I read the thing for the fifth or so time now, and I still can't find that part... could you quote it out for me please?
(2) The extent to which new technology tools, capabilities, or legal authorities may be required for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet;
Reading between the lines... (Try thinking about this with Janet Reno's brain)
I read the order, and what it said to me was that the clinton administration has ALREADY done this research, and it ALREADY includes plans to force the instalation of blocking software in public schools, and it ALREADY suggests crimes commited over the internet are under federal juristriction, and it ALREADY says that content will have to be policed in the future... Just because the order doesn't say all that in the text, you can see it between the lines when you look at our power hungry presiden't past when it deals with the internet, and the fact that Janet Reno (the head of this "Working Group" has previously stated about the internet.
This is not disturbing.. What is disturbing is that what the know-nothings on this panel recommend are going to be taken as gospel by the know-nothings in congress. (Yes, MOST of them are know-nothings when it comes to the internet...) And we're going to have to live with their arrogance and lack of foresight.
The US government is going to make a law that protects children's rights... Children can't vote, remember... And they have no reason to give up their power over them.
Not only that, but the people who these new laws most effects (internet users) are in the 18-30 year old range... Historically, these people don't vote either... So, unless we get off our asses and do something about this soon, there might as well not be an internet in the US. Because the way it's going, it'll turn into network TV with buttons. (And all of the content will be politically regulated just like the evening news and Dateline, so that people here won't know that their freedom has been stripped from them!)
EXACTLY! And since when is it the Fed's job to "Protect the children?" I thought that that was a paren't job! Anyway, I hope everyone remembers this kind of thing when Big Gay Al is out there saying "Vote Gore" next November!
Not only will this committee's findings not be all that useful, but the result of them will probably be a lingering annoyance among people who use and work with the internet on a day to day basis. The way that the internet is governed needs to be handled differently from the traditional methods of the US government, and here's why:
Present government processes were designed at a time when information traveled at the speed of a horseback messanger.
The present administration forgets that all people are to be assumed innocent under the US constituion until they are proven guilty. This means that it is unconstitutional for the government to plan for the ability to monitor all people using a communications medium. IE backdoors in encryption schemes, and tap hardware that is in place to monitor any individual when they feel the need to "turn it on." (It should be a major PITA for the FBI to do a wiretap)
Internet users have been given a taste of real freedom. (Not the fake kind that we have here in the US) Changes in that freedom will lead to a great deal of resistance. Revolt is BAD (TM)
The US government has a decent basis of existing laws, however the current trend is to make more laws rather then enforce the ones that they already have. Another disturbing trend is towards making laws that protect people from themselves. Instead of making all sorts of crazy new specialized laws, why don't they just inforce the laws they have and stick to doing what the federal government was originally intended for: Regulating interstate trade, defending it's citizens, and maintaing national parks and services.
...that this was the quote at the bottom of the page when this story was posted:
Take what you can use and let the rest go by. -- Ken Kesey
As for the essay, Who cares what those people do. They're not contributers to the community, they're lame. The developers who contribute use linux because it offers them what they're looking for. Until something else offers more, then this is where they'll stay.
The point the author seems to have missed is this: Once something better comes around, who cares what happens to linux. Linux should go away when something better comes along. Why would he want to save something that's not worth saving. He makes it sound like it's a Bad Thing(TM), but it's not.
Someone should rewrite this with an optimistic tone and submit THAT to slashdot and see how the comments differ.
I installed two Open Linux systems last week. One on a P90 and one on a PIII 500. The instalation program is not for experts. Beyond that, it's SLOW!!! On the P90, the instalation went 2-3 times faster when I switched away from the GUI. (Same on the PIII, but that hardly made a difference.) The worst part is how it boots the kernel in the first place. It has a GUI overlay for all of it's init, and it trys to modprobe EVERY available kernel module. This WILL lock most systems! Good luck to those who try it, and remember, --F3 if you ever want to finish!
Anti-Capitalism would be a good thing if everyone would contribute to society's needs without compensation. However, most people would sit on their ass if the didn't need to work for cash. Also, if you wanted to ever have that computer you're reading this in in a non-capitalisitc society, you'd have to learn yourself everyting involved in making it and do it yourself. There wouldn't be any people (or groups of them called companies) specializing in making them good and inexpensive. Point being that if there were never capatialism, we'd all be farmers or dictators. (Mostly farmers). Ending capitalism would just start a slow decline to the same.
You're confused. If you release the changes as freely available, then it's no longer propriatary. (The changes also have to be GPLed, so the people you give teh changes to can give them to whomever they what to.)
What he means by this is that they can incorporate the code into a non-Open Source product, and sell that without givig the real author the credit he requested. (i.e. making what his code was incorporated in freely available) In other words, you don't have to make your changes available if you don't use GPL.
If linux had been licensed under the BSD license instead of the GPL, Microsoft would have snatched a ton of the code up into windows by now. (Guaranteed there would be no credit given.)
Take this as a good or a bad thing...
(For those of you who will say "Well, they didn't snatch up BSD code" I say "How do you know")
If you noticed, he didn't (and wouldn't) make this as a promise. If you think about what you jsut said, it's not consistant with your comment for any company (ISP) to get subsidised. It is the government's job, hovever, to make sure that resources are available to all people. (Not jsut the rich or "middle class") "The government doesn't belong in business" means just that. It is not the governments place to do more then protect our constitutional rights. Our rights allow us protection from monoplies, and if this is set up right, no company would have a monopoly on T1's to your house. Monopolies are created by patents, not congress. If we all expected politics to be focused the basics, they wouldn't have an opportunity to be liars and cheats.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, politics is all about doing things to get votes. That is the right way to do it. It is not a congressman's responsibility to be compasionate, but to do what is going to get people to vote for him. That is how a politition represents his district in their best interests. Keeping th emiddle class happy won't get him any votes from the lower classes. (Who are the majority) No votes, you don't get elected. If you don't vote (intellegently: issues, not party alignment) you deserve the shitting on that you recieve. Everybody in the US HAS the opportunity to have a home and food. (Yes, they do.) This is THE basis of a representitve republic like the US. In a way, however, you are right. Anybody who would vote for somebody based on one issue should be slapped. Hard.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the thing for the fifth or so time now, and I still can't find that part... could you quote it out for me please?
(2) The extent to which new technology tools, capabilities, or legal authorities may be required for effective investigation and prosecution of unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet;
Reading between the lines... (Try thinking about this with Janet Reno's brain)
I read the order, and what it said to me was that the clinton administration has ALREADY done this research, and it ALREADY includes plans to force the instalation of blocking software in public schools, and it ALREADY suggests crimes commited over the internet are under federal juristriction, and it ALREADY says that content will have to be policed in the future... Just because the order doesn't say all that in the text, you can see it between the lines when you look at our power hungry presiden't past when it deals with the internet, and the fact that Janet Reno (the head of this "Working Group" has previously stated about the internet.
This is not disturbing.. What is disturbing is that what the know-nothings on this panel recommend are going to be taken as gospel by the know-nothings in congress. (Yes, MOST of them are know-nothings when it comes to the internet...) And we're going to have to live with their arrogance and lack of foresight.
The US government is going to make a law that protects children's rights... Children can't vote, remember... And they have no reason to give up their power over them.
Not only that, but the people who these new laws most effects (internet users) are in the 18-30 year old range... Historically, these people don't vote either... So, unless we get off our asses and do something about this soon, there might as well not be an internet in the US. Because the way it's going, it'll turn into network TV with buttons. (And all of the content will be politically regulated just like the evening news and Dateline, so that people here won't know that their freedom has been stripped from them!)
Geeks for President!
EXACTLY! And since when is it the Fed's job to "Protect the children?" I thought that that was a paren't job! Anyway, I hope everyone remembers this kind of thing when Big Gay Al is out there saying "Vote Gore" next November!
Present government processes were designed at a time when information traveled at the speed of a horseback messanger.
The present administration forgets that all people are to be assumed innocent under the US constituion until they are proven guilty. This means that it is unconstitutional for the government to plan for the ability to monitor all people using a communications medium. IE backdoors in encryption schemes, and tap hardware that is in place to monitor any individual when they feel the need to "turn it on." (It should be a major PITA for the FBI to do a wiretap)
Internet users have been given a taste of real freedom. (Not the fake kind that we have here in the US) Changes in that freedom will lead to a great deal of resistance. Revolt is BAD (TM)
The US government has a decent basis of existing laws, however the current trend is to make more laws rather then enforce the ones that they already have. Another disturbing trend is towards making laws that protect people from themselves. Instead of making all sorts of crazy new specialized laws, why don't they just inforce the laws they have and stick to doing what the federal government was originally intended for: Regulating interstate trade, defending it's citizens, and maintaing national parks and services.
... That Diamond has either sold out to the RIAA, or that they said "Find We'll support SDMI to shut you up".
Let's hope they haven't sold out. It would suck for the RIAA to get their way once again.
...that this was the quote at the bottom of the page when this story was posted:
Take what you can use and let the rest go by. -- Ken Kesey
As for the essay, Who cares what those people do. They're not contributers to the community, they're lame. The developers who contribute use linux because it offers them what they're looking for. Until something else offers more, then this is where they'll stay.
The point the author seems to have missed is this:
Once something better comes around, who cares what happens to linux. Linux should go away when something better comes along. Why would he want to save something that's not worth saving. He makes it sound like it's a Bad Thing (TM), but it's not.
Someone should rewrite this with an optimistic tone and submit THAT to slashdot and see how the comments differ.
It you go to the "status" page, you see this message
10:45am - Reboot because the System log was full
Why did they have to reboot for that? Why do they have to reboot for anything!?!
I remember downloading .GIF files back in the 80's ('course they were all porn back then)... Isn't that patent close to expiring yet?
Domino will run on standard distributions, not embedded as you say. (Let's just say I know! :)
I installed two Open Linux systems last week. One on a P90 and one on a PIII 500. The instalation program is not for experts. Beyond that, it's SLOW!!! On the P90, the instalation went 2-3 times faster when I switched away from the GUI. (Same on the PIII, but that hardly made a difference.) The worst part is how it boots the kernel in the first place. It has a GUI overlay for all of it's init, and it trys to modprobe EVERY available kernel module. This WILL lock most systems! Good luck to those who try it, and remember, --F3 if you ever want to finish!
Anti-Capitalism would be a good thing if everyone would contribute to society's needs without compensation. However, most people would sit on their ass if the didn't need to work for cash. Also, if you wanted to ever have that computer you're reading this in in a non-capitalisitc society, you'd have to learn yourself everyting involved in making it and do it yourself. There wouldn't be any people (or groups of them called companies) specializing in making them good and inexpensive. Point being that if there were never capatialism, we'd all be farmers or dictators. (Mostly farmers). Ending capitalism would just start a slow decline to the same.
This link has not won me over to the BSD license, but as reminded me how wrong RMS is most of the time!
You're confused. If you release the changes as freely available, then it's no longer propriatary. (The changes also have to be GPLed, so the people you give teh changes to can give them to whomever they what to.)
What he means by this is that they can incorporate the code into a non-Open Source product, and sell that without givig the real author the credit he requested. (i.e. making what his code was incorporated in freely available) In other words, you don't have to make your changes available if you don't use GPL.
If linux had been licensed under the BSD license instead of the GPL, Microsoft would have snatched a ton of the code up into windows by now. (Guaranteed there would be no credit given.)
Take this as a good or a bad thing...
(For those of you who will say "Well, they didn't snatch up BSD code" I say "How do you know")
If you noticed, he didn't (and wouldn't) make this as a promise. If you think about what you jsut said, it's not consistant with your comment for any company (ISP) to get subsidised. It is the government's job, hovever, to make sure that resources are available to all people. (Not jsut the rich or "middle class") "The government doesn't belong in business" means just that. It is not the governments place to do more then protect our constitutional rights. Our rights allow us protection from monoplies, and if this is set up right, no company would have a monopoly on T1's to your house. Monopolies are created by patents, not congress. If we all expected politics to be focused the basics, they wouldn't have an opportunity to be liars and cheats.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, politics is all about doing things to get votes. That is the right way to do it. It is not a congressman's responsibility to be compasionate, but to do what is going to get people to vote for him. That is how a politition represents his district in their best interests. Keeping th emiddle class happy won't get him any votes from the lower classes. (Who are the majority) No votes, you don't get elected. If you don't vote (intellegently: issues, not party alignment) you deserve the shitting on that you recieve. Everybody in the US HAS the opportunity to have a home and food. (Yes, they do.) This is THE basis of a representitve republic like the US. In a way, however, you are right. Anybody who would vote for somebody based on one issue should be slapped. Hard.