You are correct: words often do not accomplish much. Typing here at slashdot often accomplishes even less. However, you make the situation sound perfectly hopeless. It is not. There are avenues, in place at this very moment, in which a citizen of the US can influence that laws of our country. Is it perfect? No, probably not. Is it instant? No, thankfully.
While you are on here at slashdot proclaiming nothing can be done, I am in the real world, keeping the faith and doing that which you say can't.
Have a great day.
Re:Appeal to the artists!
on
Coding Fair Use
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
To quote the parent:
This is when the tide will turn, and not before - because corporations do and should have rights to protect anything they own and right now they own the rights to the content we want to copy.
I have two issues with this, the first is well said by Robert Heinlein
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
The second is that we, as citizens have granted these rights you speak of to the cooperations. We also have the power to take away these 'rights'. I feel that several things are obvious:
Copyright legislation is out of control and is not serving the any where near the obvious intention is was set out to:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Artists are moving towards having direct interaction with their audiences. The problem is that record companies actively supress music by going for a small number of big names. The record industry is kick and screaming it's way into this new paradigm (crap word, I know). The are actively work to hamper this from happening... so its not just a matter of artist changing their ways, its is a matter the record industry actively trying to stop this trend.
I am not a 'consumer'. I am a god-damn citizen. I very purposely do not consume from the RIAA or MPAA. And I get by just fine without their crap.
Another quote:
Until that changes, we the people are screwed and can't do much about it.... legally anyways.
So what, we're just suppose to sit on our asses? If you keep doing the same thing, you keeping the same results. CHANGE, DAMN IT!
I haven't bought a new CD for several years. I have however purchased many, many used CDs. I also do NOT download music off the net. I do listen to streaming radio off the net, like SomaFM (which is about to die, and thousands of other internet radio stations, due to the bastard RIAA). I also do not buy DVDs. Actually, I don't own a TV, and the only radio I listen to is Public Radio (yeah, NPR!).
My point being, that according to point 1, I am that strange person they are marginalizing, under point 4, I refused to exploited.
I'm on the SVG band wagon myself. I'm using Cold Fusion to generate dynamic SVG pages from a USGS database... maps on the fly! SVG is open, easy, and with Adobe plug-in, decently supported.
Sorry I don't have an internet accessable example to show.
My favorite was the one where you take 50 ml of water and 50 ml of alcohol and then pour them together into another 100 ml beaker... and the combined liquids only take up 97 ml... cause the alcohol molecules are so large in comparision to the water (and due to polarized attraction) that the water molecules can fit in between the alocohol, like water in a sponge.
However, as such programs as 98Lite show, you take the IE out of windows and still leave the ability to render html, by leaving the html rendering dlls registered and on the machine.
So, not IE, no active desktop, and the ability for apps to still use built in html rendering. Isn't this what we are looking for? Then any program could be the browser, MS would just be providing the guts.
I think that this is what MS is afraid of. They want control of the browser becuase it roughly equels control of the internet (for the average person).
Ever notice what happens when you upgrade IE? The first screen you get when IE is fired back up is a request for the user to change the home page to MSN. This is a big deal in terms of driving traffic to MSN.
This grip on the internet via IE also allows MS to embrace-and-extend... which they could still by controlling the abilities of the html rendering dlls...
You're right about one thing: it is not a technical issue. It's about control.
True. I personally know a large family farm that did this a while back (4 years or so???). They have decent land.
After going through all the analysis and work, they had a net loss over all, because at the end of it all, there was so little land where the research dictate a change that it was MUCH more cost effective to just ignore it all together.
This would probably be different if more of the land would dictate a change in behaivor.
I might also add that they farm A LOT of land, and that they are very good in terms of conservation, crop rotation, and so. They farm for profit, and they do that by properly sustaining their land.
Agreed. And on top of that, the findings were that it didn't help. They found that the areas that did not yield well did not improve with application of more fertalizer. And there is only so much fertalizer you can put on a given spot. It basically came down that it was best to just use the same amount all over, as there was not even enough gain to evercome the added time and effort (read: money).
I know of town in my state (midwest) where the cops were actually voted on the premise that they were not providing enought property protection... instead, they where pulling people over for DUI and busting for smoking pot.
Overall, the people were OK with smoking pot and going to the bar... and they were pissed off the the newbie cops were gung-ho about busting people.
So they go rid of them.
Probably not the best example, but my point is that:
1. Cops are a public service. If they are not providing the service the public wants, then the public should do something.
2. Property siezure laws for drug crimes allow the cops to make money off their actions... which I think if fundamentally wrong. Law enforcencement should be a money losing action, that's why we pay taxes to have it.
It's interesting that you talk about this, becuase I just listened to a segment on Market Place (often NPR, produced by UMN) about this very thing.
The defense that the insurance companies gave was two fold:
1. A person who has a poor credit rating (they mentioned spec. late payments or many open lines of credit) is more likely to take risks, i.e. go for the yellow light at a stop light as opposed to stopping.
2. They claim that MORE people get better rates using credit ratings...
It's an interesting concept. One of the major complaints brought up was issues of identity theft. I think that if a person is suffering from identiy theft, they will probably have many problems, not just the insurance, but I can see how adding this to the list would suck.
I don't know if I agree or not, but it is interesting. I do believe that this very much ties in with our loss of privacy. What's to stop the insurance company from raising the rates of someone who often uses their credit (or debit) card at a liquor store? Or if they use the card in a place that has a high occurence of hit and runs???
I think it is just a matter of time before these items get tied into the variables that define the risk you are to a insurance company.
My sig: It explodes. Sort of like Michael Jackson standing in a room full of asian women.
While reading slashdot one day, probably about 2 months ago, I ran across this bit of text in a post here at slashdot. In the context of the post, it was VERY funny. I think it is still funny all by itself, thus I decided to adopt it as my sig.
So when a digital camera is said to have 3 mega-pixels, does that mean that it only has 1 million pixels for each color??? Thus, the actual resolution isn't 3 mega but 1 mega???
Actually, they specifically stated it WASN'T away around the 2nd law... the catch is that it requires energy to operate the ratchet (in and out at random times), while brownian (or other random action) moves the rotor.
So, it doesn't violate the 2nd law, it adheres to it quite nicely... as in using ATP to drives muscles and ION pumps.
Well, as a person walks, they can track the relative position (in distance only) of a signal they are tracking, essintially becoming there own triangulation point(s).
This is how subs can track objects with a 'ping'... (well, part of it).
Couple that with the coming 'enhanced vision' of a law enforcement officer wearing glasses that overlay a image over reality, and the system could simply allow a person to walk around, with the system finding the location of transmitters, and the vision system pointing out the person it's probably coming from (enter precision GPS into the equation).
Not that I'm saying it'll happen this way, but the tech WILL exist.
But the ratchet in the case does not allow the rotor to turn only one direction... the rotor can turn either direction when the ratchet is 'released' (i.e., not putting pressure on the rotor). The way the rotor is designed is that it is more probable for the ratchet to engage the rotor in a location that will turn the rotor one way and not the other.
Brownian motion rotates the rotor, in either direction, the ratchet just randomly engages the rotor.... neither action has any rhyme or reason, and are completely 'independent of the definition of direction'. Neither part of devices has any concept of direction. The rotor can turn either way, the ratchet allows the rotor to turn either way.
And the rotor/ratchet is just an anology. If you'd read the SciAm link, you'd read about how this works for muscles, ion pumps, and most anytype of 'motor' apperatice in nature.
I'm not saying evolotion works like this, I'm simply saying that there are devices that can take random motion, and create not random motion.
I am arguing that a random walk has no overall direction, even if the step-vectors are filtered by some set of random tests, provided only that the tests are independent of the definition of direction
Not true.
Two random actions coupled can produce coherent action.
But no demon or mortal has ever challenged the second law of thermodynamics and won. According to the law, one of the most subtle in physics, any increase in the order of the system--as would occur if the gear turned only one way--must be overcompensated by a decrease in the order of the demon. In the case of the ratcheted gear, the catch is the catch. As Feynman argued, the ratchet mechanism itself is subject to thermal vibrations. Some push up the spring and allow the gear to jiggle out of its locked position. Because the gear teeth are skewed, it takes only a tiny jiggle to go counterclockwise by one tooth, and a larger (and less probable) jiggle to go clockwise. So when the pawl clicks back into place, the wheel is more likely to have shifted counterclockwise. Meanwhile the sudden jerk of the propeller as the ratchet reengages dumps heat back into the fluid. The upshot: no net motion or heat extraction.
Wow, you are over my head. I'm -was- a 12B (combat engineer) from South Dakota. National Gaurd, I know, I know, don't hate me.
Gaurds was excellent. Got to see (and tie the electic det. lines) on a 250 pnd C4 explosion, drive the apc, shot the.50 cal, Mark 19, granades... etc.
I did things I would never do other wise. And I got paid quite well for it. The one thing I hated? Peeing in a cup. Drug test suck in that it is the most demeaning thing in my life.
So, to answer your question, no I wasn't there. Kinda wish I was. Where & what did you do???
I checked on the apc... it would fit too... by about 1.5 inches. I guess they probably had that in mind, but I'm wondering what the weight limit is on a cargo container.
Oh yeah, I was going to mention that the M113A3 has hydrostatic steering as opposed to pull-stick steering. It's actually very maneuverable, and can spin on a dime (opposing track motion). Top speed supposed to be 42 or so (governed out), but on a downhill grad it'll go faster;) It will also do a 60% grade, and has a turbo V8.
So I'm wondering exactly what the difference between the two are??? More weapon mounts? How many people does it hold?
So what do mean when you say it 'swims'??? For the apc, it will swim, in that it'll float and go forward at a slow speed (3 mph or so).
My first thought was to use the body of an M113 APC, but the vehicle must fit in a 8 x 8 x 20 cargo container for shipment to England. The vehicle can be disassembled for transport, but it has to be able to be put back together in under four hours. Damn!
I drove APC for 5 years... and they can do some amazing things.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct: words often do not accomplish much. Typing here at slashdot often accomplishes even less. However, you make the situation sound perfectly hopeless. It is not. There are avenues, in place at this very moment, in which a citizen of the US can influence that laws of our country. Is it perfect? No, probably not. Is it instant? No, thankfully.
While you are on here at slashdot proclaiming nothing can be done, I am in the real world, keeping the faith and doing that which you say can't.
Have a great day.
To quote the parent:
I have two issues with this, the first is well said by Robert Heinlein
The second is that we, as citizens have granted these rights you speak of to the cooperations. We also have the power to take away these 'rights'. I feel that several things are obvious:
Hmm, that's very insightful.
I haven't bought a new CD for several years. I have however purchased many, many used CDs. I also do NOT download music off the net. I do listen to streaming radio off the net, like SomaFM (which is about to die, and thousands of other internet radio stations, due to the bastard RIAA). I also do not buy DVDs. Actually, I don't own a TV, and the only radio I listen to is Public Radio (yeah, NPR!).
My point being, that according to point 1, I am that strange person they are marginalizing, under point 4, I refused to exploited.
I'm on the SVG band wagon myself. I'm using Cold Fusion to generate dynamic SVG pages from a USGS database... maps on the fly! SVG is open, easy, and with Adobe plug-in, decently supported.
Sorry I don't have an internet accessable example to show.
I think that if you're going to be generating content for a web page, you're going to need to use things like, oh, I don't know--- line breaks!!!
Good god man, you might as well have written one continous run-on-sentence.
My favorite was the one where you take 50 ml of water and 50 ml of alcohol and then pour them together into another 100 ml beaker... and the combined liquids only take up 97 ml... cause the alcohol molecules are so large in comparision to the water (and due to polarized attraction) that the water molecules can fit in between the alocohol, like water in a sponge.
However, as such programs as 98Lite show, you take the IE out of windows and still leave the ability to render html, by leaving the html rendering dlls registered and on the machine.
So, not IE, no active desktop, and the ability for apps to still use built in html rendering. Isn't this what we are looking for? Then any program could be the browser, MS would just be providing the guts.
I think that this is what MS is afraid of. They want control of the browser becuase it roughly equels control of the internet (for the average person).
Ever notice what happens when you upgrade IE? The first screen you get when IE is fired back up is a request for the user to change the home page to MSN. This is a big deal in terms of driving traffic to MSN.
This grip on the internet via IE also allows MS to embrace-and-extend... which they could still by controlling the abilities of the html rendering dlls...
You're right about one thing: it is not a technical issue. It's about control.
Let me get this straight: you are a 'Devil Advocate' on /., of all places, that quotes Pee Wee Herman in his .sig?
I don't know about everyone else, but I find something deeply moronic and entertaining about this whole scene. At least I'll fall asleep laughing.
True. I personally know a large family farm that did this a while back (4 years or so???). They have decent land.
After going through all the analysis and work, they had a net loss over all, because at the end of it all, there was so little land where the research dictate a change that it was MUCH more cost effective to just ignore it all together.
This would probably be different if more of the land would dictate a change in behaivor.
I might also add that they farm A LOT of land, and that they are very good in terms of conservation, crop rotation, and so. They farm for profit, and they do that by properly sustaining their land.
And they're good people, too.
Agreed. And on top of that, the findings were that it didn't help. They found that the areas that did not yield well did not improve with application of more fertalizer. And there is only so much fertalizer you can put on a given spot. It basically came down that it was best to just use the same amount all over, as there was not even enough gain to evercome the added time and effort (read: money).
The badge reads 'To serve and protect'... but...
I know of town in my state (midwest) where the cops were actually voted on the premise that they were not providing enought property protection... instead, they where pulling people over for DUI and busting for smoking pot.
Overall, the people were OK with smoking pot and going to the bar... and they were pissed off the the newbie cops were gung-ho about busting people.
So they go rid of them.
Probably not the best example, but my point is that:
1. Cops are a public service. If they are not providing the service the public wants, then the public should do something.
2. Property siezure laws for drug crimes allow the cops to make money off their actions... which I think if fundamentally wrong. Law enforcencement should be a money losing action, that's why we pay taxes to have it.
It's interesting that you talk about this, becuase I just listened to a segment on Market Place (often NPR, produced by UMN) about this very thing.
The defense that the insurance companies gave was two fold:
1. A person who has a poor credit rating (they mentioned spec. late payments or many open lines of credit) is more likely to take risks, i.e. go for the yellow light at a stop light as opposed to stopping.
2. They claim that MORE people get better rates using credit ratings...
It's an interesting concept. One of the major complaints brought up was issues of identity theft. I think that if a person is suffering from identiy theft, they will probably have many problems, not just the insurance, but I can see how adding this to the list would suck.
I don't know if I agree or not, but it is interesting. I do believe that this very much ties in with our loss of privacy. What's to stop the insurance company from raising the rates of someone who often uses their credit (or debit) card at a liquor store? Or if they use the card in a place that has a high occurence of hit and runs???
I think it is just a matter of time before these items get tied into the variables that define the risk you are to a insurance company.
Hi, AC, I will answer.
My sig: It explodes. Sort of like Michael Jackson standing in a room full of asian women.
While reading slashdot one day, probably about 2 months ago, I ran across this bit of text in a post here at slashdot. In the context of the post, it was VERY funny. I think it is still funny all by itself, thus I decided to adopt it as my sig.
There, now you know. Enjoy.
So when a digital camera is said to have 3 mega-pixels, does that mean that it only has 1 million pixels for each color??? Thus, the actual resolution isn't 3 mega but 1 mega???
Actually, they specifically stated it WASN'T away around the 2nd law... the catch is that it requires energy to operate the ratchet (in and out at random times), while brownian (or other random action) moves the rotor.
So, it doesn't violate the 2nd law, it adheres to it quite nicely... as in using ATP to drives muscles and ION pumps.
Nice conversation with you, either way.
Well, as a person walks, they can track the relative position (in distance only) of a signal they are tracking, essintially becoming there own triangulation point(s).
This is how subs can track objects with a 'ping'... (well, part of it).
Couple that with the coming 'enhanced vision' of a law enforcement officer wearing glasses that overlay a image over reality, and the system could simply allow a person to walk around, with the system finding the location of transmitters, and the vision system pointing out the person it's probably coming from (enter precision GPS into the equation).
Not that I'm saying it'll happen this way, but the tech WILL exist.
However, it's not an all or nothing proposition. But I'm sick of trying to show you my light.
Ultimately, I think we are talking of different things anyway.
Did you even read the SciAm article???
You can't even possibly be considering comparing NPR and /. are you?
If you are serious, then I'll say the obligatory 'you must be new here'.
If you're joking, then I'll say: damn, that's really one of the funniest things I've read here lately.
But the ratchet in the case does not allow the rotor to turn only one direction... the rotor can turn either direction when the ratchet is 'released' (i.e., not putting pressure on the rotor). The way the rotor is designed is that it is more probable for the ratchet to engage the rotor in a location that will turn the rotor one way and not the other.
Brownian motion rotates the rotor, in either direction, the ratchet just randomly engages the rotor.... neither action has any rhyme or reason, and are completely 'independent of the definition of direction'. Neither part of devices has any concept of direction. The rotor can turn either way, the ratchet allows the rotor to turn either way.
And the rotor/ratchet is just an anology. If you'd read the SciAm link, you'd read about how this works for muscles, ion pumps, and most anytype of 'motor' apperatice in nature.
I'm not saying evolotion works like this, I'm simply saying that there are devices that can take random motion, and create not random motion.
Not true.
Two random actions coupled can produce coherent action.
See this article (was at SciAm, had to use a google cache as I couldn't find the original) about how nature uses brownian motion in a ratchet and rotor combination to create motion. Yes, it requires energy to operate the ratchet, but the action between the rotor and ratchet can be perfectly random and not sychronized. I quote:
Wow, you are over my head. I'm -was- a 12B (combat engineer) from South Dakota. National Gaurd, I know, I know, don't hate me.
.50 cal, Mark 19, granades... etc.
Gaurds was excellent. Got to see (and tie the electic det. lines) on a 250 pnd C4 explosion, drive the apc, shot the
I did things I would never do other wise. And I got paid quite well for it. The one thing I hated? Peeing in a cup. Drug test suck in that it is the most demeaning thing in my life.
So, to answer your question, no I wasn't there. Kinda wish I was. Where & what did you do???
I checked on the apc... it would fit too... by about 1.5 inches. I guess they probably had that in mind, but I'm wondering what the weight limit is on a cargo container.
;) It will also do a 60% grade, and has a turbo V8.
Oh yeah, I was going to mention that the M113A3 has hydrostatic steering as opposed to pull-stick steering. It's actually very maneuverable, and can spin on a dime (opposing track motion). Top speed supposed to be 42 or so (governed out), but on a downhill grad it'll go faster
So I'm wondering exactly what the difference between the two are??? More weapon mounts? How many people does it hold?
So what do mean when you say it 'swims'??? For the apc, it will swim, in that it'll float and go forward at a slow speed (3 mph or so).
Cool, seen those on TV, didn't know what it was.
What sort of power house?
How steep on incline can it climb?
Fording depth?
Top speed?
I actually know someone who did that.
Luckily, no one died. But let just say he didn't drive a 113 anymore.
It was cool to see the tank recovery vehicle pull it to shore, though. Now those things are huge.
My first thought was to use the body of an M113 APC, but the vehicle must fit in a 8 x 8 x 20 cargo container for shipment to England. The vehicle can be disassembled for transport, but it has to be able to be put back together in under four hours. Damn!
I drove APC for 5 years... and they can do some amazing things.