remember when "Conservatives" used to be the most sensitive Americans to government invasion of personal lives. When "Conservatives" used to swear to lay down their very lives to prevent "big government" from gaining unbalanced power over people.
That was a long time ago. Those "Conservatives" are dead, or sold out to the lust for power and the money it brings.
Today's "Conservatives" will sell any liberty for any illusion of "security". And even a geek blog like Slashdot can notice. "Slashkos" indeed.
True. And I have no claim to your derivative work, either.
:).
At least you can't sue me for it
Is there any way to use the OpenStep source, perhaps in combo with Darwin (and maybe NetBSD or something) to produce a completely open source OS that will run OSX apps without porting the apps?
It sounds like the kind of research that Sun would sponsor, to compete with Apple. Run Mac apps on Sun HW, or maybe now on IBM HW in some kind of Solaris/OpenStep "container".
You know, I'd be interested in discussing this with you, if you weren't such an asshole to lead off your disagreement with the uncalled for "bullshit".
Fuck you.
No I don't understand, because what you just said was fairly incomprehensible, even just following your inconsistent tenses.
But mainly because American publishing was built on piracy, including founders (and great writers) like Franklin.
Or rather because no one, not the Constitution or myself, has advocated unlimited right to copy. To the contrary, I explicitly supported the Constitution's protection of the privilege of exclusivity (fraudulently called copyright) for limited times only.
Unlimited freedom to create would include unlimited freedom to copy, as copying is part of creation. As Picasso said, "all artists borrow - great artists steal". All the greatest art is just updated folk art. Without using and adapting prior art, no one can create anything, or even learn to create anything purely original, when that does happen (exceedingly rarely).
The First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is not perfectly unlimited, like any practical freedom in the material world. But the compromise that copyright represents is a balance. Originally not so arbitrary, as its 17 years marks the transition of "pop" content into "folk" content as the original population becomes the "folks" of the next generation. We've blown that balance. The new one is not, as you claim in your strawman, "unlimited copying", but rather just times short enough to reflect the current economic tradeoffs.
Maybe 17 years is still enough for all content. Probably software should be copyright somewhere around 3-5 years. Possibly movies should be 5-10, if not 17. Books are probably good at 17. Newspapers and magazines probably should be copyright exclusive for weeks or months at most. Compiled stats and "pure databases" that are just samples of the real world (or of virtual worlds) probably something like 15 minutes, maybe hours or days. But nothing should last longer than 17 years. After that, it's just arbitrary grabbing value at the expense of freedom. Even while the value is then mostly created by its audience perpetuating its popularity.
That is what freedom would look like in the 21st Century. Entirely consistent with its vision from the late 18th.
If Sun had bought Apple any of the many times it's been rumored the past decade or more, then IBM mainframes might be running OSX right now.
OTOH, if IBM had bought Apple any of the many times it's been rumored the past decade or more, then Sun might be going out of business right now, without this IBM contract keeping them in business.
Copyright renewal beyond the hugely "generous" time that is merely the "first chance to default" makes the time unlimited. If it were limited, then even the Mickey Mouse span would also come with a "no renewals" clause.
I'm glad you're doing the hard work of spreading my ideas for free. Carry on.
That link to the supposedly "fringe theories" that Wickramsinghe supposedly has in addition to his comet origin theory shows nothing of the kind. All that it says there is that some Creationists in 1981 foolishly tried to use Wickramsinghe as a witness for Creationism - but Wickramsinghe said Creationism is claptrap . In a perfectly circular argument, this Slashdot summary is now slandering Wickramsinghe as a Creationist by citing a page that features Wickramsinghe precisely because he is not a Creationist.
For even more perfect circularity, the person referencing Wickramsinghe in that debate (in defense of evolution) mocked Wickramsinghe because he has maintained since at latest 1981 that Earth's organic evolution began in comets. Which is exactly what this story is about, with now over a quarter century of Wickramsinghe's consistent science.
Wickramsinghe might be wrong. But this circus of supposed geeks just casting doubt on his work without any science in their "counterarguments" is a worthless opposition.
Homeostasis and reproduction are good criteria for defining life, which these things could qualify as if they exist outside the simulation.
If they show these organized interstellar materials can process, store and transmit info, then they're not just "alive". They're "intelligent life".
We should devise experiments to search for them to actually exist in anything close to their simulated form. But we should be careful not to disrupt or threaten them with any probes. What if they created us, and decide to shut us down?
We finally have a clue as to what Intelligent Designer crafted the cosmic matter into the seeds that brought life to the Earth.
I bet these interstellar Creator "gods" are nothing like any diety we've ever considered.
Only officially registered copyrights (at the Library of Congress Copyright Office) can claim damages.
The entire matter relates to copying. We still respect the difference between copying and interpreting content. That distinction needs to be leveraged to undermine the overreach of copyright. For example, the Harry Fox Agency claims its copyright on sheet music lets it stop people from publishing their interpretations of music they've heard in written instructions (such as tablature format or standard musical notation).
The entire control revolves around who has the right to copy. The definition of "copy" needs to be revised to accommodate the legitimate recirculation of info that these days adds value to the original, even when it can sometimes compete with it. The technology, the economics, and the culture have changed to promote science and useful arts through less restricted copying.
I agree. Patent and copyright protection are based on the requirement that all the details are disclosed. Encoded content should not get that protection. Only published human readable content - source code - can be so protected.
;).
Binary only code can not be protected. So it will be disadvantaged.
Your idea is good. And though it's far from current practice, keep in mind that persistence with a good idea that well models real practice is the key to seeing the model applied in new rules.
And publishing the idea widely, without restriction
ODF, the XML format derived (not by MIT) from the OpenOffice.org format.
Not at all far fetched. But not nearly a done deal, either.
The copyright industry will force everyone to keep quiet all the time. But the phones will still ring in movie theaters - they just won't be able to record the movie without getting caught.
The current overreaching copyright regime inhibits, rather than promotes, the progress of science and useful arts. It secures for unlimited times to parties other than authors, like publishers and agencies, exclusive rights. That inhibit, rather than promote the progress that justifies the Constitution's original compromise with our inalienable freedom to express ourselves, even by copying another's content.
At one time, for a few hundred years, economics meant copyright was the compromise between perfect freedom and perfect commerce. But now technology and global interconnectedness have reduced the time in which exclusivity is justifiable, even as corporations have extended the "limited times" to longer, indefinitely long, periods.
We have to scrap this thing and start over with new limited times, shorter than the original 17 years (a human generation) of the late 1700s. Or it will scrap us, as it has already done for far too long.
The most important question for any word processor is "what file formats can it read/write?"
.doc format. Because most documents we exchange are in that format. They usually add their own format, for the same reasons MS invented its own: to lock you in to that app, even years after the reasons you originally used it might not have any value at all.
.doc and XML (with a public DTD and descriptive specs). Postscript/PDF would be nice, especially if Adobe lets people import PDF for editing.
Word processors all have to read/write at least MS Word
They'll all claim that their own new app features can be stored only in their own new format. But that's a bunch of crap. They should all read/write both
But PDF is just another bell/whistle. What we need is a standard, open storage/exchange format. If Adobe commits to that, they just might have a winner. Otherwise, they shouldn't waste our time with yet another format we'll need to interconvert all the time, instead of productive work.
Is one of the two electron spin states in a higher energy state than the other? In other words, does an electron require more (or less) energy to switch from "UP" to "DOWN" than the reverse flip? Or are both spin energy states the same?
If there is an energy difference, how big is it (minimum theoretical)? And how much is the minimum (theoretical) energy required to flip the state? I'm not talking about today's first generation flippers, which probably consume much more energy than is theoretically required. And I'm not talking about the typical processes for collecting electrons in one state, which merely sorts the existing electrons by their existing state, and doesn't actually flip them.
You're an anonymous fool. The system should survive the NIC in a desktop dying. It doesn't matter how hard it is to replace. Its dying shouldn't take out the system.
It's getting to the point where I don't even need to read the rest of a comment, when I just see it's an AC who uses the word "dumbass". You're invariably dumbasses. Don't whine to me about how you don't know how to make a fault tolerant network in a critical system like an airport, just because you've got a crappy job where they make you find and replace NICs.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
Thank you, TrollMod, for your prompt and thorough answer.