Re:Quark Matter is Not New
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 2
As long as you are picking nits, I would suggest that you examine your own use of the quaint old practice of capitalization. It is really in the most appalling poor taste to chastize the spelling and grammar of on-line postings. It is particularly tasteless to do so by posting as an A.C. Do you realize that you may be loudly accusing people whom you have never met of ignorance and illiteracy when they may be guilty only of being poor typists or of possesed of a small and awkward keyboard (as am I)?
The only thing more crass than public displays of ignorance are public displays of tendentious pomposity.
I could not agree more with this article. Star Wars and the whole industry it has spawned are maggots on a dead dog. Star Wars is a mediocre movie at best, "ESB" is modestly good, and the rest suck bilge water from the straits of Panama.
Sure, I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced venison when it first came out, but i was 12 years old, so I have an excuse. Now I don't have any problem with people enjoying a simple action movie. My problem comes when people pretend that it is not only more than a simple action movie, but that it is right up there in the literary pantheon.
It doesn't even measure up decently with its literary kin like the eminently entertaining works of Dumas, Sabaitini, and Hope. It's dreck. It's pretty dreck. It's vapid, predictable, and dull.
I'm not trolling here. I really think that the Star Wars franchise is a boring pile of cliches, and it is a source of perpetual wonder to me that people go ga-ga nuts over it.
The fact that konqueror is not integrated. You don't have to have konqueror to use KDE. Also you don't have to have KDE to run Linux. You don't pay anything for either of them, and finally, KDE is not a monopoly.
The whole issue is the "tying" of IE (at the time not a monopoly product) to Windows (a monopoloy) for the sole purpose of harming a competitot (Netscape). If this isn't clear to you, then I suggest you are not up on the issues.
Read the Findings of Fact in the case. The present debate is only over the remedy. No one has successfully challenged the findings of fact. Read. Learn. Enjoy. Then come back and tell me there is no difference between the two.
Here's my anecdote: I run 3 RedHat boxes on my 10 node network. None of them have been rooted. I run nessus, snort, and tripwire and I set things up sensibly.
RedHat installs prior to 7.1 were pretty darned rootable out of the box. If your choose medium to high security when you install recent versions, it is pretty secure.
There is also Bastille Linux, which is worth checking out.
There's no "height limit" on cell signals. The problems are that cell phone handsets are typically capable of power outputs on the order of 750mW maximum. That means that, yes, signals to towers 30,000 ft. away will indeed be weak. The real problem is that the direction finding cell tower antennas are designed to find the direction of a cell client on the surface of the earth. When you are aloft, you may be roughly equidistant bteween dozens of cells. The system for handing clients from cell to cell gets confused and you bounce from cell to cell with resulting droupouts.
As for why they ask you to shut them off and leave them off, this is for the benefit of the avionics. The probability of one cell phone interfering with on-boarc avaiation electronics is small. As a previous poster pointed out, this is why we are on different frequencies. The problem is that radio signals go out into the air together. They mix. Have you ever tuned a musical instrument to a reference signal, like a pitch pipe? Have you noticed how the tone warbles as you get close to being in tune? Those warbles are called "beats." Sometimes two RF (Radio Frequency) signals will "beat" against one another, and the resultant signal will be tuned by are receiver. This is called "intermodulation," or more commonly in the radio trade, "intermod." In the days of analog cell phones my amateur radio equipment would frequently pick up two cell phones mixing and producing a carrier wave on my 2m transceiver. Suddenly, clear as a bell, I would hear two different cell phone calls coming out of my radio -- my radio that operates on a toally different frequency.
Interesting as this is, this is not the worry in flight. Computers operate at radio frequencies (70cm radio is 440MHz, 2m radio is about 150MHz, etc.) Computers used for navigation and flight control operate at frequencies that might concide with frequencies generated by the combination of cell phones. I have seen this happen often in an electronics lab. The phenomenon is real. It happens. I have seen memory clobbered by a keying transmitter. Admittedly, that was a 200W transmitter and it was 30 ft. away from the control computer, but I think the point is clear.
The probability of a cell phone messing up a bit in a computer is small. The probability that the changed bit will adversely affect the flight is likewise small. But it is greater than zero. Unless you shut off the cell phones. Then it is zero.
Don't leave your cell phone on on a flight I am on. I will ask you to turn it off. I promise.
Mere opinion here, but if you notice the camera work, IMHO, it wasn't great. It was terrible. If you are sitting in a movie theater noticing camera work, then the technology of the filmmaker has pulled your conciousness out of the narrative and into his or her gadgetry. I hate filmmakers who do this and hate even more those critics and viewer who reward them for this. Good DP and shot design is certainly important, but it should, like the music when it is right, draw you deeper into the illusion of the story, it should make the experience hyperreal (beyond or better than reality). If, instead, it makes you say "Wow, neat camera work!" it has broken the illusion and violated the viewer's trust.
Please, moviemakers and critics, never again tell me about the "great effects" or "great camera work" in a movie, unless by so doing you are telling me the rest of the movie sucks.
My problem with the current slew of proposed intellectual property law is that it is nothing less than prior restraint. You cannot imprision a person in the united states because they may commit a crime.
Owning a photocopier is not against the law. Copying a copyrighted text without the permission of the copyright holder is. I think it is patently obvious that stealing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong. But it is the act that is illegal, not the device that enables the crime. By this logic, anything that could conceivably be used to facilitate a crime should itself be illegal. We have to make pencils illegal because they might be used to copy a copyrighted text.
The cartels that have built the systems that centralize ownership of itellectual property are alaramed by the ease which new technology brings to the copying game, and the quality that digital processes offer in those copies. They didn't go the mat on cassettes and VCRs because of the time copying requires and the loss of quality that came with each generation of copy.
Now digital technology makes copying fast and quality perfect. This really scares the owners/publishers. They can see their monopoly slipping away. I'm not sure how to address this. These proposed laws are grotesque violations of our rights. They are unreasonable intrusions into our private lives. They amount to prior restraint. Still, we have no right to steal, and I agree with the monopolists on that.
You have the right to make any argument anywhere you like and I would never say that you do not. I do not argue the infalliability of the courts, but I do value their inertia. The great innovation of the founders of this government was plodding bureaucracy. The best defense of liberty is a complex and unweildy government, slow to change, impossible to control. God save us from effective government. Every effective government with which I am familar has been a tyranny. I would rather a court system, moderated by precedent, (in some circumstances) mediated by juries, presided over by politically appointed and elected judges decided what "equal protection" means than an individual or a single party. Obviously, judges, jurors, lawyers, governors, presidents, senators have agendas and selfish interests. The beauty of the system is that the power of these interested indivduals is diffuse.
So you don't agree that the Sherman Act is consistent with equal protection. Fine. That does not make it so. That is my argument. With that, I abandon this dead horse and leave the field to you.
You seem to suffer from some sort of belief that being a Libertarian makes your argument non-specious. I assure you this is not the case. I stand by my "think before your type." The fact that we do not agree about what should or should not be against the law does not ivalidate my assertion that treating a monopolist differently from a non-monopolist does not constitute a violation of the guarantee of equal protection. You have a political disagreement about the correctness of the law. That does not make the law cease to exist or render it unenforacble. If wishes were horses, so goes the medieval saying, then beggars would ride. You may be correct in your beliefs (although I do not think so), but your beliefs (may I say, thank goodness) are not the law of the land. There are two ways to make them so: defeat the law through the courts, or change them through legislation (unless you believe that you can bring about a constitutional convention, which is the one form of direct legislation allowed the citizens of the United States).
Nonsense. The law treats all monopolies equally. A corporation that doesn't have a monoply is not the same thing as one that does.
By your logic, we should all be able to prescribe drugs, because otherwise Doctors and non-Dcotors would be treated unequally before the law. Think before you type.
I'm going to reply to your sig. There are important differences between IE/Windows integration and Konqueror/KDE integration. That difference is konqueror will run under other desktops and window managers. Also KDE works without konqueror (the app). Also not only is Konqueror free, but so is KDE. Also you can run dozens of other window managers and desktops on top of you linux OS without penalty. If an OEM ships a PC without Windows, then they pay for a license of Windows anyways and they lose their "market development funds" (a $10 discount on each Windows license). KDE and konqueror have no such powers or controls.
You have to undestand -- it isn't the act of integrating that was against the law: It was integrating in order to preserve monopoly power that was against the law. If Microsoft didn't have an OS monopoly, then integrating IE would not have been illegal.
You are not aware of any benefits of government? I would suggest that fact that you can enter into a contract and expect that contract to be enforced with something other than violence is a very tangible benefit of government. I drive on roads. Another tangible benefit of government. There are millions of benefits to government. Try living somewhere without one and I think you will find life there nasty, brutish, and short.
Now the fact that you live outside the jurisdisiction of the government to which you are obligated to pay tax is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule. Nonetheless, working outside the U.S. was your choice. You can either accept what that choice costs, or you can look into becoming a citizen of your adopted home.
None of this is to say that I like the tax code as it is, nor to say that I necessarily agree with how the present administration chooses to spend my taxes. Nor to say that I don't believe that a great many tax dollars are wasted or misspent. None of that changes my fundamental belief in the necessity of government, nor in the unfortunate side effect of that necessity: The power to raise and levy taxes.
Speaking as someone who will owe a bundle on April 15th, this isn't quite true. Your employer takes the money out of your paycheck. If you are self-employed, it is up to you to pay as you go. And, yes, you can face criminal prosecution if you don't pay. That takes a while, though. The IRS is actually pretty reasonable to deal with if you're honest about it and make an effort to pay what you owe. Not that I'm a big fan. Who really wants to pay taxes, even when aware of the benefits of government? I don't remember who said it, but I like the quote: "A patriot is person who receives a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works."
While I'm automatically suspicious of phrases like "Most sane people," I must say both of you have a point.
I disagree that selling software is "software hoarding." Not giving away source code is software hoarding.
Sometimes I think that those of us who advocate Free Software overestimate its revolutionary credentials. I'm of the opinion that Free Software is supported by the most conservative principles that underlie intellectual property law: The creator owns the work and has the right to decide what to do with it and how it is used.
The problem with software is that compilation is tantamount to encryption. When you buy "closed-source" software, you are buying an encrypted book. That doesn't alter the author's right to restrict your rights to copy the work.
The GPL is one collection of grants and reservations of the author's inherent ownership. Other sets are equally valid and based in the same fundamental principle. Where I do agree about "software hoarding" is in the obfuscation of compilation. This creates an artificial shortage of technique.
This cuts the other way, too. When the author of a book steals a paragaph or chapter from another's book, the theft is obvious. When a software author steals a part of another author's program, thanks to the obfuscation of compilation, the theft is not obvious.
What I find funny is the notion that computer software is somehow different. It is not. Copyright, patent, plagarism. These should work the same as in any other form of publishing (I think programming is a form of literature, not a form of invention -- that's my opinion, I think this is a core question not yet settled in public opinion or law).
It is the obfuscation of compilation (provable loss of information) that makes it complex. This is why I think Stallman's definition of "Free Software" is the right one. If you got source code with everything, even if you don't agree with Stallman's particular set of grants and reservations, theft would be easily seen and thus easily prosecuted.
Software vendors think keeping the source secret protects their investment. IMHO it merely drives theft underground. Source always would make it obvious.
Questions: Are there any lawyers in the house? If I write a computer book in French, and one of the chapters is directly translated from someone else's book written in English, am I in violation of copyright? Is it harder to prosecute?
I use Linux for my desktop (all of my desktops) every day, day in and day out. Will that be the norm anytime soon? Perhaps not. Microsoft has done a very good job of locking competition out of the OEM and reseller sector.
But I would ask the question of where will the "desktop" be in a few years? I'm not sure most of us will be using desktops per se. I think computing is going to go more and more "into the walls."
Aside: The only reason the "netPC" didn't happen is the PC became the netPC (by getting below the $500 price point for a reasonable machine).
If Young's prediction is borne out, it will be because of marketing, not because of merit. People are now mistaking "familiar" for "good." He's probably right that that will continue...
Nope. I meant slathering. As in slathering on the BS. Just as you suggest. I post on slashdot from time to time. But the S/N ratio overall is poor. Nor do I suggest that mys posts raise it any. I was asking a sincere question: What does Linux lack? I was looking for a sincere answer. To the person originally posting, it looks like what is lacking is multimedia applications. For raster graphics, I've not tried anything that I couldn't do with the GIMP, but then, I'd hardly claim to be a graphics guru. For vector graphics; I've never done any -- can't speak to it (well, a little bit of povray, but just playing). For sound editors and sequencers, they exist, but I'll admit they're difficult and crude at this time. As for flash/shockwave tools, you can't expect open source tools for closed, patent protected non-standard technologies.
I do have something of an exclusive attitude towards open source, in that I believe people are using the combination of perfectly sound intellectual property law (I've got nothing inherently against patents or copyrights) and the fact that compilation is tanatmount to encryption (data is provably lost in compilation; especially in compilers with optomization) to create an artificial shortage of technique. This creates an artifically inflated market.
The true open market doesn't depend on secrets. You can take apart a car engine to see how it works. You can then try to use this knowledge to make an engine of your own. You can't do that with software. I think you should be able to.
To argue the other side, I do think you should be able to copyright your code so people can directly steal pieces of it. The GPL itself uses this legal principle. You should be able to patent truly unique and novel inventions (my complaint with patents these days is patents are being given out on what I would consider non-novel ideas -- that's a problem with the process, not the principle).
Aside; Why are these so many people who think they are the only souls with a dictionary? Try this one:
pedant
Pronunciation: 'pe-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian pedante
Date: 1588
1 obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
I can't believe I'm falling into answering this, but what application do you need that you don't have? (Sincere question -- I write software; might be fun to fill in a gap).
Unless, of course, this is the classic (I need "Word" because everyone else has "Word.") What amuses me about this is how quickly we forget. Just 7 years ago Word was the upstart. WordPerfect was the defacto standard. Word 6 was the first version of Word that wasn't a joke and Word95 was the first to make major inroads.
An earlier post ask why Microsoft is so reviled. The simple answer is that they use a monopoly in systems to extend a monopoly in applications. At this point, Office is a monopoly in itself. They are positioning themselves to be the monopoly media platform, net service platform, etc.
After seeing them do this enough times, you start to have Capt. Kirk's feelings about Klingons (be sure to add the excessively dramatic emphasis Shatner adds when you read this): "DON'T belive them! DON'T trust them!"
I'll be very happy if I never have to do another thing in a Microsoft OS ever again. I don't right now. When people send me things in Word format, I politely inform them that I don't use Windows. I'll do the best I can with OpenOffice to read and use their stuff, but maybe they should consider using RTF or HTML, since these are open standards.
Wow! Not only did I get dragged in by a troll (intended or not), but I slipped off into a rant! Why should I be any different frm the average slathering slashdotter...
I've had a lot of poor swap perfromance on my 2.4.x kernel compared to my 2.2.x kernel. On my dual processor machine with 1G ram I haven't had problems, but then I use it so lightly it has never had to swap anything! On anything where normal load causes some swap out, I get mighty slow response when I go to do something after some idle time: type, change input focus in X, etc.
I imagine I could suss it out, but it isn't a big issue for me. I'm told later 2.4.x kernels fix this (I'm running 2.4.9).
Anecdotal, I know. For myself, I'd run 2.2.x still on production systems. But I don't run any big production systems...
I'm not sure about the 1993 paperback art, but I think my mid-1970's paperback edition's "lame paintings" were done by Tolkien himself, so perhaps they are not quite so lame per se, just the best work by a poor painter...
This gives me my first glimmer of hope since the Bush the Younger administration emasculated the anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
Microsoft is now moving into and p---ing off entire new markets. Either they will compete legitimately one-on-one with the game console makers, and with the consumer electronics companies, in which case they will find themsevles back under proper market control (the ideal Laisser Faire solution), or they will leverage their monopoly into new monopolies and no administration will be able to ignore their blatant abuse of the law.
In other words, the thinner they spread themselves, the greater the chance they will lose their dominance.
You miss my point. My point is that it is the association of the DNA with a name that is easily forged. If I could get the (false) association made between between my DNA and Barbara Streisand's name and I could get that association certified (and don't you think the clerk whose job this is could be bought for a couple of million dollars?), then you would have to call me Barbara, wouldn't you?
DNA is certain alright. But who says what name goes with my DNA? I'm saying that can be forged.
They used to keep fingerprints in card catalogs. If I pulled my fingerprint card, cut off the top and typed up a new header that said "Streisand, Barbara" then when you took my prints, you'd have to call me Barbara then too.
All I'm trying to say is that there is NO magic identity bullet; just because I can't change my fingerprints or my DNA does not mean that I can't get you to associate an incorrect identity with that unchangable attribute.
Okay, so your DNA matches the DNA recorded on the card. So what? If the card says you are Barbara Streisand and you are not, so long as the DNA matches yours, people have to assume you are Barbara Streisand. And don't give any guff about the private key used to sign the secure hash of the DNA and the name. If you spend enough money (like the kind of money a Barbara Streisand has) you can bribe, steal, copy, generate, whatever, a valid signature. Its all a question of cost/benefit.
The entire notion that knowing identity secures us is idiotic. So you know who someone is. Unless you can read his mind, predict his future actions, know the depth of his character through knowing his identity, I don't see that it does much. Freedom is too great a price for such imperfect security.
I'm doing this from memory, so it is an imperfect paraphrase, but here goes:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, and that whenever a government becomes hostile to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
That's a misquote of the American Declaration of Independence. I think a lot of people forget that the American government was founded by a bunch of radical free-thinkers, and that it was a revolutionary movement. EVERYBODY was an American Patriot after the successful revolution, but certainly not everyone was before.
As for chips, I don't even particularly like this technology for dogs, let alone humans. There should be no circumstance whatsoever under which the government (or any entity) may forcibly violate the integrity of my external integument.
And I am not concerned about the numerology of the beast, the number of the beast, or the neighbor of the beast.
There are so many less personally intrusive ways to eliminate my privacy...
I do not recall being required to to give my retina prints or fingerprints to anyone at any time. Not to enter college, not to get a driver's license, not anything.
Social security numbers are used by everybody because they are (theoretically) unique numbers everyone has, and relational databases love unique IDs.
The government isn't the danger. It is the complacency of the people who constitute the government. In other words, you and me. I get so sick of people who think there is some hostile force out there, with which they have no connection, that is working against their interests. Guess what? That force is, in part, you.
Microwaves pose real problems as a means of energy transfer. I suggest copper wire. Some of those orange heavy-duty extension cords from Home Depot, for instance. They're durable and affordable. Be sure to unplug them when they're not in use. And be sure to have enough slack so dangerous trasfers of angular momentum don't take place. It would really suck if the earth started spinning twice as fast shortening my sleep AND the moon came crashing into the earth's surface.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you are picking nits, I would suggest that you examine your own use of the quaint old practice of capitalization. It is really in the most appalling poor taste to chastize the spelling and grammar of on-line postings. It is particularly tasteless to do so by posting as an A.C. Do you realize that you may be loudly accusing people whom you have never met of ignorance and illiteracy when they may be guilty only of being poor typists or of possesed of a small and awkward keyboard (as am I)?
The only thing more crass than public displays of ignorance are public displays of tendentious pomposity.
I could not agree more with this article. Star Wars and the whole industry it has spawned are maggots on a dead dog. Star Wars is a mediocre movie at best, "ESB" is modestly good, and the rest suck bilge water from the straits of Panama.
Sure, I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced venison when it first came out, but i was 12 years old, so I have an excuse. Now I don't have any problem with people enjoying a simple action movie. My problem comes when people pretend that it is not only more than a simple action movie, but that it is right up there in the literary pantheon.
It doesn't even measure up decently with its literary kin like the eminently entertaining works of Dumas, Sabaitini, and Hope. It's dreck. It's pretty dreck. It's vapid, predictable, and dull.
I'm not trolling here. I really think that the Star Wars franchise is a boring pile of cliches, and it is a source of perpetual wonder to me that people go ga-ga nuts over it.
The fact that konqueror is not integrated. You don't have to have konqueror to use KDE. Also you don't have to have KDE to run Linux. You don't pay anything for either of them, and finally, KDE is not a monopoly.
The whole issue is the "tying" of IE (at the time not a monopoly product) to Windows (a monopoloy) for the sole purpose of harming a competitot (Netscape). If this isn't clear to you, then I suggest you are not up on the issues.
Read the Findings of Fact in the case. The present debate is only over the remedy. No one has successfully challenged the findings of fact. Read. Learn. Enjoy. Then come back and tell me there is no difference between the two.
Ignorance is bliss and we are a happy country.
Here's my anecdote: I run 3 RedHat boxes on my 10 node network. None of them have been rooted. I run nessus, snort, and tripwire and I set things up sensibly.
RedHat installs prior to 7.1 were pretty darned rootable out of the box. If your choose medium to high security when you install recent versions, it is pretty secure.
There is also Bastille Linux, which is worth checking out.
There's no "height limit" on cell signals. The problems are that cell phone handsets are typically capable of power outputs on the order of 750mW maximum. That means that, yes, signals to towers 30,000 ft. away will indeed be weak. The real problem is that the direction finding cell tower antennas are designed to find the direction of a cell client on the surface of the earth. When you are aloft, you may be roughly equidistant bteween dozens of cells. The system for handing clients from cell to cell gets confused and you bounce from cell to cell with resulting droupouts.
As for why they ask you to shut them off and leave them off, this is for the benefit of the avionics. The probability of one cell phone interfering with on-boarc avaiation electronics is small. As a previous poster pointed out, this is why we are on different frequencies. The problem is that radio signals go out into the air together. They mix. Have you ever tuned a musical instrument to a reference signal, like a pitch pipe? Have you noticed how the tone warbles as you get close to being in tune? Those warbles are called "beats." Sometimes two RF (Radio Frequency) signals will "beat" against one another, and the resultant signal will be tuned by are receiver. This is called "intermodulation," or more commonly in the radio trade, "intermod." In the days of analog cell phones my amateur radio equipment would frequently pick up two cell phones mixing and producing a carrier wave on my 2m transceiver. Suddenly, clear as a bell, I would hear two different cell phone calls coming out of my radio -- my radio that operates on a toally different frequency.
Interesting as this is, this is not the worry in flight. Computers operate at radio frequencies (70cm radio is 440MHz, 2m radio is about 150MHz, etc.) Computers used for navigation and flight control operate at frequencies that might concide with frequencies generated by the combination of cell phones. I have seen this happen often in an electronics lab. The phenomenon is real. It happens. I have seen memory clobbered by a keying transmitter. Admittedly, that was a 200W transmitter and it was 30 ft. away from the control computer, but I think the point is clear.
The probability of a cell phone messing up a bit in a computer is small. The probability that the changed bit will adversely affect the flight is likewise small. But it is greater than zero. Unless you shut off the cell phones. Then it is zero.
Don't leave your cell phone on on a flight I am on. I will ask you to turn it off. I promise.
Mere opinion here, but if you notice the camera work, IMHO, it wasn't great. It was terrible. If you are sitting in a movie theater noticing camera work, then the technology of the filmmaker has pulled your conciousness out of the narrative and into his or her gadgetry. I hate filmmakers who do this and hate even more those critics and viewer who reward them for this. Good DP and shot design is certainly important, but it should, like the music when it is right, draw you deeper into the illusion of the story, it should make the experience hyperreal (beyond or better than reality). If, instead, it makes you say "Wow, neat camera work!" it has broken the illusion and violated the viewer's trust.
Please, moviemakers and critics, never again tell me about the "great effects" or "great camera work" in a movie, unless by so doing you are telling me the rest of the movie sucks.
My problem with the current slew of proposed intellectual property law is that it is nothing less than prior restraint. You cannot imprision a person in the united states because they may commit a crime.
Owning a photocopier is not against the law. Copying a copyrighted text without the permission of the copyright holder is. I think it is patently obvious that stealing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong. But it is the act that is illegal, not the device that enables the crime. By this logic, anything that could conceivably be used to facilitate a crime should itself be illegal. We have to make pencils illegal because they might be used to copy a copyrighted text.
The cartels that have built the systems that centralize ownership of itellectual property are alaramed by the ease which new technology brings to the copying game, and the quality that digital processes offer in those copies. They didn't go the mat on cassettes and VCRs because of the time copying requires and the loss of quality that came with each generation of copy.
Now digital technology makes copying fast and quality perfect. This really scares the owners/publishers. They can see their monopoly slipping away. I'm not sure how to address this. These proposed laws are grotesque violations of our rights. They are unreasonable intrusions into our private lives. They amount to prior restraint. Still, we have no right to steal, and I agree with the monopolists on that.
You have the right to make any argument anywhere you like and I would never say that you do not. I do not argue the infalliability of the courts, but I do value their inertia. The great innovation of the founders of this government was plodding bureaucracy. The best defense of liberty is a complex and unweildy government, slow to change, impossible to control. God save us from effective government. Every effective government with which I am familar has been a tyranny. I would rather a court system, moderated by precedent, (in some circumstances) mediated by juries, presided over by politically appointed and elected judges decided what "equal protection" means than an individual or a single party. Obviously, judges, jurors, lawyers, governors, presidents, senators have agendas and selfish interests. The beauty of the system is that the power of these interested indivduals is diffuse.
So you don't agree that the Sherman Act is consistent with equal protection. Fine. That does not make it so. That is my argument. With that, I abandon this dead horse and leave the field to you.
You seem to suffer from some sort of belief that being a Libertarian makes your argument non-specious. I assure you this is not the case. I stand by my "think before your type." The fact that we do not agree about what should or should not be against the law does not ivalidate my assertion that treating a monopolist differently from a non-monopolist does not constitute a violation of the guarantee of equal protection. You have a political disagreement about the correctness of the law. That does not make the law cease to exist or render it unenforacble. If wishes were horses, so goes the medieval saying, then beggars would ride. You may be correct in your beliefs (although I do not think so), but your beliefs (may I say, thank goodness) are not the law of the land. There are two ways to make them so: defeat the law through the courts, or change them through legislation (unless you believe that you can bring about a constitutional convention, which is the one form of direct legislation allowed the citizens of the United States).
Good luck to you.
Nonsense. The law treats all monopolies equally. A corporation that doesn't have a monoply is not the same thing as one that does.
By your logic, we should all be able to prescribe drugs, because otherwise Doctors and non-Dcotors would be treated unequally before the law. Think before you type.
I'm going to reply to your sig. There are important differences between IE/Windows integration and Konqueror/KDE integration. That difference is konqueror will run under other desktops and window managers. Also KDE works without konqueror (the app). Also not only is Konqueror free, but so is KDE. Also you can run dozens of other window managers and desktops on top of you linux OS without penalty. If an OEM ships a PC without Windows, then they pay for a license of Windows anyways and they lose their "market development funds" (a $10 discount on each Windows license). KDE and konqueror have no such powers or controls.
You have to undestand -- it isn't the act of integrating that was against the law: It was integrating in order to preserve monopoly power that was against the law. If Microsoft didn't have an OS monopoly, then integrating IE would not have been illegal.
You are not aware of any benefits of government? I would suggest that fact that you can enter into a contract and expect that contract to be enforced with something other than violence is a very tangible benefit of government. I drive on roads. Another tangible benefit of government. There are millions of benefits to government. Try living somewhere without one and I think you will find life there nasty, brutish, and short.
Now the fact that you live outside the jurisdisiction of the government to which you are obligated to pay tax is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule. Nonetheless, working outside the U.S. was your choice. You can either accept what that choice costs, or you can look into becoming a citizen of your adopted home.
None of this is to say that I like the tax code as it is, nor to say that I necessarily agree with how the present administration chooses to spend my taxes. Nor to say that I don't believe that a great many tax dollars are wasted or misspent. None of that changes my fundamental belief in the necessity of government, nor in the unfortunate side effect of that necessity: The power to raise and levy taxes.
Speaking as someone who will owe a bundle on April 15th, this isn't quite true. Your employer takes the money out of your paycheck. If you are self-employed, it is up to you to pay as you go. And, yes, you can face criminal prosecution if you don't pay. That takes a while, though. The IRS is actually pretty reasonable to deal with if you're honest about it and make an effort to pay what you owe. Not that I'm a big fan. Who really wants to pay taxes, even when aware of the benefits of government? I don't remember who said it, but I like the quote: "A patriot is person who receives a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works."
And Verisign is a lousy company.
While I'm automatically suspicious of phrases like "Most sane people," I must say both of you have a point.
I disagree that selling software is "software hoarding." Not giving away source code is software hoarding.
Sometimes I think that those of us who advocate Free Software overestimate its revolutionary credentials. I'm of the opinion that Free Software is supported by the most conservative principles that underlie intellectual property law: The creator owns the work and has the right to decide what to do with it and how it is used.
The problem with software is that compilation is tantamount to encryption. When you buy "closed-source" software, you are buying an encrypted book. That doesn't alter the author's right to restrict your rights to copy the work.
The GPL is one collection of grants and reservations of the author's inherent ownership. Other sets are equally valid and based in the same fundamental principle. Where I do agree about "software hoarding" is in the obfuscation of compilation. This creates an artificial shortage of technique.
This cuts the other way, too. When the author of a book steals a paragaph or chapter from another's book, the theft is obvious. When a software author steals a part of another author's program, thanks to the obfuscation of compilation, the theft is not obvious.
What I find funny is the notion that computer software is somehow different. It is not. Copyright, patent, plagarism. These should work the same as in any other form of publishing (I think programming is a form of literature, not a form of invention -- that's my opinion, I think this is a core question not yet settled in public opinion or law).
It is the obfuscation of compilation (provable loss of information) that makes it complex. This is why I think Stallman's definition of "Free Software" is the right one. If you got source code with everything, even if you don't agree with Stallman's particular set of grants and reservations, theft would be easily seen and thus easily prosecuted.
Software vendors think keeping the source secret protects their investment. IMHO it merely drives theft underground. Source always would make it obvious.
Questions: Are there any lawyers in the house? If I write a computer book in French, and one of the chapters is directly translated from someone else's book written in English, am I in violation of copyright? Is it harder to prosecute?
I use Linux for my desktop (all of my desktops) every day, day in and day out. Will that be the norm anytime soon? Perhaps not. Microsoft has done a very good job of locking competition out of the OEM and reseller sector.
But I would ask the question of where will the "desktop" be in a few years? I'm not sure most of us will be using desktops per se. I think computing is going to go more and more "into the walls."
Aside: The only reason the "netPC" didn't happen is the PC became the netPC (by getting below the $500 price point for a reasonable machine).
If Young's prediction is borne out, it will be because of marketing, not because of merit. People are now mistaking "familiar" for "good." He's probably right that that will continue...
And if anyone actually cares, I, of course meant "you should be able to copyright your code so people can't directly steal pieces of it."
So I can't type...
Nope. I meant slathering. As in slathering on the BS. Just as you suggest. I post on slashdot from time to time. But the S/N ratio overall is poor. Nor do I suggest that mys posts raise it any. I was asking a sincere question: What does Linux lack? I was looking for a sincere answer. To the person originally posting, it looks like what is lacking is multimedia applications. For raster graphics, I've not tried anything that I couldn't do with the GIMP, but then, I'd hardly claim to be a graphics guru. For vector graphics; I've never done any -- can't speak to it (well, a little bit of povray, but just playing). For sound editors and sequencers, they exist, but I'll admit they're difficult and crude at this time. As for flash/shockwave tools, you can't expect open source tools for closed, patent protected non-standard technologies.
I do have something of an exclusive attitude towards open source, in that I believe people are using the combination of perfectly sound intellectual property law (I've got nothing inherently against patents or copyrights) and the fact that compilation is tanatmount to encryption (data is provably lost in compilation; especially in compilers with optomization) to create an artificial shortage of technique. This creates an artifically inflated market.
The true open market doesn't depend on secrets. You can take apart a car engine to see how it works. You can then try to use this knowledge to make an engine of your own. You can't do that with software. I think you should be able to.
To argue the other side, I do think you should be able to copyright your code so people can directly steal pieces of it. The GPL itself uses this legal principle. You should be able to patent truly unique and novel inventions (my complaint with patents these days is patents are being given out on what I would consider non-novel ideas -- that's a problem with the process, not the principle).
Aside; Why are these so many people who think they are the only souls with a dictionary? Try this one:
pedant
Pronunciation: 'pe-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian pedante
Date: 1588
1 obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
I can't believe I'm falling into answering this, but what application do you need that you don't have? (Sincere question -- I write software; might be fun to fill in a gap).
Unless, of course, this is the classic (I need "Word" because everyone else has "Word.") What amuses me about this is how quickly we forget. Just 7 years ago Word was the upstart. WordPerfect was the defacto standard. Word 6 was the first version of Word that wasn't a joke and Word95 was the first to make major inroads.
An earlier post ask why Microsoft is so reviled. The simple answer is that they use a monopoly in systems to extend a monopoly in applications. At this point, Office is a monopoly in itself. They are positioning themselves to be the monopoly media platform, net service platform, etc.
After seeing them do this enough times, you start to have Capt. Kirk's feelings about Klingons (be sure to add the excessively dramatic emphasis Shatner adds when you read this): "DON'T belive them! DON'T trust them!"
I'll be very happy if I never have to do another thing in a Microsoft OS ever again. I don't right now. When people send me things in Word format, I politely inform them that I don't use Windows. I'll do the best I can with OpenOffice to read and use their stuff, but maybe they should consider using RTF or HTML, since these are open standards.
Wow! Not only did I get dragged in by a troll (intended or not), but I slipped off into a rant! Why should I be any different frm the average slathering slashdotter...
I've had a lot of poor swap perfromance on my 2.4.x kernel compared to my 2.2.x kernel. On my dual processor machine with 1G ram I haven't had problems, but then I use it so lightly it has never had to swap anything! On anything where normal load causes some swap out, I get mighty slow response when I go to do something after some idle time: type, change input focus in X, etc.
I imagine I could suss it out, but it isn't a big issue for me. I'm told later 2.4.x kernels fix this (I'm running 2.4.9).
Anecdotal, I know. For myself, I'd run 2.2.x still on production systems. But I don't run any big production systems...
I'm not sure about the 1993 paperback art, but I think my mid-1970's paperback edition's "lame paintings" were done by Tolkien himself, so perhaps they are not quite so lame per se, just the best work by a poor painter...
This gives me my first glimmer of hope since the Bush the Younger administration emasculated the anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
Microsoft is now moving into and p---ing off entire new markets. Either they will compete legitimately one-on-one with the game console makers, and with the consumer electronics companies, in which case they will find themsevles back under proper market control (the ideal Laisser Faire solution), or they will leverage their monopoly into new monopolies and no administration will be able to ignore their blatant abuse of the law.
In other words, the thinner they spread themselves, the greater the chance they will lose their dominance.
You miss my point. My point is that it is the association of the DNA with a name that is easily forged. If I could get the (false) association made between between my DNA and Barbara Streisand's name and I could get that association certified (and don't you think the clerk whose job this is could be bought for a couple of million dollars?), then you would have to call me Barbara, wouldn't you?
DNA is certain alright. But who says what name goes with my DNA? I'm saying that can be forged.
They used to keep fingerprints in card catalogs. If I pulled my fingerprint card, cut off the top and typed up a new header that said "Streisand, Barbara" then when you took my prints, you'd have to call me Barbara then too.
All I'm trying to say is that there is NO magic identity bullet; just because I can't change my fingerprints or my DNA does not mean that I can't get you to associate an incorrect identity with that unchangable attribute.
Okay, so your DNA matches the DNA recorded on the card. So what? If the card says you are Barbara Streisand and you are not, so long as the DNA matches yours, people have to assume you are Barbara Streisand. And don't give any guff about the private key used to sign the secure hash of the DNA and the name. If you spend enough money (like the kind of money a Barbara Streisand has) you can bribe, steal, copy, generate, whatever, a valid signature. Its all a question of cost/benefit.
The entire notion that knowing identity secures us is idiotic. So you know who someone is. Unless you can read his mind, predict his future actions, know the depth of his character through knowing his identity, I don't see that it does much. Freedom is too great a price for such imperfect security.
That's a misquote of the American Declaration of Independence. I think a lot of people forget that the American government was founded by a bunch of radical free-thinkers, and that it was a revolutionary movement. EVERYBODY was an American Patriot after the successful revolution, but certainly not everyone was before.
As for chips, I don't even particularly like this technology for dogs, let alone humans. There should be no circumstance whatsoever under which the government (or any entity) may forcibly violate the integrity of my external integument.
And I am not concerned about the numerology of the beast, the number of the beast, or the neighbor of the beast.
There are so many less personally intrusive ways to eliminate my privacy...
I do not recall being required to to give my retina prints or fingerprints to anyone at any time. Not to enter college, not to get a driver's license, not anything.
Social security numbers are used by everybody because they are (theoretically) unique numbers everyone has, and relational databases love unique IDs.
The government isn't the danger. It is the complacency of the people who constitute the government. In other words, you and me. I get so sick of people who think there is some hostile force out there, with which they have no connection, that is working against their interests. Guess what? That force is, in part, you.
So, get to work. Alter or abolish it.
Microwaves pose real problems as a means of energy transfer. I suggest copper wire. Some of those orange heavy-duty extension cords from Home Depot, for instance. They're durable and affordable. Be sure to unplug them when they're not in use. And be sure to have enough slack so dangerous trasfers of angular momentum don't take place. It would really suck if the earth started spinning twice as fast shortening my sleep AND the moon came crashing into the earth's surface.
Let's hope those engineers have thought of THAT!