Theoretically, a few years down the road, this could wipe out the entire pink bollworm moth population.
Doubtful.
Look at it this way. I close down all the places in New York where you can get Toyotas repaired. Nobody can get a Toyota fixed, so nobody in New York buys Toyotas. Is that going to impact people buying Toyotas in California? Doubtful.
This modified bollworm can't reproduce. Thus, they can't wipe out the entire bollworm species - at most, all they can do is prevent other bollworms in the same general region from reproducing. Given that there are more "normal" bollworms than modified ones, the bollworm species will continue happily in places where they aren't considered as much of a nuisance.
If you want a more appropriate example, think of it like mandatory, 100% effective condoms for, say, the population of Nebraska. People in Nebraska won't be able to conceive, and eventually the population of Nebraska dwindles and dies off. You think people in Texas are going to be affected, or that this is going to seriously impact the rest of the human race?
I took a moment to browse those links. For those too lazy, Microsoft has #1 - #4, and #9 positions.
What the most important thing to notice is that every Microsoft system there is running in a clustered configuration, while the other operating systems are not (go ahead, look for yourselves - paying attention to the last column).
Microsoft may have the highest numbers, but I think it's very telling that an AIX (IBM) machine hit the #5 spot all by its lonesome, but it took a cluster of machines for Microsoft to nail down the first four spots.
Perhaps we should cluster an equal number of the AIX systems and see where those land us.
reverse-engineering an effective copy-control mechanism is illegal
I'm tired of seeing this on Slashdot (and elsewhere).
The DMCA uses the word "effectively" in this way: "... such that the method effectively controls access to the work" (paraphrasing). However, this does not mean that the method needs to be crack-proof, unhackable, or even all that great. "Effectively" is not being used in the sense of, "is good at what it does."
It is used in the sense of, "has the effect of." Go re-read the law again, only this time everywhere you see "effectively" replace it with "has the effect of".
"... such that the method has the effect of controlling access to a copyrighted work." is the interpretation that the courts use when they read the law, not "... such that the method is good at controlling access to a copyrighted work." That's why all this nonsense talk about 40-bit CSS encryption being a poor choice misses the point - it's not that the encryption is weak, it's that the encryption is there period.
Apparently the government is allowed to monitor your encrypted communication, and if you fail to disclose encryption keys you get to spend time in jail.
One word: stenography.
"Encrypted traffic? No, sir! I was just sending my friend some pictures of the new iMacs..."
All they need to do is have a few people with mp3s sit back and let themselves get invited in the trading circles/whatever, and then a few months later sue them claiming that they're violating the ToS by opening the files.
Yes, but then that is not a violation by the service, but the user who violated the EULA. If the companies want to go after the service, then they have to basically argue against the applicability of EULAs.
The way I see it, if they crack the encryption, then they'll have to fight against the DMCA.
If they bootstrap through a user, then they have to fight against EULAs.
Either way, the music industry has to argue against something that's been a monkey on the back of the users.
If their indexes are readable by anyone, they have to be readable by Napster too. Napster would be forced to de-list copyrighted works.
Good point.
I wonder if it would be possible to design some sort of one-way encryption function. The index itself is encrypted, and rather than indexing the function, the queries are encrypted and compared to entries in the index (rather like UNIX passwords are verified).
Once the root index is encrypted, the only way for Napster to verify that no copyrighted material is being traded is to decrypt the index ("Ok, RIAA, we've started the decryption process for the 2/12/01 index. It'll be done in a few thousand years - let us know when it's finished.").
"...the appeals court says the company has to keep users from gaining access to content that could potentially infringe on copyrights."
Piece of cake.
One, turn Napster into a generic file exchange program. Instead of just MP3s, let them exchange videos, books, or cookie recipes.
Two, implement some form of PKI in the Napster software. Napster sets up PKI repositories, and every time you install Napster it requires you to either input an existing public/private keypair of generate a new one. Then it simply encrypts all traffic before entering a Napster server and decrypts it after it leaves one.
Given that Napster can no longer see what's being traded on its service and can't decrypt the packet flow, Napster can't distinguish between copyrighted and uncopyrighted content, the RIAA can't "tap" the system to determine what's being traded, and end users get exposed to the merits of encryption which they might then be willing to use in their email.
Yes, but at some point your speakers will no longer play the music because they can't provide verification to the penultimate step that they are secure. Whatever hardware/software is at the penultimate step will check to see if your speakers provide a verification code, product ID, or support a certain encryption method, and your old analog speakers won't support that technology.
What will happen is you'll either get static, or nothing at all - the penultimate step won't pass along the data for the speaker to play.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I don't tend to use replace all in the daily course of programming), but doesn't MSVC's "Replace All" put up a dialog each and every occurrence saying, in effect, "You want to replace this one too?"
It's been a while, and since there's nothing I want to globally replace today...
Reason Three: Someone (SuSE?) promised Reiser some cash if he got his filesystem into 2.4 mainline. Since his livelyhood was at stake, he understandably got a little jumpy during the development process when his stuff wasn't being merged.
That was sort of lumped in with reason #2 above. Basically, Reiser had monetary incentive to get his filesystem into the kernel, and that superceded any technical reasons as to why it should stay out.
In reality, technical concerns should always supercede somebody else's monetary incentive. Always.
Linus would not have included it if he did not think I was a sound technical decision.
I'm not so sure about that. From my understanding, one of the big reasons Linus included it was because "it won't break anything." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
It's important as it silences all the Linux-isn't-ready-for-primetime-because-it-doesn't -have-a-journaling-filesystem crap, and this filesystem will be available out of the box in mainstream distributions.
So instead we have to put up with an arrogant, childish, gloating Hans Reiser?
So you feel that the world should be deprived of potentially very useful code just because you don't like its author's personality?
It's not like the world is being deprived of "potentially useful code." People have been using ReiserFS for ages now, and most distributions come with either a alternative kernel compiled with ReiserFS, or ReiserFS patches to the mainline kernel already installed.
Second, it's easy to obtain said patches. It's not like there's one guy, in the middle of the Sahara, that you need to send an SASE to in order to get the source code carefully inscribed on dried clumps of sand.
I'm not defending Mr Reiser's behavior, but don't you think that the code should speak for itself? I have no idea what he is like as a person and I don't really care as long as he writes good code.
Don't you think Mr. Reiser should let the quality and/or utility of the code speak for itself, rather than putting all sorts of pressure on the kernel developers to include his code NOW NOW NOW (or, if possible, yesterday)? For a long time, the kernel developers didn't put his code into the kernel because they had different plans. They wanted to make the foundations better for all journalling filesystems. Yet, rather than acknowledge that there might be a technical reason for the lack of inclusion of his code, Hans took a fit and accused anyone and everyone of being part of a conspiracy against him.
That doesn't sound like someone who lets code quality stand on its own.
I'd be perfectly willing to let his code stand on his own - as long as HE would let his code stand on its own. The second Hans Reiser made the character of the other kernel developers an issue, his own character became an issue as well.
So did I understand you correctly, you would rather pick code to kernel based on how nice its maintainer is?
I would've rather waited to include ReiserFS in 2.6, when the kernel has been correctly designed for the optimal use of journalling filesystems.
Hans' bitching was for two reasons, both of which are crap.
Reason one: he felt that having to go get the patches put undue burden on his users. This is bunk, because most distributions now ship a kernel with the ReiserFS patches. Those that don't are the ones that cater to the more technically elite. Those that do provide update services that will upgrade your kernel source already patched. And if you're skilled enough to download fresh source and compile a new kernel, you're overqualified to download the patch from the Namesys website and patch the source you just downloaded. So "ease of access" is not a valid reason.
Reason two: he felt that being the "default" jfs on Linux would help improve his business prospects. Well, guess what? The GNU/Linux system isn't around to further anybody's specific business plan. I'd like decisions to be made for the good of the OS, not because somebody wants to sell more consulting services. So "building my business" is not a reason, either.
It saddens me that his code is in the 2.4.1 kernel because adding ReiserFS was tantamount to giving Hans Reiser his way so he'll just shut up. That's not the way things should be done.
No more having to listen to Hans Reiser take temper tantrums on the kernel mailing lists. I've never read more juvenile, whining, self-centered, arrogant, and childish posts in all my life. Rather than admit that maybe it wasn't appropriate for his code to be in the development kernel at a time when they were trying to freeze it, he whined, complained, and insulted everyone. Unable to acknowledge the technical reasons, he started accusing the core developers of favoritism, eliteness, and eventually just decided that there was one big conspiracy against him.
Although it saddens me that his code made it into the kernel, because of his behaviour, at least I won't have to read any more of his bitching.
It definitely gives me some insight as to why some people won't use GNU or GNU/Linux because RMS is the "spokesperson."
Strange assertion - bash 'seeming' to be the standard UNIX shell. Since it isn't available by default on many (or is that any?) commercial UNICEs.
My bad.:(
I think I interpreted the line in one of my Bash tutorials that said something like, "Bash is available on my Unices, and is the default on some of them" to be, "Bash is the default on many of the available Unices."
So it may be fair to reflect on what is missing from ksh that is in bash - things like PROMPT_COMMAND for a start.
I think the question is still valid, my misinformed comments notwithstanding. If Bash is a superset of features from ksh, then what still makes ksh an appealing shell to use? What distingishes ksh from other shells that have similar features and/or functionality?
Background: the only shell I've ever really used is bash. Bash has always seemed to be the standard UNIX shell (or, at least, the standard default UNIX shell), and for the most part I've always been able to do what I wanted in it.
Question: can you engage in a little unadulterated advocacy for a moment to offer some reasons why an informed user might consider using ksh over bash or other popular UNIX shells? What does ksh provide that other shells don't? Similarly, can you give a realistic appraisal of ksh's drawbacks as compared to bash or other shells?
Prosecution must convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, it's not that hard. Child pornography is one of those hot-button issues that gets people all fired up. It's the old battle cry of, "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" Rational, decent, otherwise intelligent human beings check their IQ at the door. When it comes to child porn, any evidence is evidence of guilt. Somebody has "teen" porn (you know, the stuff that says teen but the models are all verifiably 18+)? Shows their predilication for underage porn. Somebody possesses dirty stories with kids under 18? Must mean they're child molestors. And God forbid they should have any pictures of kids under 18, pornographic or not (for instance, nudist colony photos).
And, unfortunately, few people want to be the person that says, "Hey, that ain't right" for ANY reason, lest somebody starts accusing them of favoring the legalization of child porn or advocating the abuse of children.
Suddenly, the case shifts. No longer is it on the prosecution to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt," because nobody on the jury has, or is willing to voice, their doubts. The only way your average Joe can win that trial is to exonerate himself ("I never lived there; I've never used that computer; during the time in question those pictures were downloaded, I was stranded in the Alps with no food, no water, and no 'net connection...").
IF there's enough evidence
IF you're caught
IF you don't get off on a technicality
THEN (in most places) you get a slap on the wrist
SO you go back and do it again
What alternate preferred method would you have?
* Assume the closest person is guilty
* Assume that person's car is the "murder weapon"
* Openly interpret damage to the car or statements made by that person to reflect your predetermined bias
* Put the burden of proof on the defendent, rather than yourself
* Railroad a person that you have not proved committed the act into a long jail sentence for vehicular manslaughter or worse
The underlying assumption of the court system is that you are, repeat after me, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What that means, if you are unfamiliar with the concept, is that the people who are accusing you of committing a crime must prove that you actually committed the crime in question. What making things like virtual child porn illegal does is make it YOUR responsibility to prove you DIDN'T commit the crime. In effect, you are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
Maybe this doesn't bother you, "because I would NEVER look at adult pornography, never mind child porn."
BUT do you see signs beside the road encouraging you to run someone down in your car? Do you see how-to books and magazines about running down pedestrians for sale (even in opaque wrappers and/or under the counter) in newsagencies? Would it really matter if the signs or magazines made their point using crash-test dummies or mannequins instead of real people?
Stop purposefully confusing adult pornography and child pornography. Adult pornography is legal, child pornography isn't, and the only kind sold in paper wrappers or under the counter is adult pornography. I challenge you to find any adult store that has true child pornography in it (not just stuff labelled "teen" where all the models are 18+, but true child porn). You won't be able to do it.
Getting back to your analogy, "encouraging" is a very broad word that allows you to read anything you want into it. After seeing movies like the Matrix (which I enjoyed), I still have absolutely no desire to go out and murder anybody. Yet, others would have you believe the movie "encourages" murderers like Kleibold and Harris to commit their crimes.
The flaw in this is that "encourage" is used as an absolute, as if something that encourages me makes me commit a crime I otherwise wouldn't. And you can't have it both ways. Either everybody who sees an "encouraging" piece of media commits a crime, or they don't. Which leads you right back to the original point of this whole thread: if a piece of media "encourages" you to do the crime, you were going to do the crime anyways sooner or later because you were predisposed. Which means that the "encouragement" is not for you to do the crime, but only up your timeframe. Which means that the end result, in this case a child getting molested, is the same.
Which, if you have trouble putting A+B+C together, is that it all comes back to the fact that child molestors, if they are going to molest a child, will molest a child regardless of whether they have access to child porn or not. And if somebody isn't predisposed to molesting children, they won't molest children no matter how much kiddie porn they're exposed to.
IMHO, if the signs/books should be illegal, so should child-based or violent porn - and where do you draw the line? Is tickling violent?
Again, you're confusing the issue. The issue is not child pornography. It's not even child-based pornography. It's artificial pornography, where the people involved are computer created and APPEAR younger than 18 years old.
But you bring up a good question - where do you draw the line? Does a racy epsiode of Boston Public or Seventh Heaven constitute child porn? (Kids under the age of 18 entering partial states of disrobement, suggesting sexual encounters.) The Supreme Court has upheld child porn convinctions when the "pornography" was of children at a gymnastics tournament, and the "encouraging aspect" was the fact that their upper thighs were not covered by their tights. It was upheld because it was decided that it was "encouraging" to a pedophile. People have gone to jail for "child porn" that consisted of harmless pictures of their children playing in the bathtub.
Where do you draw the line? Are kids playing in the bathtub child porn? What if I live at a nudist colony, where everybody is naked, and I can't help but have naked kids in some of my pictures? What if I draw a naked child, just doodling? Or what if I paint a picture of a nude preteen (whether or not it was posed)?
Is art any defense against child porn? If this law passes, no. I couldn't legally draw that naked child, or make that painting (even if it was my own imagination), because it would be illegal. And that stifles valid and protected First Amendment speech.
If you can be jailed for inciting a riot, why can't you be jailed for inciting a rape or inciting paedophilia?
THE QUESTION YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS:
If you can be jailed for a particular offensive thought that somebody doesn't like, what stops them from jailing you for ANY thought you have that somebody deems offensive?
Oh, I understand that Joe Sixpack won't understand my argument, or even make the effort to try. At some point, I simply have to admit that some people don't care about their freedom as much as I do.
If I were to take a stab at the "your mother would understand" argument, it would be in the vein of encroachment of your liberties. "They take away the right to produce virtual child porn, and you applaud it because you feel virtual child porn leads to real child porn. What happens if somebody decides that those trashy novels where characters are sleeping around lead to infidelity and divorce, and decides to ban them? What happens if soap operas are similarly banned? What happens if writing about fictional wars, or crime novels, or violent video games are banned, because somebody is afraid that they'll cause real crimes? What if they take away the right for you to drive your car because somebody else gets drunk and kills somebody? Would you still give up all of it because somebody, somewhere, might be stopped from doing something that they haven't actually done yet?"
The only way to make people understand is to couch it in an analogy that hits home to them. Housewives might be overly protective of their children, but it might make them more aware if you create a solid analogy to the things that housewives do every day. --
Slashdot Mirror
Theoretically, a few years down the road, this could wipe out the entire pink bollworm moth population.
Doubtful.
Look at it this way. I close down all the places in New York where you can get Toyotas repaired. Nobody can get a Toyota fixed, so nobody in New York buys Toyotas. Is that going to impact people buying Toyotas in California? Doubtful.
This modified bollworm can't reproduce. Thus, they can't wipe out the entire bollworm species - at most, all they can do is prevent other bollworms in the same general region from reproducing. Given that there are more "normal" bollworms than modified ones, the bollworm species will continue happily in places where they aren't considered as much of a nuisance.
If you want a more appropriate example, think of it like mandatory, 100% effective condoms for, say, the population of Nebraska. People in Nebraska won't be able to conceive, and eventually the population of Nebraska dwindles and dies off. You think people in Texas are going to be affected, or that this is going to seriously impact the rest of the human race?
--
I took a moment to browse those links. For those too lazy, Microsoft has #1 - #4, and #9 positions.
What the most important thing to notice is that every Microsoft system there is running in a clustered configuration, while the other operating systems are not (go ahead, look for yourselves - paying attention to the last column).
Microsoft may have the highest numbers, but I think it's very telling that an AIX (IBM) machine hit the #5 spot all by its lonesome, but it took a cluster of machines for Microsoft to nail down the first four spots.
Perhaps we should cluster an equal number of the AIX systems and see where those land us.
--
reverse-engineering an effective copy-control mechanism is illegal
I'm tired of seeing this on Slashdot (and elsewhere).
The DMCA uses the word "effectively" in this way: "... such that the method effectively controls access to the work" (paraphrasing). However, this does not mean that the method needs to be crack-proof, unhackable, or even all that great. "Effectively" is not being used in the sense of, "is good at what it does."
It is used in the sense of, "has the effect of." Go re-read the law again, only this time everywhere you see "effectively" replace it with "has the effect of".
"... such that the method has the effect of controlling access to a copyrighted work." is the interpretation that the courts use when they read the law, not "... such that the method is good at controlling access to a copyrighted work." That's why all this nonsense talk about 40-bit CSS encryption being a poor choice misses the point - it's not that the encryption is weak, it's that the encryption is there period.
--
I dunno. The department secretary has some pretty obtuse writing.
"This either says, 'Meeting at noon' or 'Mining baffoon'..."
--
Apparently the government is allowed to monitor your encrypted communication, and if you fail to disclose encryption keys you get to spend time in jail.
One word: stenography.
"Encrypted traffic? No, sir! I was just sending my friend some pictures of the new iMacs..."
--
All they need to do is have a few people with mp3s sit back and let themselves get invited in the trading circles/whatever, and then a few months later sue them claiming that they're violating the ToS by opening the files.
Yes, but then that is not a violation by the service, but the user who violated the EULA. If the companies want to go after the service, then they have to basically argue against the applicability of EULAs.
The way I see it, if they crack the encryption, then they'll have to fight against the DMCA.
If they bootstrap through a user, then they have to fight against EULAs.
Either way, the music industry has to argue against something that's been a monkey on the back of the users.
--
Come on, man, look at the guy's nick. "Crapflooder20001". Can't you tell a troll when you see one?
--
If their indexes are readable by anyone, they have to be readable by Napster too. Napster would be forced to de-list copyrighted works.
Good point.
I wonder if it would be possible to design some sort of one-way encryption function. The index itself is encrypted, and rather than indexing the function, the queries are encrypted and compared to entries in the index (rather like UNIX passwords are verified).
Once the root index is encrypted, the only way for Napster to verify that no copyrighted material is being traded is to decrypt the index ("Ok, RIAA, we've started the decryption process for the 2/12/01 index. It'll be done in a few thousand years - let us know when it's finished.").
--
"...the appeals court says the company has to keep users from gaining access to content that could potentially infringe on copyrights."
Piece of cake.
One, turn Napster into a generic file exchange program. Instead of just MP3s, let them exchange videos, books, or cookie recipes.
Two, implement some form of PKI in the Napster software. Napster sets up PKI repositories, and every time you install Napster it requires you to either input an existing public/private keypair of generate a new one. Then it simply encrypts all traffic before entering a Napster server and decrypts it after it leaves one.
Given that Napster can no longer see what's being traded on its service and can't decrypt the packet flow, Napster can't distinguish between copyrighted and uncopyrighted content, the RIAA can't "tap" the system to determine what's being traded, and end users get exposed to the merits of encryption which they might then be willing to use in their email.
Sounds like an all-around win to me.
--
Hey hey! I already apologized in a sub-post of my question.
Resigning me to progman.exe for my naivety is just plain cruel!
:)
--
Yes, but at some point your speakers will no longer play the music because they can't provide verification to the penultimate step that they are secure. Whatever hardware/software is at the penultimate step will check to see if your speakers provide a verification code, product ID, or support a certain encryption method, and your old analog speakers won't support that technology.
What will happen is you'll either get static, or nothing at all - the penultimate step won't pass along the data for the speaker to play.
--
Like I said, I don't really have much use for Replace All. :)
--
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I don't tend to use replace all in the daily course of programming), but doesn't MSVC's "Replace All" put up a dialog each and every occurrence saying, in effect, "You want to replace this one too?"
It's been a while, and since there's nothing I want to globally replace today...
--
Alt-f s are all quicker than Esc :w ...
:w.
:)
Or, at least under Vim, you can hit Ctrl-C to get into command mode from insert, whereupon you can then type
There's no need to take stray up to the Esc key.
--
Reason Three: Someone (SuSE?) promised Reiser some cash if he got his filesystem into 2.4 mainline. Since his livelyhood was at stake, he understandably got a little jumpy during the development process when his stuff wasn't being merged.
That was sort of lumped in with reason #2 above. Basically, Reiser had monetary incentive to get his filesystem into the kernel, and that superceded any technical reasons as to why it should stay out.
In reality, technical concerns should always supercede somebody else's monetary incentive. Always.
--
Linus would not have included it if he did not think I was a sound technical decision.
t -have-a-journaling-filesystem crap, and this filesystem will be available out of the box in mainstream distributions.
I'm not so sure about that. From my understanding, one of the big reasons Linus included it was because "it won't break anything." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
It's important as it silences all the Linux-isn't-ready-for-primetime-because-it-doesn'
So instead we have to put up with an arrogant, childish, gloating Hans Reiser?
What a great trade-off.
--
So you feel that the world should be deprived of potentially very useful code just because you don't like its author's personality?
It's not like the world is being deprived of "potentially useful code." People have been using ReiserFS for ages now, and most distributions come with either a alternative kernel compiled with ReiserFS, or ReiserFS patches to the mainline kernel already installed.
Second, it's easy to obtain said patches. It's not like there's one guy, in the middle of the Sahara, that you need to send an SASE to in order to get the source code carefully inscribed on dried clumps of sand.
I'm not defending Mr Reiser's behavior, but don't you think that the code should speak for itself? I have no idea what he is like as a person and I don't really care as long as he writes good code.
Don't you think Mr. Reiser should let the quality and/or utility of the code speak for itself, rather than putting all sorts of pressure on the kernel developers to include his code NOW NOW NOW (or, if possible, yesterday)? For a long time, the kernel developers didn't put his code into the kernel because they had different plans. They wanted to make the foundations better for all journalling filesystems. Yet, rather than acknowledge that there might be a technical reason for the lack of inclusion of his code, Hans took a fit and accused anyone and everyone of being part of a conspiracy against him.
That doesn't sound like someone who lets code quality stand on its own.
I'd be perfectly willing to let his code stand on his own - as long as HE would let his code stand on its own. The second Hans Reiser made the character of the other kernel developers an issue, his own character became an issue as well.
--
So did I understand you correctly, you would rather pick code to kernel based on how nice its maintainer is?
I would've rather waited to include ReiserFS in 2.6, when the kernel has been correctly designed for the optimal use of journalling filesystems.
Hans' bitching was for two reasons, both of which are crap.
Reason one: he felt that having to go get the patches put undue burden on his users. This is bunk, because most distributions now ship a kernel with the ReiserFS patches. Those that don't are the ones that cater to the more technically elite. Those that do provide update services that will upgrade your kernel source already patched. And if you're skilled enough to download fresh source and compile a new kernel, you're overqualified to download the patch from the Namesys website and patch the source you just downloaded. So "ease of access" is not a valid reason.
Reason two: he felt that being the "default" jfs on Linux would help improve his business prospects. Well, guess what? The GNU/Linux system isn't around to further anybody's specific business plan. I'd like decisions to be made for the good of the OS, not because somebody wants to sell more consulting services. So "building my business" is not a reason, either.
It saddens me that his code is in the 2.4.1 kernel because adding ReiserFS was tantamount to giving Hans Reiser his way so he'll just shut up. That's not the way things should be done.
--
Actually, I like it for another reason.
No more having to listen to Hans Reiser take temper tantrums on the kernel mailing lists. I've never read more juvenile, whining, self-centered, arrogant, and childish posts in all my life. Rather than admit that maybe it wasn't appropriate for his code to be in the development kernel at a time when they were trying to freeze it, he whined, complained, and insulted everyone. Unable to acknowledge the technical reasons, he started accusing the core developers of favoritism, eliteness, and eventually just decided that there was one big conspiracy against him.
Although it saddens me that his code made it into the kernel, because of his behaviour, at least I won't have to read any more of his bitching.
It definitely gives me some insight as to why some people won't use GNU or GNU/Linux because RMS is the "spokesperson."
--
Strange assertion - bash 'seeming' to be the standard UNIX shell. Since it isn't available by default on many (or is that any?) commercial UNICEs.
:(
My bad.
I think I interpreted the line in one of my Bash tutorials that said something like, "Bash is available on my Unices, and is the default on some of them" to be, "Bash is the default on many of the available Unices."
So it may be fair to reflect on what is missing from ksh that is in bash - things like PROMPT_COMMAND for a start.
I think the question is still valid, my misinformed comments notwithstanding. If Bash is a superset of features from ksh, then what still makes ksh an appealing shell to use? What distingishes ksh from other shells that have similar features and/or functionality?
--
Background: the only shell I've ever really used is bash. Bash has always seemed to be the standard UNIX shell (or, at least, the standard default UNIX shell), and for the most part I've always been able to do what I wanted in it.
Question: can you engage in a little unadulterated advocacy for a moment to offer some reasons why an informed user might consider using ksh over bash or other popular UNIX shells? What does ksh provide that other shells don't? Similarly, can you give a realistic appraisal of ksh's drawbacks as compared to bash or other shells?
Thanks.
--
Prosecution must convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, it's not that hard. Child pornography is one of those hot-button issues that gets people all fired up. It's the old battle cry of, "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" Rational, decent, otherwise intelligent human beings check their IQ at the door. When it comes to child porn, any evidence is evidence of guilt. Somebody has "teen" porn (you know, the stuff that says teen but the models are all verifiably 18+)? Shows their predilication for underage porn. Somebody possesses dirty stories with kids under 18? Must mean they're child molestors. And God forbid they should have any pictures of kids under 18, pornographic or not (for instance, nudist colony photos).
And, unfortunately, few people want to be the person that says, "Hey, that ain't right" for ANY reason, lest somebody starts accusing them of favoring the legalization of child porn or advocating the abuse of children.
Suddenly, the case shifts. No longer is it on the prosecution to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt," because nobody on the jury has, or is willing to voice, their doubts. The only way your average Joe can win that trial is to exonerate himself ("I never lived there; I've never used that computer; during the time in question those pictures were downloaded, I was stranded in the Alps with no food, no water, and no 'net connection...").
--
IF there's enough evidence
IF you're caught
IF you don't get off on a technicality
THEN (in most places) you get a slap on the wrist
SO you go back and do it again
What alternate preferred method would you have?
* Assume the closest person is guilty
* Assume that person's car is the "murder weapon"
* Openly interpret damage to the car or statements made by that person to reflect your predetermined bias
* Put the burden of proof on the defendent, rather than yourself
* Railroad a person that you have not proved committed the act into a long jail sentence for vehicular manslaughter or worse
The underlying assumption of the court system is that you are, repeat after me, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What that means, if you are unfamiliar with the concept, is that the people who are accusing you of committing a crime must prove that you actually committed the crime in question. What making things like virtual child porn illegal does is make it YOUR responsibility to prove you DIDN'T commit the crime. In effect, you are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.
Maybe this doesn't bother you, "because I would NEVER look at adult pornography, never mind child porn."
BUT do you see signs beside the road encouraging you to run someone down in your car? Do you see how-to books and magazines about running down pedestrians for sale (even in opaque wrappers and/or under the counter) in newsagencies? Would it really matter if the signs or magazines made their point using crash-test dummies or mannequins instead of real people?
Stop purposefully confusing adult pornography and child pornography. Adult pornography is legal, child pornography isn't, and the only kind sold in paper wrappers or under the counter is adult pornography. I challenge you to find any adult store that has true child pornography in it (not just stuff labelled "teen" where all the models are 18+, but true child porn). You won't be able to do it.
Getting back to your analogy, "encouraging" is a very broad word that allows you to read anything you want into it. After seeing movies like the Matrix (which I enjoyed), I still have absolutely no desire to go out and murder anybody. Yet, others would have you believe the movie "encourages" murderers like Kleibold and Harris to commit their crimes.
The flaw in this is that "encourage" is used as an absolute, as if something that encourages me makes me commit a crime I otherwise wouldn't. And you can't have it both ways. Either everybody who sees an "encouraging" piece of media commits a crime, or they don't. Which leads you right back to the original point of this whole thread: if a piece of media "encourages" you to do the crime, you were going to do the crime anyways sooner or later because you were predisposed. Which means that the "encouragement" is not for you to do the crime, but only up your timeframe. Which means that the end result, in this case a child getting molested, is the same.
Which, if you have trouble putting A+B+C together, is that it all comes back to the fact that child molestors, if they are going to molest a child, will molest a child regardless of whether they have access to child porn or not. And if somebody isn't predisposed to molesting children, they won't molest children no matter how much kiddie porn they're exposed to.
IMHO, if the signs/books should be illegal, so should child-based or violent porn - and where do you draw the line? Is tickling violent?
Again, you're confusing the issue. The issue is not child pornography. It's not even child-based pornography. It's artificial pornography, where the people involved are computer created and APPEAR younger than 18 years old.
But you bring up a good question - where do you draw the line? Does a racy epsiode of Boston Public or Seventh Heaven constitute child porn? (Kids under the age of 18 entering partial states of disrobement, suggesting sexual encounters.) The Supreme Court has upheld child porn convinctions when the "pornography" was of children at a gymnastics tournament, and the "encouraging aspect" was the fact that their upper thighs were not covered by their tights. It was upheld because it was decided that it was "encouraging" to a pedophile. People have gone to jail for "child porn" that consisted of harmless pictures of their children playing in the bathtub.
Where do you draw the line? Are kids playing in the bathtub child porn? What if I live at a nudist colony, where everybody is naked, and I can't help but have naked kids in some of my pictures? What if I draw a naked child, just doodling? Or what if I paint a picture of a nude preteen (whether or not it was posed)?
Is art any defense against child porn? If this law passes, no. I couldn't legally draw that naked child, or make that painting (even if it was my own imagination), because it would be illegal. And that stifles valid and protected First Amendment speech.
If you can be jailed for inciting a riot, why can't you be jailed for inciting a rape or inciting paedophilia?
THE QUESTION YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS:
If you can be jailed for a particular offensive thought that somebody doesn't like, what stops them from jailing you for ANY thought you have that somebody deems offensive?
Why are you so willing to give up your rights?
--
With that in mind I'm for increasing the penalties of crimes against children.
Do you know what the current penalties are?
Do you know what happens to people in prison who are convicted of crimes against children?
Do you know what happens to people who survive prison and must enroll in Megan's Law-type programs?
--
Oh, I understand that Joe Sixpack won't understand my argument, or even make the effort to try. At some point, I simply have to admit that some people don't care about their freedom as much as I do.
If I were to take a stab at the "your mother would understand" argument, it would be in the vein of encroachment of your liberties. "They take away the right to produce virtual child porn, and you applaud it because you feel virtual child porn leads to real child porn. What happens if somebody decides that those trashy novels where characters are sleeping around lead to infidelity and divorce, and decides to ban them? What happens if soap operas are similarly banned? What happens if writing about fictional wars, or crime novels, or violent video games are banned, because somebody is afraid that they'll cause real crimes? What if they take away the right for you to drive your car because somebody else gets drunk and kills somebody? Would you still give up all of it because somebody, somewhere, might be stopped from doing something that they haven't actually done yet?"
The only way to make people understand is to couch it in an analogy that hits home to them. Housewives might be overly protective of their children, but it might make them more aware if you create a solid analogy to the things that housewives do every day.
--