If anyone has any interest in how the brain works and the insights one can gain by looking at what happens when the brain malfunctions, I can't recommend the Oliver Sacks books highly enough. He's a neurologist who studies the brain and has a positive gift for writing about his subjects. Not to be touchy-feely, but he writes about them in a very sensitive way to where you don't feel like people are getting "exploited" for his own gain.
Other tales in his books to whet your appetite:
1) "The man who mistook his wife for a hat", which is the title of one of his books about a man who, otherwise normal, had problems with misconnecting objects to their identities,
2) A woman who could perceive things only on one side (say the left), but not on the other, even though her vision was perfect. When she ate, she would have to eat one side, then turn the plate, eat another half, etc. She was perfectly sane, but just had this wierd perceptual problem.
3) The man who could not make new memories, and lived the same moments over and over. He could remember everything up to an accident he had, but nothing further. Every day he would re-meet the same people. They have to keep mirrors away from him because it freaks him out because he looks too old for himself.
4) The "anthropologist" on mars, who is a pretty famous autistic teacher I think at Colorado. She has perfect image recall, but is entirely without emotions. She actually has her own book that she wrote about what it's like to be her, but I can't remember the name of it (anyone?).
The books are absolutely chock-full of stories like this. If this stuff fascinates you like it does me, I give these books my absolute highest recommendation.
Freedom doesn't get taken away in one big swoop. It gets chipped away slowly over time.
The problem with the "slippery slope" theory of freedom is that it assumes that freedom is a static thing that moves only in one direction -- down. This is contrary to history and the nature of freedom itself.
In fact, "freedom" in the US has ebbed and flowed, expanded and contracted throughout our history. Take a look at the DMCA. Now, I'm no big fan of the DMCA. I think it's bad law. But, the intent (key word) of the DMCA is not to take away freedom, it's to enhance freedom. One of the most important, if not THE most important pillar of freedom is property rights. The DMCA is intended to preserve property rights for the creators of intellectual property.
Now, I think the DMCA was the wrong way to go about it, but it's a huge mistake to see it as people taking away freedom when its intent is exactly the opposite.
But as for boiling frogs, history shows us that it simply isn't how it happens. Look at the sacrifices the WW/II generation made in terms of freedom. Yet, they all came back. Freakin' Nixon instituted price controls! Price controls!! Yet, the pendulum eventually swung the other way.
Freedom in the US is normally a balancing act, balancing more freedom for one group by taking it away from another group. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for what we believe in. But rarely are laws intended to truly take away freedom. You have to look at the bigger picture of the problem that laws are trying to solve, like DMCA. Needless paranoia does not help the cause.
Gather 'round children, and let me tell you a story of the Dark Ages. In the Dark Ages, before even my time, to save money, typewriters actually didn't have a "one" key! 'Tis truth! The typing classes actually taught you to use an "ell" as a one.
I knew Katz was old, but I didn't realize he was THAT old!
Why would anyone expect the Net to "change everything"? People have always had the ability to stay informed through the quality newspapers, magazines, etc, but very few take the time to try and understand complex issues.
On the one hand, the Net gives us the ability to ready any Joe Blo's rants about subjects he knows nothing about, which actually reduces how informed the average citizen is because of all the noise.
On the other hand, if you are selective about what you read and believe, you can occasionally find gems of wisdom that give you information that might not have otherwise found. Take Slashdot -- the editor's are HUGELY ignorant and foolish about things (*cough*michael*cough*), and the posters are usually even worse. But where the editors do a good job is in their story selection. That attracts the smart, knowledgeable people that occasionally post these gems.
The question is whether the Net is a net loss or a net gain in educating the public, and I'm just not sure.
[controversial opinion alert] One huge win in my opinion that the Net has been a great influence on bringing the American ideas of freedom to the rest of the world. The greatest evil of the world, next to communism, is Socialism and I would like to see it finally die like it should have died last century as the failed experiment it was. The more socialism, the less freedom. [/alert]
And please spare me the "America WAS the home of freedom" blah DCMA blah blah. That's a great example of the narrow-minded, single-issue ignorance that I'm talking about. If you think any of these minor issues are significant in the big picture of freedom, then you need to expand your views are what freedom is.
No offense intended, but fuzzy control circuitry has been doing more complex stuff for years.
Bullshit. Show me these self-balancing systems that have been around for years. I'm sure if it's just a matter of bolting together off-the-shelf technology as you claim, there should be numerous examples.
Sheesh. Are people such slaves to the media that they either accept everything they're told, or reject everything they're told? Either way, they're being slaves.
Stirling engine!? Who gives a crap about what power source it uses? The remarkable part of the thing has always been the self-balancing system. That's the part I was waiting to see, and that's the part that I wasn't disappointed by.
I am frankly appalled by how blase so many people are by this. Self balancing is NOT a trivial problem, and a system like this has a million possible uses.
That's fine if your time is worth nothing. I have nothing against exercise, but I'd rather do something fun rather than have to walk 4-8 miles to work everyday.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the density of a lot of people who can't see when something is truly remarkable. I don't know if this thing is really going to remake the world, but can anyone really look at a self-balancing two wheel platform and not see a hell of a lot of uses for it?
Overpriced is debatable, but there is apparently a lot of safety and quality built into the thing, from all the reports. $3K for the first unit seems pretty damn good.
I know if I lived in NYC or some other big city, I'd get one for doing a 20 block commute trip rather that having to take the subway, particularly if it was legal on the sidewalks (which is what they're pushing for).
Not to mention that it sounds pretty damn fun. Imagine doing power turns when the device does its own balancing. Hell, imagine off-road all-terrain versions that you can take pretty much anywhere a body will fit.
The bond holders would be left with what could be scavenged out of a sale of the company while the cable companies are left with a lot of unhappy customers
Well, speaking as a Cox customer in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, I think this rocks. I hate @Home ever since they blocked incoming ports 80 and 25. This allows Cox to work a different deal on Internet access. Cox has already been sending out e-mails stating that they have been making other arrangements to provide Internet access.
Everyone I've talked to at Cox has been pretty cool, but they have been at the mercy of the upstream.
One of the biggest things missing in Linux that I see is software mirroring of hard drives. Are there any projects out there aimed at bringing that to Linux?
The problem, known in security circles as the wu-FTP Globbing Heap Corruption Vulnerability, allows attackers to get remote access to all files on a server, provided they can access the FTP service.
Whew! Your whole system is only wide open if you can access the FTP service. That makes me feel better!
So if you hire private security guards to protect your house, do you expect them to forcibly keep out the FBI even if they don't have a warrant?
Actually, the warrant is irrelevent. I believe the FBI/police can enter your house if they perceive an immediate danger (like someone inside screaming for help).
But to answer your question, yes, I expect a private security guard to get the hell out of the way if the police or FBI tell them to get the hell out of the way. You are not allowed to have private armies, sorry. If they don't have a warrant, then sue them after the fact.
I'm seeing some posts like, "If I pay a company to provide me computer security, then I expect total security". This is simply wrong-headed. You are paying them for security against private cracks, not government cracks.
Put it this way. If you hired private security guards for your house, and the FBI showed up with a warrant to search the place, would you expect them to turn away the FBI? Get into a pitched gun battle to "protect" your house? Uh, no. Your private security guard will step out of the way, and show the government official the door, as they should.
Without greenbacks and US airbases, it would have fallen long ago to Islamic fundamentalists.
Which is exactly why we support them.
I think a lot of people need to grow up and realize that it's not a perfect world, and sometimes you have to choose lesser evils. We can't snap our fingers and make the middle east a democracy overnight. But we can push and prod them toward a civilized way of life.
Unfortunately, to short-sighted people, that makes the US look like we "approve of" regimes like that just because we support them against worse alternatives.
He wants everyone to have the maximum amount of freedom-
Wrong. He wants to remove my right to create software the way I want to, in the same way that Hitler wanted "more freedom" by removing the Jews. What's the difference? Hitler interpreted Jews as giving less freedom to society. Stallman interprets closed source software as giving less freedom to society. Neither are the boogeyman that each represents.
Similarly, Stallman thinks that not every license is valid- specifically, licenses that require people to give up fundamental freedoms, like the freedom to interact with the information in their world unconditionally, are illegitimate.
Correct, and that is where he is totally wrong and authoritarian. There is no right to source code, and there should not be. Where Stallman goes wrong is in the motivation of people to use software. People buy software to solve a problem, not to rewrite it. A product is completely usable without source code, therefore, there is no fundamental need for source code. Now, if you feel like you want source code, then fine. Use only free software. But it's none of Stallman's business what two private parties agree on in a private transaction.
everyone who has an opinion on this matter must, according to your theory, be an "anti-freedom totalitarian", since if their ideas are adopted they will be imposed on everyone.
*sigh* Wrong, and this proves you don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the freedom to choose what software you want without the "software police" breaking down your door telling you that you MUST use free software. If I want to buy closed source software, then damn it I want to buy closed source software! I don't want Nanny Stallman telling me what I have to get for my own good. Let him set up his own Orwellian world where he decides what's best for everyone.
And that's exactly why he's a totalitarian. If free software is REALLY better than the alternatives, then he doesn't have to use the full force of law to destroy closed source software. Let the market decide. But that's not good enough for Stallman. He must force everyone to toe his line "for our own good", since of course Daddy Stallman knows that his definition of freedom is the correct one.
but your silly comparison tells me you're either not serious or you're an idiot.
I was pretty sure you would dismiss my post as flamebait without really thinking about it. Did you read that Slashdot article the other day?
The rub is in the definition of "freedom". All zealots advocate freedom. Hitler advocated freedom for Germany, and part of his definition was "freedom from Jews".
The reason Stallman is an anti-freedom totalitarian is that it isn't enough for him to make choices for himself. He wants to impose his views on you and me, whether we want them or not. He thinks that a private transaction between two parties that happens to involved closed source software should be illegal, even if the parties both agree. Read that article. He flat out says that programmers should not have the freedom to choose an alternate license.
Ignore all his propaganda about "freedom", and look at what he actually advocates.
if you look at what he's done with his life and compare it to anyone else you'll see that his motivations have to do with making software free for everyone, not personal fame, riches or glory.
This is probably going to sound like flamebait to you, but consider this: Is Osama bin Laden's motivation fame, riches or glory? No, his goal is to remake the world in his image of what it "should" be, namely radical Islam.
That's my biggest problem with Stallman. It's not enough for him to advocate what he wants, he wants to remake the software world into his image of what it "should" be. Look at that article the other day. He actually said that programmers should not have the freedom to choose a license! He actually wants law written to force people to choose his license.
Now, he would say that he believes that the rights in the GPL are fundamental human rights that everyone should have. On the other hand, Bin Laden believes that since God wants the world be radical Islam, therefore it is a fundamental human right for people to live in an entirely radical Islamic world.
Stallman is more than a populist domagogue and control freak, he's an anti-freedom totalitarian. I'm not going to bother to call him dangerous since his vision of the world has no chance of ever happening (i.e., outlawing private software).
Show some respect? Stallman has used up any respect he might have built up.
Nobody's suggesting that imperfect cloning run rampant, creating individuals with a flawed method.
That's the problem... that's exactly what they are suggesting. They are pushing ahead with human cloning when we don't even fully understand the effects of animal cloning.
I agree -- all technologies have problems in the beginning. That's why we do animal studies on drugs before we jump into human studies. There are way too many scientists who are trying to make a name for themselves by skipping that first step.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone has any interest in how the brain works and the insights one can gain by looking at what happens when the brain malfunctions, I can't recommend the Oliver Sacks books highly enough. He's a neurologist who studies the brain and has a positive gift for writing about his subjects. Not to be touchy-feely, but he writes about them in a very sensitive way to where you don't feel like people are getting "exploited" for his own gain.
Other tales in his books to whet your appetite:
1) "The man who mistook his wife for a hat", which is the title of one of his books about a man who, otherwise normal, had problems with misconnecting objects to their identities,
2) A woman who could perceive things only on one side (say the left), but not on the other, even though her vision was perfect. When she ate, she would have to eat one side, then turn the plate, eat another half, etc. She was perfectly sane, but just had this wierd perceptual problem.
3) The man who could not make new memories, and lived the same moments over and over. He could remember everything up to an accident he had, but nothing further. Every day he would re-meet the same people. They have to keep mirrors away from him because it freaks him out because he looks too old for himself.
4) The "anthropologist" on mars, who is a pretty famous autistic teacher I think at Colorado. She has perfect image recall, but is entirely without emotions. She actually has her own book that she wrote about what it's like to be her, but I can't remember the name of it (anyone?).
The books are absolutely chock-full of stories like this. If this stuff fascinates you like it does me, I give these books my absolute highest recommendation.
Freedom doesn't get taken away in one big swoop. It gets chipped away slowly over time.
The problem with the "slippery slope" theory of freedom is that it assumes that freedom is a static thing that moves only in one direction -- down. This is contrary to history and the nature of freedom itself.
In fact, "freedom" in the US has ebbed and flowed, expanded and contracted throughout our history. Take a look at the DMCA. Now, I'm no big fan of the DMCA. I think it's bad law. But, the intent (key word) of the DMCA is not to take away freedom, it's to enhance freedom. One of the most important, if not THE most important pillar of freedom is property rights. The DMCA is intended to preserve property rights for the creators of intellectual property.
Now, I think the DMCA was the wrong way to go about it, but it's a huge mistake to see it as people taking away freedom when its intent is exactly the opposite.
But as for boiling frogs, history shows us that it simply isn't how it happens. Look at the sacrifices the WW/II generation made in terms of freedom. Yet, they all came back. Freakin' Nixon instituted price controls! Price controls!! Yet, the pendulum eventually swung the other way.
Freedom in the US is normally a balancing act, balancing more freedom for one group by taking it away from another group. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for what we believe in. But rarely are laws intended to truly take away freedom. You have to look at the bigger picture of the problem that laws are trying to solve, like DMCA. Needless paranoia does not help the cause.
That's not a controversial opinion, it's what every libertarian yahoo on the internet thinks.
Except that I'm NOT a Libertarian. You don't have to be a Libertarian to believe that Socialism is a great evil.
Gather 'round children, and let me tell you a story of the Dark Ages. In the Dark Ages, before even my time, to save money, typewriters actually didn't have a "one" key! 'Tis truth! The typing classes actually taught you to use an "ell" as a one.
I knew Katz was old, but I didn't realize he was THAT old!
Why would anyone expect the Net to "change everything"? People have always had the ability to stay informed through the quality newspapers, magazines, etc, but very few take the time to try and understand complex issues.
On the one hand, the Net gives us the ability to ready any Joe Blo's rants about subjects he knows nothing about, which actually reduces how informed the average citizen is because of all the noise.
On the other hand, if you are selective about what you read and believe, you can occasionally find gems of wisdom that give you information that might not have otherwise found. Take Slashdot -- the editor's are HUGELY ignorant and foolish about things (*cough*michael*cough*), and the posters are usually even worse. But where the editors do a good job is in their story selection. That attracts the smart, knowledgeable people that occasionally post these gems.
The question is whether the Net is a net loss or a net gain in educating the public, and I'm just not sure.
[controversial opinion alert] One huge win in my opinion that the Net has been a great influence on bringing the American ideas of freedom to the rest of the world. The greatest evil of the world, next to communism, is Socialism and I would like to see it finally die like it should have died last century as the failed experiment it was. The more socialism, the less freedom. [/alert]
And please spare me the "America WAS the home of freedom" blah DCMA blah blah. That's a great example of the narrow-minded, single-issue ignorance that I'm talking about. If you think any of these minor issues are significant in the big picture of freedom, then you need to expand your views are what freedom is.
No offense intended, but fuzzy control circuitry has been doing more complex stuff for years.
Bullshit. Show me these self-balancing systems that have been around for years. I'm sure if it's just a matter of bolting together off-the-shelf technology as you claim, there should be numerous examples.
Self-balancing is NOT a trivial problem.
I understand the animosity. It's hype-backlash.
Sheesh. Are people such slaves to the media that they either accept everything they're told, or reject everything they're told? Either way, they're being slaves.
Stirling engine!? Who gives a crap about what power source it uses? The remarkable part of the thing has always been the self-balancing system. That's the part I was waiting to see, and that's the part that I wasn't disappointed by.
I am frankly appalled by how blase so many people are by this. Self balancing is NOT a trivial problem, and a system like this has a million possible uses.
That's fine if your time is worth nothing. I have nothing against exercise, but I'd rather do something fun rather than have to walk 4-8 miles to work everyday.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the density of a lot of people who can't see when something is truly remarkable. I don't know if this thing is really going to remake the world, but can anyone really look at a self-balancing two wheel platform and not see a hell of a lot of uses for it?
Overpriced is debatable, but there is apparently a lot of safety and quality built into the thing, from all the reports. $3K for the first unit seems pretty damn good.
I know if I lived in NYC or some other big city, I'd get one for doing a 20 block commute trip rather that having to take the subway, particularly if it was legal on the sidewalks (which is what they're pushing for).
Not to mention that it sounds pretty damn fun. Imagine doing power turns when the device does its own balancing. Hell, imagine off-road all-terrain versions that you can take pretty much anywhere a body will fit.
I think people need to use a little imagination.
That would be a bummer. I hope you're wrong about that, or that they just decide to clear the slate with a new provider...
The bond holders would be left with what could be scavenged out of a sale of the company while the cable companies are left with a lot of unhappy customers
Well, speaking as a Cox customer in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, I think this rocks. I hate @Home ever since they blocked incoming ports 80 and 25. This allows Cox to work a different deal on Internet access. Cox has already been sending out e-mails stating that they have been making other arrangements to provide Internet access.
Everyone I've talked to at Cox has been pretty cool, but they have been at the mercy of the upstream.
One of the biggest things missing in Linux that I see is software mirroring of hard drives. Are there any projects out there aimed at bringing that to Linux?
The problem, known in security circles as the wu-FTP Globbing Heap Corruption Vulnerability, allows attackers to get remote access to all files on a server, provided they can access the FTP service.
Whew! Your whole system is only wide open if you can access the FTP service. That makes me feel better!
So if you hire private security guards to protect your house, do you expect them to forcibly keep out the FBI even if they don't have a warrant?
Actually, the warrant is irrelevent. I believe the FBI/police can enter your house if they perceive an immediate danger (like someone inside screaming for help).
But to answer your question, yes, I expect a private security guard to get the hell out of the way if the police or FBI tell them to get the hell out of the way. You are not allowed to have private armies, sorry. If they don't have a warrant, then sue them after the fact.
And your point is... what? Key loggers are used with a warrant.
If I pay someone to give me security, I expect them to provide it against anyone who wants my information.
So if you hire private security guards to protect your house, do you expect them to forcibly keep out the FBI when they have a warrant?
I'm seeing some posts like, "If I pay a company to provide me computer security, then I expect total security". This is simply wrong-headed. You are paying them for security against private cracks, not government cracks.
Put it this way. If you hired private security guards for your house, and the FBI showed up with a warrant to search the place, would you expect them to turn away the FBI? Get into a pitched gun battle to "protect" your house? Uh, no. Your private security guard will step out of the way, and show the government official the door, as they should.
Without greenbacks and US airbases, it would have fallen long ago to Islamic fundamentalists.
Which is exactly why we support them.
I think a lot of people need to grow up and realize that it's not a perfect world, and sometimes you have to choose lesser evils. We can't snap our fingers and make the middle east a democracy overnight. But we can push and prod them toward a civilized way of life.
Unfortunately, to short-sighted people, that makes the US look like we "approve of" regimes like that just because we support them against worse alternatives.
Its a long book but nearly every page is worth the read. Gets 10/10 from me.
Except that garbage about Captain Crunch. That was actually painful to read.
I give it an 8/10. It would be a 10/10 if it was about half the length. It draaaaaaags in a lot of spots.
1705, according to the history of ships named Enterprise.
He wants everyone to have the maximum amount of freedom-
Wrong. He wants to remove my right to create software the way I want to, in the same way that Hitler wanted "more freedom" by removing the Jews. What's the difference? Hitler interpreted Jews as giving less freedom to society. Stallman interprets closed source software as giving less freedom to society. Neither are the boogeyman that each represents.
Similarly, Stallman thinks that not every license is valid- specifically, licenses that require people to give up fundamental freedoms, like the freedom to interact with the information in their world unconditionally, are illegitimate.
Correct, and that is where he is totally wrong and authoritarian. There is no right to source code, and there should not be. Where Stallman goes wrong is in the motivation of people to use software. People buy software to solve a problem, not to rewrite it. A product is completely usable without source code, therefore, there is no fundamental need for source code. Now, if you feel like you want source code, then fine. Use only free software. But it's none of Stallman's business what two private parties agree on in a private transaction.
everyone who has an opinion on this matter must, according to your theory, be an "anti-freedom totalitarian", since if their ideas are adopted they will be imposed on everyone.
*sigh* Wrong, and this proves you don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the freedom to choose what software you want without the "software police" breaking down your door telling you that you MUST use free software. If I want to buy closed source software, then damn it I want to buy closed source software! I don't want Nanny Stallman telling me what I have to get for my own good. Let him set up his own Orwellian world where he decides what's best for everyone.
And that's exactly why he's a totalitarian. If free software is REALLY better than the alternatives, then he doesn't have to use the full force of law to destroy closed source software. Let the market decide. But that's not good enough for Stallman. He must force everyone to toe his line "for our own good", since of course Daddy Stallman knows that his definition of freedom is the correct one.
but your silly comparison tells me you're either not serious or you're an idiot.
I was pretty sure you would dismiss my post as flamebait without really thinking about it. Did you read that Slashdot article the other day?
The rub is in the definition of "freedom". All zealots advocate freedom. Hitler advocated freedom for Germany, and part of his definition was "freedom from Jews".
The reason Stallman is an anti-freedom totalitarian is that it isn't enough for him to make choices for himself. He wants to impose his views on you and me, whether we want them or not. He thinks that a private transaction between two parties that happens to involved closed source software should be illegal, even if the parties both agree. Read that article. He flat out says that programmers should not have the freedom to choose an alternate license.
Ignore all his propaganda about "freedom", and look at what he actually advocates.
if you look at what he's done with his life and compare it to anyone else you'll see that his motivations have to do with making software free for everyone, not personal fame, riches or glory.
This is probably going to sound like flamebait to you, but consider this: Is Osama bin Laden's motivation fame, riches or glory? No, his goal is to remake the world in his image of what it "should" be, namely radical Islam.
That's my biggest problem with Stallman. It's not enough for him to advocate what he wants, he wants to remake the software world into his image of what it "should" be. Look at that article the other day. He actually said that programmers should not have the freedom to choose a license! He actually wants law written to force people to choose his license.
Now, he would say that he believes that the rights in the GPL are fundamental human rights that everyone should have. On the other hand, Bin Laden believes that since God wants the world be radical Islam, therefore it is a fundamental human right for people to live in an entirely radical Islamic world.
Stallman is more than a populist domagogue and control freak, he's an anti-freedom totalitarian. I'm not going to bother to call him dangerous since his vision of the world has no chance of ever happening (i.e., outlawing private software).
Show some respect? Stallman has used up any respect he might have built up.
Nobody's suggesting that imperfect cloning run rampant, creating individuals with a flawed method.
That's the problem... that's exactly what they are suggesting. They are pushing ahead with human cloning when we don't even fully understand the effects of animal cloning.
I agree -- all technologies have problems in the beginning. That's why we do animal studies on drugs before we jump into human studies. There are way too many scientists who are trying to make a name for themselves by skipping that first step.
Richard Stallman on the other hand, thinks that all the software in the world should be licensed, (and he should write the license).
Actually, Stallman advocates that you assign all rights to the FSF as well as use the GPL.