Its a tangent. The hydrolics powers reminded me of Marshall Savage's "Millenial Project".
I didn't find the catalogue a turn off. I thought it was great, I thought (most) of the women looked sexy and sophisticated. If I were in a state where one of them was running, I would have voted for them. Btw, they're not targetting the average pervert who jerks off to smut porn. They're targetting the type of (more intelligent, more sophisticated) people who will be interested in politics. Thus, classy is good.
Oh please. You know, I think you've responded to me before, because I've heard that exact same thing. The general public is aware of the different between an internet browser, and e-mail program, and a chat program.
Even if not, why should law be based around the stupidity of the masses? Trademark law is bullshit and should be reformed.
For those of you that don't know, this is something that author Marshall T. Savage proposed in his "Millenium Project", a book in which he set out a plan for how human beings can colonize the universe. Though I think he's far-fetched, the plan to build world-wide floating cities on top of hydrolical power-generating hexagons is feasible.
Check out information on the Millenial Project here or here.
This also brings me to the interesting Free State project, mentioned on Libertarian Candidate Rachel Mill's Homepage which links to The Free State Project. Interestingly, Rachel Mills decided to raise money for her run for office by selling pushup calendars of the female Libertarian candidates. Yep, Libertarians stand up for your rights and (some of them) do it while looking good too. A much better way to raise money than what the corrupt Democrats and Republicans do, which is by accepting tacit bribes from special interest groups.
LOL, ok that's an exagerration. But why has HURD taken almost two decades (probably more) just to reach the point where you can USE it for daily use, where as the Linux kernel reached that point much quicker (its certainly useable today, and that's about 10 years, and it's been useable for a while)?
Oh please, there's a huge difference between an internet browser and whbat Phoenix Technologies makes. There's nothing listed under Phoenix Technologies' Products or Solutions that even resembles an Internet Browser. In fact, most common users wouldn't even know what the stuff is that Phoenix Technologies sell. However, its widely known what an internet browser is.
Trademark should only apply to the very specific type of product that you have. Industries are huge places, and its absurd to speak of trademark violations when talking about a browser violating the trademarks of (say) an OS. There should be no exception for popular names.
People get sick of hearing "well, just wait a little bit longer".
I mean, the Linux kernel has taken off in a very short time (about 10 years). It was written by one person, Linux Torvalds (almost wrote Linux Pauling there, that'd be a blooper). Why is it taking the folks working on GNU/Hurd 19+ years to make a useable kernel? Is it because there just aren't enough developers, or they're going about it in a lackluster way? Or is it something about microkernels which makes them longer projects?
Also, why should I switch from Debian GNU/Linux to Debian GNU/HURD when HURD finally becomes useable? From my understanding, the HURD kernel is notably slower than the Linux kernel, so why would I switch? What are the advantages to this HURD kernel?
I'm not trying to dump on the folks at FSF. I love software that the FSF has created. I love the GNU GPL. But why spend all this time and resources making another kernel which is GPL'ed? I mean, Linux is GPL'ed right now, so what's the beef? It will continue to be GPL'ed. If Linus wanted to put it under another license, he would have done so long long ago.
I'm not saying that the developers of HURD should just call it quits. 19 years is alot of time to spend on something which never comes to fruitation. If they like doing this, they should continue developing HURD.
Ya know, I get sick of this crap. This is exactly why trademark laws as they currently exist are bullshit.
The Phoenix browser will not be confused with things produced by Phoenix Technologies. And the Mozilla developers certainly didn't name it Phoenix to take advantage of the wide name recognition (sarcasm here) of Phoenix Technologies.
Trademarks should only come into issue between competing products which are the exact same type of product (i.e., two different web browsers).
Another case of companies getting in the way of progress.
If cutting 220 jobs will save you $12 million, why not cut 440, as it'll save you $24 million? Why not cut 22,000, as that'll save you $1.2 billion? Hell, why not fire everyone...surely, that'll save you several TRILLION!!
Why not cut jobs by 120%? You can cut the additional 20% by firing out-contractors. Hell, if you cut jobs by 1000%, surely, you'll save ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD!! Wow!
Yep, its stupid to waste millions on something which is ultimately ineffective.
It'll only take a few very very simple modifications to make computer CD drives play these "copy protected" CDs. Once a computer can play the protected CD, then you can just use your favorite wave recorder and set the input to "what you hear" (the exact digital output). This creates a perfect-quality copy.
My guess is that CD manufacturers will release such patches very soon. Not only to allow the playing of crippled CD's on computers, but also to allow for the salvation of damaged CDs. If one lookup table on a multi-session CD is damaged, it stalls there, which is a problem.
What apps can't you get support for? They're probably minor ones.
For all of the major apps, you can purchase support at competitive prices, which is much better than the built-in monopoly support you get when you buy proprietary software.
If you don't have support for a particular piece of software with which you need help, you can hire a guro at competitive prices. Again, cheaper than the monopolistic support you get with proprietary products.
You are charged for support for proprietary products. Its either built into the cost of the software, or you pay extra for it and its built into the cost of the software. The money it takes to hire techs doesn't come out of thin air. Either you're paying for it somehow, or the company is subsidizing it with another revenue source. I.e., a software company subsiziding support for a minor product from revenues from a major killer app. Either way, you're paying. And you're paying in what is effectively a monopolistic market, since no one other than the company can provide adequate support for products, as you need the source code and familiarity with it to offer acceptable support.
With OSS and FS software, you get support at competitive rates, not monopolistic rates. Overall, its cheaper. You're also likely to get better support, as these guys aren't bound by idiotic "return to the default before you proceed" mandates. Have you ever called up MS for support on Windows? Here's how it goes:
"Oh, you're having problems with X...what did you install last? Ok, uninstall it. Still doesn't work, ok, do A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Still doesn't work? Well, our agreement states that that's all I can do for you. The only thing I can do for you now is have you uninstall the entire program and reinstall it. You'll have to download updates over again. Oh, you reinstalled it and it still doesn't work? Well, I'm not authorized to help you any further. The only thing I can do is guide you through reinstalling your operating system, since there must be somthing wrong with it."
This is the kind of crap support you get from proprietary vendors. Whenever I've called up a proprietary software vendor or an OEM for support, I've never gotten anything that I didn't already know...they just read from instruction books. If, on the other hand, you pay for support in a compeitive market, you get it firstly at a better price. Secondly, you also get better support, as no one could get away with doing that crap. In other words, you get a real software problem solver (guru), not someone who flunked out of Computer Science and is now doing a job which is the computational equivalent of "do you want fries with that?"
Also, when considering the cost of proprietary software, you should also consider the costs of intellectual property problems, and dealing with the BSA. If the BSA even accuses you of something, you're going to lose millions trying to defend against that accusation. It'll cost you alot of money to try to be compliant with BSA standards. And it'll cost you many millions more if you have to reach an agreement with the BSA for compensation because you misplaced some paperwork.
Re:Proper computing solution superior
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 2
No real advantages? Instant vote tallying isn't advantage? No errors in vote counting isn't an advantage? Another advantage is that a properly designed system is just easier to use.
If we "just stuck with what works" we'd still be using a horse and buggy to get to work.
Proper computing solution superior
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A proper voting system administered via computing with adequate security measures would be fine. This means primarily NO INTERNET CONNECTIONS. If the voting machines were hooked up to any network, then the results could be tampered with by crackers or others.
A proper voting system also means using Linux or OpenBSD as the OS, not Windows 2k/XP, both of which aren't nearly as secure (or as stable) as a well-configured Linux or OpenBSD system. Also, they aren't controlled by proprietary interests like MS which would find nothing wrong with tampering with an election.
Also, of course, a proper program is needed, with an easy to use interface, with clear instructions.
Something like this would do for electing the Congressman:
1. Choose a Candidate for the Congressman by touching his name with your finger: X, Y, Z... Click preview to preview your voting selections.... 2. You have selected: For Congressman: X... 3. If these are the candidates you want to vote for, touch YES! with your finger. If not, touch NO! with your finger.
If person touches NO!, back to #1, with previous selections highlighted, and allowing user to change it.
Very simple. Very effective. Even someone in Florida could figure it out. At the very least, you won't be counting divits and chads.
I don't know what this patch is or what it does, and I really don't care.
No-one's patch is entitled to be incorporated into Linus' tree. It is his tree, and he puts stuff in there that he feels is the best. Would you really want Linus putting something in his tree which he didn't feel good about or was unsure of? When Linus puts something in his tree, that's his certification that he thinks it's good and useful. Its his word on that in a sense. The minute he starts putting stuff in because people pester him, his word that something is good and useful to his knowledge becomes useless.
Chances are that if the patch is good, Linus will accept it provided he's given enough time to properly evaluate it. Linus is a human being like the rest of us. He can't thoroughly evaluate hundreds of patches coming in a week before the feature-freeze deadline. Try to give him the same breathing room to do a job you'd give anyone else. Also, remember, Linus doesn't have to do anything. He's doing this voluntarily as a service to the public. If you think you're patch is good and useful enough to be incorporated, and Linus rejected it, then go out and prove that its good. Put it in you're own tree or convince a vendor to do so; then people will use it, and if its good, word will get around. Once that happens, more likely than not, Linus will put it in his tree.
I've submitted about a hundred articles to Slashdot, many of them on what I thought were good "your rights online" issues. Do you know how many submissions of mine have been accepted? 1. It was on Creg Ventor, the man who used his own DNA to help sequence the human genome; ironically, I thought that was one of my worst submissions. Yet, believe it or not, you don't see me whining to the editors of Slashdot or in the discussions about it. I realize that many many many other submissions have been made, that the editors have to choose what they feel is best, and that they have to create a variety; I also realize that they're human beings.
Other people would do well to do the same in regards to patches.
Human rights are absolute. And yes, they mean putting ourselves at risk sometimes. There may be shades of grey, but that doesn't mean we can't have a solid position on what is right and what is wrong. Shades of grey do not justify a legal system which impossible for the average person to understand, which is written by and for lawyers to make the best of. What justifies making some dying person suffer because of your morality? But that's my opinion, and I vote based on it. Realize it or not, everyone -- if you pin them down -- is an absolutist. They have a particular opinion on something and stick to that firmly until convinced otherwise.
And lets be frank, I'm not talking about some pie-in-the-sky ideology; I'm talking about things which would work easily. Its not fanatical to ask for clear laws, and to ask that the government respect our right to do with we will with our own bodies, so long as we don't harm others (refer to prostitution, stripping, abortion, euthanasia, gay-rights). What's fanatical is this Christian war against our right to our body on all fronts. Everywhere you turn, Christians are against our right to body. They don't want homosexuals to be able to carry out their relations. They don't want prostitutes and strippers to engage in their profession. They want to prevent dying people in constant pain from ending their misery. Some of them even want to prevent a man and a wife from having non-reproductive sex. They want to turn women into walking incubators by forcing them to give birth, which is the equivalent of rape, and no better than what's done in China, where some women are forced to have abortions. Everywhere you turn in matters of the body, Christians are the enemy of happiness and the friend of misery. Sufficed to say, the religious right is the reason I'm not a Republican. Also sufficed to say, the nutcases at PETA (among many other reasons) are enough to prevent me from being a democrat.
I never said that prostitution should be unregulated and you're criticisms of it in and of itself are absurd.
How many prostitutes have you met who chose to become prostitutes voluntarily.
I'm not speaking in terms of the desireability or lack-thereof of the profession. Ideally, everyone would like to make a living doing something like writing books as Crichton does, which offers lots of money and little stress.
How many people do you know who wanted to become strippers? or janitors? or trashmen? or waiters? or life-time employees of McDonalds saying "do you want fries with that?"? Prostitution is just one among many choices. It has advantages (i.e., much higher pay for the same amount of time) and disadvantages (i.e., social stigma by Christian zealots). You seem to be saying that it should be illegal because its undesireable. Firstly, its desireability is a matter of opinion -- some people might like it. Secondly, many professions are undesireable. Even if a prostitute is a prostitute because (s)he doesn't have much in the way of intelligence, so what? (S)he's making use of his or her gifts. If someone's pretty (or sexually talented) why shouldn't they use that to their advantage. I'm a researcher and not a star in the NBA. Why? Because I'm not particularly physical and I don't have a good aim.
Sure, some women are forced into prostitution by the external actions of others. That doesn't mean we illegalize prostitution. That means we illegalize the types of abuse that allow one person to force another into becoming a prostitute -- i.e., violence, assault, threat of violence, etc. More than a hundred years ago, women and children were put in sweatshops and treated cruelly to make garmets. Did that mean that the government should ban the making of garmets (clothes)? No, of course not, what a stupid idea. That meant the government should ban sweat shops.
The reason police can't control abusive spouses is because women refuse to step forward. Yes, when you allow yourself to be victomized and even protect your victimizer (as many battered wives do) its hard for the police to prosecute that person and protect you.
And if police can't control abusive spouses, how is banning prostitution going to help them? Its not. Its only going to hurt those who were forced into it, according to you, because now they'll be abused by their husbands and ran through by our legal system. Stop trying to say you're banning prostitution for the sake of the prostitutes. Putting someone in jail for an activity which doesn't hurt anyone is not helping them.
If you want to help prostitutes who are abused, raped, or forced into the profession, then you should be working to stop such instances of abuse, not trying to ban prostitution. An abused wife might be forced into stripping, waiting tables, or any other "undesireable" profession (in her view) by her spouse; that doesn't mean we should ban those professions. That means we should illegalize such spousal abuses and enforce these laws as best we can.
The arguments against legalized (and regulated -- obviously protection should be required, as should std-testing) prostitution just don't hold up. You're argument that we illegalize it to protect the women is flawed; we can protect the women by other means, and putting someone in jail for something which harms no one is not "protecting them". The feminist argument that it degrades women is hogwash: some women find it offensive, other's don't. In no case, does the actions and decisions of one woman reflect upon another. Nor is it logical to say that just because some women choose to be prostitutes, that degrades all women in the eyes of men. If you're a feminist and you have a problem with prostitution, then choose another profession; but don't violate other women's rights. The Christian arguments are so unworthy they're not even worth mentioning any further.
My basic point was that both parties (considered as a whole) are evil from everyone's pov in that they represent corporate interests and the IP industry (software, movies, music, etc) more than their constituents. However, despite the flaws of the way both parties act (most aggregious is the way they've conspired to keep 3rd parties off the ballot, thus preventing any real chance), some individuals in each party stand out as different.
I particularly like Orin Hatch (R) and Rick Boucher (D) as stand-out guys who support some sanity; i.e., oppose the neverending expansions in both the scope and duration of intellectual property, and oppose alot of the anti-consumer anti-digital rights laws, such as the DMCA.
Most Libertarians tend to be good on almost all the issues I'm concerned with, though being a little bit cooky on some issues (as much as I hate taxes, we do need taxes in society).
The point is that people shouldn't vote on party lines. Anyone who agrees with all of the tenants of one party is a zealous idiot who's obviously never thought a minute in his or her life, and shouldn't be voting anyways. Even such a idiot shouldn't vote along party lines, because not all Republicans stick to the tenants of the Republican party (refer to mavericks like Hatch and McCain).
People should look at what each candidate has done in his or her past, and compare that to what they say they're going to do in the future. If these two things don't mesh, they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If they have a history of defaulting on campaign promises (more-so-than usual), then they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you agree with them, then you should vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you disagree with them, then you shouldn't vote for them.
Proper voting is all about finding the (wo)man who's positions on various issues match your's as closely as possible, accounting for what you think is important.
Here's a brief an incomplete checklist for myself:
1. Abortion. I'm 100% Pro-Choice all the way, and support the right to choose at any time during a pregnancy (though I think that if its late, modern technology should be used to keep the fetus alive). I won't vote for anyone who doesn't support the absolute right to choose, without any hindrance from doctors or husbands/boyfriends, for at least the first trimester.
2. Prostitution. I support the right of a (wo)man to be a prostitute. Her body, her choice, as with abortion. Unfortunately, because our politicians both Democrat and Republican have been brainwashed by Christians, few of them support the right to prostitution. This is why I'm glad for Libertarians. In practice, I'll vote for whoever I deem most likely to be concerned with prostitutes rights, and who-ever's most likely to take steps towards legalizing what should be a basic freedom.
3. Euthanasia. This is one I'm adamant about, and one of the few issues for which I have no tolerance of the opposite side of the idea. I won't vote for anyone who is against euthanasia. My grandmother's brother (my great uncle) died a horrible death, suffering excruciating pain, as cancer paralized him. I hope that anyone who is against euthanasia meets a slow ending as horrible as they'd inflict on those who want to end their lives. Perhaps if Ronald Reagan had known he was going to spend his last years as a babbling moron who doesn't even remember he was President, he'd have supported the right to euthanasia.
4. "Animal rights". I hate this crap, especially the extreme positions espoused by PETA. I consider these animal-rigths nutcases to be just as fanatical as the anti-choice fetus-freaks. They prove my case by engaging in the same type of activity that anti-choice people engage in: blowing up buildings, breaking and entering, and other illegal activities. I don't give a flying fuck if an animal feels pain because of some experiment, or even if some angry person throws a dog out of a car into an oncoming traffic lane. Doesn't mean I'd be cruel to animals; cruelty without cause is stupidity, as Erwin Rommel once said.
5. Intellectual property. I support the drastic scaling back of both the scope and duration of all current forms of IP. I also think that many things currently covered by IP shouldn't be. If a candidate agrees with me on this issue (i.e., Orrin Hatch, Rick Boucher) that's a big plus. If they disagree with me, its a big minus. Again, this is an area where both parties have been bribed and blackmailed by special interests; this time, its the corporate interests. This is part of why I consider myself to be a Libertarian.
6. Digital freedoms. Tied into #5. I'm also against any restriction of our digital freedoms; refer to the anti-P2P bill by Fritz Hollings. The right to privacy and freedom of speech should be just as sacred online as it is in the real world.
7. Freedom of speach. I strongly support the right to freedom of speach. Thus, I am against any censorship laws (especially the vague "community standards of decency and properiety"). I am also against defamation laws, which only serve as tools of the rich to silence criticism.
8. Privacy. Again, I strongly support this right, both online and in the real world. I believe that new Amendments need to be passed to clarify the strong position of freedom of speach and privacy; the founding father's never imagined infra-red privacy-violations. They had a non-resolutional agreement, because these issues never arose in their time. In all cases, intrusions on privacy must be supported by a court order with good cause.
9. Clarity of the law and shortness of the law. Laws are vague because they use bullshit pretentious language and are written by lawyers to be understood by lawyers only. The tax code is some 29,000 pages long. Laws should be short and clear. They should be perfectly understandable by any literate person within a standard deviant of the average intelligence level. What politicians and lawyers have done is conspire to make laws impossible to understand by the average person, requiring fees to lawyers to interpret and understand it. Also, some laws are so poorly written that their exact meaning isn't even known by the best lawyers. Thesea are all bad laws and should be stricken immediately. We shouldn't wait until someone's head is on the chopping block to decide what a law means or if its constitutional (that's basically the way our current system works). Also immoral and unconstitutional is the way that politicians can now draft laws for specific individuals or groups of people. Refer to The Case Against Lawyers by Catherine Crier. Critics disparge it for being a "laymans" treatment of the topic; but they're the same evil lawyers who want everything written so that only lawyers can understand it.
10. Our constitutional system. As alluded to in #9, our current system is messed up. We have to wait until someone's life is on the line before we can decide if a law is constitutional. What bullshit is that? The minute a question arises about the constitutionality of a law, it should be challenged in court. This is the way it works in Germany, and its very good. Unclear laws should immediately be strucken down by courts. If two lawyers need to debate about what a law means, its unclear and unconstitutional, and should be struck down. Void for vagueness. The right to choose was only affirmed after Roe had already had her child; thus, after that right had been denied her.
11. Taxes. We already pay enough money to the government. If that's not enough, too bad. The government always whines about how its needs arent' being met. Cut some of your needs. Don't punish citizens because government officials are too incompetent to get results with the enormous amounts of money we give them. Also on taxes, I support eliminating this lawyers tax-code, and replacing it with a one-tax system: you get taxed on your income alone. Nothing else. This would save billions in paperwork and IRS investigations. It would also save taxpayers, because they wouldn't have to either hire lawyers or spend hours deciphering tax forms. The amount of taxes you pay should be directly proportional to the percent of the national GNP that you account for. If you account for twice as much as the GNP as the next person, then you should pay twice the percentage tax as they do. Thus, the income tax you should pay should be proportional to $earned * $earned/GNP.
There are many others, but the point is, I know exactly what my position is on each issue, and vote for the person who's closest to my overal political outlook. Other people should do likewise. That requires making a list of the issues and figuring out (and re-evaluating regularly) what your position is on each issue.
I also find your party-line voting suggestion to be harmful.
Voting along party lines is only for idiots, and will invariably produce undesireable results.
You can only vote along party lines if you agree with *everything* that a party stands for; even then, its not safe, because many Republicans deviate from the Republian platform, likewise with many Democrats. I consider myself Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can just vote for any Libertarian who runs...why? Because there's some thing in the Libertarian platform I disagree with, and I don't know which tenants of the Libertarian platform someone is going to stick to.
The only way to vote intelligently is to research the candidates thoroughly and decide if you like what they stand for, or if you don't. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely; the idea is to vote for the one who's positions and actions are the closest to those you have or you'd take.
Voting along party lines for Democrats might be good in one state, regarding digital freedoms and intellectual property. But in Utah, it might elect Orin Hatch -- a pro-Napster, pro-technology, anti-IP (in its current form) Senator (R) -- out of office.
The best thing to do is to figure out what each candidates positions are on various issues. Attention should be paid to what they say they will do, but you should take that with a grain of salt. More important, is how did they vote on various bills. Firstly, look at their attendance record for voting on bills. If they're absent on half of them, they're not good Senators or Representatives. For those they did vote on, did they vote as you would have? Make a simple list like such. +1 is assigned for voting as you would voe, -1 for voting against your wishes. Add appropriate weights for things which you consider more important.
It is the kind of party-lines thinking that the parent advocates which is a major problem in our system, and why the wrong people get elected; its also part of why third parties -- though usually being superior -- are kept off the voting ballot and rarely elected.
I used to think like the parent, when I was a teenager. I thought of myself as a Republican. However, as I grew older (hence smarter), I realized that I disagreed with the Republican platform on many things which were important to me (i.e., abortion, prostitution, drugs, stripping, euthanasia, gay rights, and religion).
Don't be locked into the "I'm a Dem/Repub" mentality. Determine what your position is on the issues, and vote for (s)he who's closer to that position by in what they say and what they've done.
Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.
Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans, as was the 1998 Copyright Extension Act; likewise with almost all other draconian anti-consumer intellectual property laws, and digital laws.
It is serious when someone steals bandwidth from an ISP, thus hurting other customers. However, it is nothing the FBI should be involved in; its a matter for the state authorities.
Also, you have to remember, this is not like stealing in the conventional sense. In this case, the defendants modified their own computer software to uncap bandwidth. It seems to me that you should be able to alter you're own property in any way you want to. If the ISP doesn't like that, they should include clauses in the contract which say they can terminate you're account for doing so, and can fine you extra for the extra bandwidth you used.
However, I can see how this can be contrieved as stealing; you're modifying your own computer to be used as a tool to steal bandwidth from an ISP (and from other customers) which you haven't paid for and don't have a right to by the agreement with you're ISP. You may have the right to alter your computer in any way you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right to use those modifications for any means you want; i.e., I can add Nitroboosters to my Boxter, but that doesn't mean I can cruise down the highway at 250mph.
I'm fine with these people being prosecuted. What they did is, in fact, theft; not only from their ISP, but also from other customers. Other customers experience obscene slowdowns to dialup speed because a few selfish customers want to download at 10MB/s. But the FBI should not be involved, and certainly these crimes don't call for armed raids. The FBI should be focusing on serious criminals, like terrorists, serial killers, serial rapists, organized child-molesters, organized crime, and large-scale frauds (refer to Enron, Global Crossings).
This brings up an interesting note on ISPs. Why do broadband companies cap bandwidth at all? Why not just divide up the available bandwidth evenly among all the requesting users. Lets say that there's a 100 users and that the ISP can offer 100MB/s of bandwidth total. If they all request bandwidth at the same time, they should each get 1MB/s of bandwidth. If, later on, only 50 of them are requesting bandwidth, each should get 2MB/s of bandwidth. If only one is requesting bandwidth, (s)he should get 100MB/s of bandwidth. They could also integrate prioritized bandwidth, where you get preference in accordance to how much extra you pay; i.e., if you pay 2x the average, you get 2x the bandwidth at any given moment. Another useful thing to do would be to minimize net wait-times. If person A is downloading a file of 1MB and person B is downloading a file of 2MB, then it makes sense to let person A do his download first, then let person B do his download. This way, the net wait time is 2(1MB / 100MB/s) + 2MB / 100MB/s = 0.04s; instead of 2(2MB / 100MB/s) + 1MB / 100MB/s = 0.05s.
So, let me get this straight, MS doesn't have to release the API's involving how programs interact to non-commercial entities? MS' biggest threat is GNU/Linux, yet they don't have to release the API's to how their programs interact with the OS to non-profits? What a crock of shit.
As someone else said, MS should be required to make ANY AND ALL RELEVANT information available to ANYONE who wants to make a product which interacts well with Windows, or who wants to make an OS which will interact well with programs designed to run on windows.
Even with these provisions, you need enforcement and quick resolution for conflicts. With such a resolution, MS would undoubtedly insist that what people were reasonably requiring from them isn't necessary for interoperability; thus, we need a quick way to resolve and enforce this within a matter of a few days, where MS can't appeal endlessly using their lawyer power.
I agree, and think that's a good idea, in addition to forcing many things (as I mentioned) to be opened up right away. I'm leaning toward thinking that the best way to solve this problem is by imposing strict punishments and sanctions on MS, as well as stringent requirements, as opposed to breaking them up. If you break them up, all of the subunits (even if you split the OS department into several pieces) can continue acting in the same anti-competitive ways, loosely cooperating with eachother through "united fronts".
The problem with breaking MS up is that once you break them up, you can no-longer impose punishments on the individual broken up parts. But that is no matter if you break them up in the proper way.
The proper way to break MS up isn't breaking it into hardware, software, and OS parts. That's idiotic, and would just create 3 more monopolies in the hardware, software, and OS areas. What you need to do is split MS up vertically and horizontally. That is, split it up by departmental lines; then also split up each department into multiple companies.
If they're to be split up, they should be split up into software, hardware, and OS components; then the software, hardware, and OS components should be split up further. This way, several MSlets would be competing in regards to an OS. This destroy's the OS monopoly.
Of course, the problem with this is that Windows is so universal that their products might still continue to dominate by inertia, even though they're inferior. Thus, careful consideration needs to be taken in deciding whether to split them up or punish them harshely.
If we're to punish them, we need to demand they release the source for their standards, and release the source for the various parts of the OS which programs directly interact with; this will allow competitors to make products which can compete against MS natives on MS Windows. We also need them to open up these specifications so other OS's like Linux can offer better emulation layers for Windows. You need to prevent MS from blackballing OEMs and the like. You need to give OEMs the right to modify Windows any way they choose before selling it. You need to ensure that MS can't enter into any contract with OEMs which would prevent or dissuade them from also offering Linux or BSD on their computer. Also, large fines should be imposed on MS, the money from which would be used to bring drivers and software to competing OS'. The only way that GNU/Linux, BeOS, Amiga SDK, and *BSD can compete with MS is if they have alot of software support and alot of hardware support. The problem is that software and hardware companies won't offer their software/drivers for alternate OS' unless those OS' are popular; and those OS' won't become popular unless they have large software and hardware support. Hence, a hellish cycle which favors the current monopoly, MS. The main consideration of the government should be to break that cycle and allow all OS' to compete on their merits.
Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein? Rised to power through illegitimate means; eliminate true public elections; now organize these scam elections which are just like the elections in Iraq.
ICANN has no legitimacy. If they did, ALL of their board member's would be publicly elected. Unless ALL of their board member's are publicly elected, the entire organization is a illegitimate crock.
"This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said
What a fucking moron. How the fuck is it possible to be more "plugged-in to the community" by eliminating public elections? It isn't. The only possible reason for eliminating public elections is to dodge all responsibility, so you can never be held accountable.
As for more efficient, yes, it will be more efficient at making immoral decisions; just like Saddam Hussein is very efficient at quickly deciding how to execute his enemies. Its really tough to make immoral decisions when you have to worry about public elections. Much easier to just cave in to business demands when you don't have to be held accountable to the public at large.
People do not want "shared computing"; they do not want to put their data on "borrowed computers" nor do everything on "rented computing power" or "rented space". IBM should realize that most people will still want their applications and most of their processes and files on their own computers.
What IBM should be offering -- and what it seems like they're offering -- is loaning supercomputer time to people (for a price) for specific tasks which they can't accomplish in a reasonable amount of time on their own computers. This is a reasonable and useful idea; however, it is hardly new at all. At the University of Rochester, there are shared computers within biology labs, where people dump some heavy-duty computing operations and pick them up later. This went on during the 60's when computers were so expensive no-one could afford them. In short, this is hardly new nor revolutionary, though IBM may be putting a new twist on it by trying to use it as a business model.
It makes sense. After all, most people don't need supercomputing power for the majority of their tasks; why spend money on a supercomputer when it'll be unutilized 90% of the time? But what IBM can do is maximize supercomputer utilization by selling a percentage of its resources to various customers; these customers save money because they pay on a per-need basis.
For example, I often run Bayesian phylogenies. Recently, I ran a Bayesian phylogeny with about 50 taxa in it. This took 7 days on a dual G4 (2x 800MHz) Mac. That's with all of the computer's power focusing just on that. The time requires to complete the trees increases at a steep rate as one adds more taxa. If I was doing 200 taxa, it would have taken two or three months.
1, 2. This is true, we don't always know what basic research leads to. But we do often know what higher level, more applied research will lead to, so we should invest more in that, respectively.
3. There are alot of things we don't vote on because no politicians run on them. We're given a two-item menu, where most of the ingredients of both meals are identical. The DMCA was passed unanimously, as was the USAPA. The 1998 Copyright Extention Act was passed unanimously. Every single proposal for a pay raise was voted on unanimously; the only debate was about how much they could raise their own salaries without upsetting the people too much. These are things in which voters simply don't have a choice on, because the Democrats and Republicans have conspired to keep the names of 3rd parties and independents off the voting ballots.
4. The point regarding the limo is that they don't need a limo. A Volkswagon would do just as good, or almost any other car. If they think that its so important that they have a limo, they can pay for it with their own money, not ours. Btw, with today's computer age, its hard to see how they can't get things done while in a car.
5. I'm not saying politicians should dress in rags. However, they also need not spend OUR money buying themselves thousand dollar suits. If they want to buy the most expensive suits on the market, again, they can use their own money. If they want to rely on public money, then that should buy them respectable suits, nothing more. A $100 dollar suit looks fine.
6. The amount of money we'd save from not wasting resources on this complicated tax system would in and of itself more than counteract the losses due to not being able to promote as many different things. Btw, a one-tax system can still support charities; I've always thought that it would be good to allow people to subtract from their taxes the amount of money they spent on charities, and to decide what programs/services their taxes will go to support. The other reason why we should do away with this complicated tax system is that it is immoral on two counts. First, it makes it difficult if not impossible for many Americans to properly do their taxes without a lawyer. Second, its a way in which the government can regulate without consequence (refer to Lessig). Taxes are a shady way by which the government regulates that which would otherwise be unconstitutional to regulate, or widely criticized. Its a way to regulate without facing the consequences of regulation -- namely criticism. A bunch of Christians in the government don't like contraceptives and abortion; so rather than taking a public stand and pushing for their illegalization, (s)he immorally decides to raise taxes on those things behind people's backs.
7. Again, I'm not suggesting the least expensive option. But statues and what-not really don't do anything. People only notice them for the first few times they go somewhere, then ignore them. You can justify it with psychological arguments, but the reason its done is for self-important arrogant Gatsby's.
8. Its understandable that individuals can't always balance their budget. But the government has trillions of dollars to work with here. If they're running into money problems, that means they're spending too much. We give them more than enough money (ranging from 20 - 50% of our income).
9. Has the US government ever gotten smaller? Any agencies you know of that have dissappeared? Mandating that the government grow in proportion to our population growth is reasonable and feasible. Again, if that's a problem, they need to cut some of their programs.
10. The issue here is that government money goes towards helping those in power get re-elected, or elected. Refer to the Hillary Clinton issue where she ran for NY Senator using our tax dollars.
11. Most people don't know about the programs that are useless because they aren't doing anything. That's why there's no push to get rid of them. The programs and organizations themselves will do whatever it takes to stay alive.
12. Rigid rules preventing the firing of an employee are absurd, which is what tenure amounts to. I'll focus on a specific case here, that of Rita Wilson. She asked girls to lift their skirts and prove to her they weren't wearing thongs before letting them into a school dance; when some refused, she forcibly pulled them up. This is a violations of several laws (illegal search/seizure, violation of privacy, sexual harassment, sexual assault) as well as the CA Educational Code, which forbids the rearrangement of clothing around the private areas to examine underclothes. She should have been fired and put in jail; yet, she was only "demoted" from Vice Principal to teacher, putting her in closer contact with the students she violated.
13, 14, 15. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs. People are responsible for their own actions. If someone has a drug problem or a gambling problem, that's their issue. Also, I didn't say there should be no regulation; people shouldn't be allowed to walk around doing LSD in a public park, or be high in a public place. Same thing for prostitution.
Focusing on prostitution, yes there are abuses and problems that come with it (marital issues, stds). But there are abuses and problems in every industry. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with prostitution. Its a (wo)man's body, it should be his or her choice whether or not to sell it for money. No one is necessarily getting hurt, and its an activity between two consenting adults. The objections to it focus around misplaced concerns, such as (a) "its indignifying to women", (b) "its immoral", (c) "it spreads stds", and it (d) "promotes marital infidelity.
(a) Indignant to women. The feminist argument. What's insulting to women is when some feminist elitists have some idea of what "feminism" is and then want to use that to deny all other women the right to choose how to run their own life. Also, how exactly is it indignant? Because women may not want to do it? Well, there are alot of things that we don't want to do but do to survive; for example, being a janitor. Prostitution (like Stripping) offers an alternative to women and men which is higher paying. I don't see that as demeaning, I see it as giving them a choice. Maybe some think its insulting to women, but in that case, don't do it. If you don't like it, don't do it; if someone else does, or is neutral, they might. The actions of one woman in no way reflect upon another woman. Btw, elitist feminists will be interested to note that there is a whole class of feminists out there who think that Stripping and Prostitution (broadly referred to as "Sex Work") is empowering to women.
(b) Its immoral. The Christian argument. Really? I thought that blowing up abortion clinics was immoral. I thought molesting little boys was immoral. Certain people may find prostitution immoral; in that case, they shouldn't do it. This is a free country, and no-one has to believe in this tyrannical god which forbids all things pleasureable. There are many things to be said for the benefits of prostitution. Of all the things you can do to someone, giving them an orgasm is hardly the worst. In the army, you get a medal (and paycheck) for spraying napalm on people; in civillian life, you go to jail for giving someone and orgasm for a few bucks. Hardly makes sense.
(c) It spreads stds. Which is exactly why protection should be mandated in legally sanctioned brothels, and why women who'd be licensed to be prostitutes would be expected to use condoms. Similarly, regular std testing would be mandated. Also, one should note that it can only spread stds to willing participants, or their partners (who are willing with them). Again, people are responsible for their own actions. Unprotected sex also spreads stds, but we don't illegalize that between people who aren't married.
(d) Promotes marital infidelity. Well, this isn't the fault of the prostitute, or the industry. This is the fault of the married couple, where one of them is cheating on the other. Its not the government's job to babysit people and ensure that their marriage works out. If infidelity is a problem in a marriage, then there's a problem with the marriage itself -- not with the prostitue who's the unknowing outlet for a (wo)man's infidelity.
Final thought. Irrelevant of the arguments against it, none of them are strong enough or direct enough to ban prostitution on solid ground. Murder and rape harms people in obvious and direct ways, hence they are illegal. But the effects of prostitution are indirect and highly variable; no one is necessarily hurt from prostitution, as people are necessarily hurt when murder or rape occurs. There is no justification for violating someone's right to body by preventing them from becoming a prostitute.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a tangent. The hydrolics powers reminded me of Marshall Savage's "Millenial Project".
I didn't find the catalogue a turn off. I thought it was great, I thought (most) of the women looked sexy and sophisticated. If I were in a state where one of them was running, I would have voted for them. Btw, they're not targetting the average pervert who jerks off to smut porn. They're targetting the type of (more intelligent, more sophisticated) people who will be interested in politics. Thus, classy is good.
Oh please. You know, I think you've responded to me before, because I've heard that exact same thing. The general public is aware of the different between an internet browser, and e-mail program, and a chat program.
Even if not, why should law be based around the stupidity of the masses? Trademark law is bullshit and should be reformed.
For those of you that don't know, this is something that author Marshall T. Savage proposed in his "Millenium Project", a book in which he set out a plan for how human beings can colonize the universe. Though I think he's far-fetched, the plan to build world-wide floating cities on top of hydrolical power-generating hexagons is feasible.
Check out information on the Millenial Project here or here.
This also brings me to the interesting Free State project, mentioned on Libertarian Candidate Rachel Mill's Homepage which links to The Free State Project. Interestingly, Rachel Mills decided to raise money for her run for office by selling pushup calendars of the female Libertarian candidates. Yep, Libertarians stand up for your rights and (some of them) do it while looking good too. A much better way to raise money than what the corrupt Democrats and Republicans do, which is by accepting tacit bribes from special interest groups.
LOL, ok that's an exagerration. But why has HURD taken almost two decades (probably more) just to reach the point where you can USE it for daily use, where as the Linux kernel reached that point much quicker (its certainly useable today, and that's about 10 years, and it's been useable for a while)?
Oh please, there's a huge difference between an internet browser and whbat Phoenix Technologies makes. There's nothing listed under Phoenix Technologies' Products or Solutions that even resembles an Internet Browser. In fact, most common users wouldn't even know what the stuff is that Phoenix Technologies sell. However, its widely known what an internet browser is.
Trademark should only apply to the very specific type of product that you have. Industries are huge places, and its absurd to speak of trademark violations when talking about a browser violating the trademarks of (say) an OS. There should be no exception for popular names.
People get sick of hearing "well, just wait a little bit longer".
I mean, the Linux kernel has taken off in a very short time (about 10 years). It was written by one person, Linux Torvalds (almost wrote Linux Pauling there, that'd be a blooper). Why is it taking the folks working on GNU/Hurd 19+ years to make a useable kernel? Is it because there just aren't enough developers, or they're going about it in a lackluster way? Or is it something about microkernels which makes them longer projects?
Also, why should I switch from Debian GNU/Linux to Debian GNU/HURD when HURD finally becomes useable? From my understanding, the HURD kernel is notably slower than the Linux kernel, so why would I switch? What are the advantages to this HURD kernel?
I'm not trying to dump on the folks at FSF. I love software that the FSF has created. I love the GNU GPL. But why spend all this time and resources making another kernel which is GPL'ed? I mean, Linux is GPL'ed right now, so what's the beef? It will continue to be GPL'ed. If Linus wanted to put it under another license, he would have done so long long ago.
I'm not saying that the developers of HURD should just call it quits. 19 years is alot of time to spend on something which never comes to fruitation. If they like doing this, they should continue developing HURD.
Ya know, I get sick of this crap. This is exactly why trademark laws as they currently exist are bullshit.
The Phoenix browser will not be confused with things produced by Phoenix Technologies. And the Mozilla developers certainly didn't name it Phoenix to take advantage of the wide name recognition (sarcasm here) of Phoenix Technologies.
Trademarks should only come into issue between competing products which are the exact same type of product (i.e., two different web browsers).
Another case of companies getting in the way of progress.
Why do the posts I submit intending to be funny always get modded down to flamebait? Oh well, maybe I'm just not that funny.
If cutting 220 jobs will save you $12 million, why not cut 440, as it'll save you $24 million? Why not cut 22,000, as that'll save you $1.2 billion? Hell, why not fire everyone...surely, that'll save you several TRILLION!!
Why not cut jobs by 120%? You can cut the additional 20% by firing out-contractors. Hell, if you cut jobs by 1000%, surely, you'll save ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD!! Wow!
Yep, its stupid to waste millions on something which is ultimately ineffective.
It'll only take a few very very simple modifications to make computer CD drives play these "copy protected" CDs. Once a computer can play the protected CD, then you can just use your favorite wave recorder and set the input to "what you hear" (the exact digital output). This creates a perfect-quality copy.
My guess is that CD manufacturers will release such patches very soon. Not only to allow the playing of crippled CD's on computers, but also to allow for the salvation of damaged CDs. If one lookup table on a multi-session CD is damaged, it stalls there, which is a problem.
What apps can't you get support for? They're probably minor ones.
For all of the major apps, you can purchase support at competitive prices, which is much better than the built-in monopoly support you get when you buy proprietary software.
If you don't have support for a particular piece of software with which you need help, you can hire a guro at competitive prices. Again, cheaper than the monopolistic support you get with proprietary products.
You are charged for support for proprietary products. Its either built into the cost of the software, or you pay extra for it and its built into the cost of the software. The money it takes to hire techs doesn't come out of thin air. Either you're paying for it somehow, or the company is subsidizing it with another revenue source. I.e., a software company subsiziding support for a minor product from revenues from a major killer app. Either way, you're paying. And you're paying in what is effectively a monopolistic market, since no one other than the company can provide adequate support for products, as you need the source code and familiarity with it to offer acceptable support.
With OSS and FS software, you get support at competitive rates, not monopolistic rates. Overall, its cheaper. You're also likely to get better support, as these guys aren't bound by idiotic "return to the default before you proceed" mandates. Have you ever called up MS for support on Windows? Here's how it goes:
"Oh, you're having problems with X...what did you install last? Ok, uninstall it. Still doesn't work, ok, do A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Still doesn't work? Well, our agreement states that that's all I can do for you. The only thing I can do for you now is have you uninstall the entire program and reinstall it. You'll have to download updates over again. Oh, you reinstalled it and it still doesn't work? Well, I'm not authorized to help you any further. The only thing I can do is guide you through reinstalling your operating system, since there must be somthing wrong with it."
This is the kind of crap support you get from proprietary vendors. Whenever I've called up a proprietary software vendor or an OEM for support, I've never gotten anything that I didn't already know...they just read from instruction books. If, on the other hand, you pay for support in a compeitive market, you get it firstly at a better price. Secondly, you also get better support, as no one could get away with doing that crap. In other words, you get a real software problem solver (guru), not someone who flunked out of Computer Science and is now doing a job which is the computational equivalent of "do you want fries with that?"
Also, when considering the cost of proprietary software, you should also consider the costs of intellectual property problems, and dealing with the BSA. If the BSA even accuses you of something, you're going to lose millions trying to defend against that accusation. It'll cost you alot of money to try to be compliant with BSA standards. And it'll cost you many millions more if you have to reach an agreement with the BSA for compensation because you misplaced some paperwork.
No real advantages? Instant vote tallying isn't advantage? No errors in vote counting isn't an advantage? Another advantage is that a properly designed system is just easier to use.
If we "just stuck with what works" we'd still be using a horse and buggy to get to work.
A proper voting system administered via computing with adequate security measures would be fine. This means primarily NO INTERNET CONNECTIONS. If the voting machines were hooked up to any network, then the results could be tampered with by crackers or others.
... ... ...
A proper voting system also means using Linux or OpenBSD as the OS, not Windows 2k/XP, both of which aren't nearly as secure (or as stable) as a well-configured Linux or OpenBSD system. Also, they aren't controlled by proprietary interests like MS which would find nothing wrong with tampering with an election.
Also, of course, a proper program is needed, with an easy to use interface, with clear instructions.
Something like this would do for electing the Congressman:
1. Choose a Candidate for the Congressman by touching his name with your finger: X, Y, Z
Click preview to preview your voting selections.
2. You have selected:
For Congressman: X
3. If these are the candidates you want to vote for, touch YES! with your finger. If not, touch NO! with your finger.
If person touches NO!, back to #1, with previous selections highlighted, and allowing user to change it.
Very simple. Very effective. Even someone in Florida could figure it out. At the very least, you won't be counting divits and chads.
I don't know what this patch is or what it does, and I really don't care.
No-one's patch is entitled to be incorporated into Linus' tree. It is his tree, and he puts stuff in there that he feels is the best. Would you really want Linus putting something in his tree which he didn't feel good about or was unsure of? When Linus puts something in his tree, that's his certification that he thinks it's good and useful. Its his word on that in a sense. The minute he starts putting stuff in because people pester him, his word that something is good and useful to his knowledge becomes useless.
Chances are that if the patch is good, Linus will accept it provided he's given enough time to properly evaluate it. Linus is a human being like the rest of us. He can't thoroughly evaluate hundreds of patches coming in a week before the feature-freeze deadline. Try to give him the same breathing room to do a job you'd give anyone else. Also, remember, Linus doesn't have to do anything. He's doing this voluntarily as a service to the public. If you think you're patch is good and useful enough to be incorporated, and Linus rejected it, then go out and prove that its good. Put it in you're own tree or convince a vendor to do so; then people will use it, and if its good, word will get around. Once that happens, more likely than not, Linus will put it in his tree.
I've submitted about a hundred articles to Slashdot, many of them on what I thought were good "your rights online" issues. Do you know how many submissions of mine have been accepted? 1. It was on Creg Ventor, the man who used his own DNA to help sequence the human genome; ironically, I thought that was one of my worst submissions. Yet, believe it or not, you don't see me whining to the editors of Slashdot or in the discussions about it. I realize that many many many other submissions have been made, that the editors have to choose what they feel is best, and that they have to create a variety; I also realize that they're human beings.
Other people would do well to do the same in regards to patches.
Human rights are absolute. And yes, they mean putting ourselves at risk sometimes. There may be shades of grey, but that doesn't mean we can't have a solid position on what is right and what is wrong. Shades of grey do not justify a legal system which impossible for the average person to understand, which is written by and for lawyers to make the best of. What justifies making some dying person suffer because of your morality? But that's my opinion, and I vote based on it. Realize it or not, everyone -- if you pin them down -- is an absolutist. They have a particular opinion on something and stick to that firmly until convinced otherwise.
And lets be frank, I'm not talking about some pie-in-the-sky ideology; I'm talking about things which would work easily. Its not fanatical to ask for clear laws, and to ask that the government respect our right to do with we will with our own bodies, so long as we don't harm others (refer to prostitution, stripping, abortion, euthanasia, gay-rights). What's fanatical is this Christian war against our right to our body on all fronts. Everywhere you turn, Christians are against our right to body. They don't want homosexuals to be able to carry out their relations. They don't want prostitutes and strippers to engage in their profession. They want to prevent dying people in constant pain from ending their misery. Some of them even want to prevent a man and a wife from having non-reproductive sex. They want to turn women into walking incubators by forcing them to give birth, which is the equivalent of rape, and no better than what's done in China, where some women are forced to have abortions. Everywhere you turn in matters of the body, Christians are the enemy of happiness and the friend of misery. Sufficed to say, the religious right is the reason I'm not a Republican. Also sufficed to say, the nutcases at PETA (among many other reasons) are enough to prevent me from being a democrat.
I never said that prostitution should be unregulated and you're criticisms of it in and of itself are absurd.
How many prostitutes have you met who chose to become prostitutes voluntarily.
I'm not speaking in terms of the desireability or lack-thereof of the profession. Ideally, everyone would like to make a living doing something like writing books as Crichton does, which offers lots of money and little stress.
How many people do you know who wanted to become strippers? or janitors? or trashmen? or waiters? or life-time employees of McDonalds saying "do you want fries with that?"? Prostitution is just one among many choices. It has advantages (i.e., much higher pay for the same amount of time) and disadvantages (i.e., social stigma by Christian zealots). You seem to be saying that it should be illegal because its undesireable. Firstly, its desireability is a matter of opinion -- some people might like it. Secondly, many professions are undesireable. Even if a prostitute is a prostitute because (s)he doesn't have much in the way of intelligence, so what? (S)he's making use of his or her gifts. If someone's pretty (or sexually talented) why shouldn't they use that to their advantage. I'm a researcher and not a star in the NBA. Why? Because I'm not particularly physical and I don't have a good aim.
Sure, some women are forced into prostitution by the external actions of others. That doesn't mean we illegalize prostitution. That means we illegalize the types of abuse that allow one person to force another into becoming a prostitute -- i.e., violence, assault, threat of violence, etc. More than a hundred years ago, women and children were put in sweatshops and treated cruelly to make garmets. Did that mean that the government should ban the making of garmets (clothes)? No, of course not, what a stupid idea. That meant the government should ban sweat shops.
The reason police can't control abusive spouses is because women refuse to step forward. Yes, when you allow yourself to be victomized and even protect your victimizer (as many battered wives do) its hard for the police to prosecute that person and protect you.
And if police can't control abusive spouses, how is banning prostitution going to help them? Its not. Its only going to hurt those who were forced into it, according to you, because now they'll be abused by their husbands and ran through by our legal system. Stop trying to say you're banning prostitution for the sake of the prostitutes. Putting someone in jail for an activity which doesn't hurt anyone is not helping them.
If you want to help prostitutes who are abused, raped, or forced into the profession, then you should be working to stop such instances of abuse, not trying to ban prostitution. An abused wife might be forced into stripping, waiting tables, or any other "undesireable" profession (in her view) by her spouse; that doesn't mean we should ban those professions. That means we should illegalize such spousal abuses and enforce these laws as best we can.
The arguments against legalized (and regulated -- obviously protection should be required, as should std-testing) prostitution just don't hold up. You're argument that we illegalize it to protect the women is flawed; we can protect the women by other means, and putting someone in jail for something which harms no one is not "protecting them". The feminist argument that it degrades women is hogwash: some women find it offensive, other's don't. In no case, does the actions and decisions of one woman reflect upon another. Nor is it logical to say that just because some women choose to be prostitutes, that degrades all women in the eyes of men. If you're a feminist and you have a problem with prostitution, then choose another profession; but don't violate other women's rights. The Christian arguments are so unworthy they're not even worth mentioning any further.
My basic point was that both parties (considered as a whole) are evil from everyone's pov in that they represent corporate interests and the IP industry (software, movies, music, etc) more than their constituents. However, despite the flaws of the way both parties act (most aggregious is the way they've conspired to keep 3rd parties off the ballot, thus preventing any real chance), some individuals in each party stand out as different.
I particularly like Orin Hatch (R) and Rick Boucher (D) as stand-out guys who support some sanity; i.e., oppose the neverending expansions in both the scope and duration of intellectual property, and oppose alot of the anti-consumer anti-digital rights laws, such as the DMCA.
Most Libertarians tend to be good on almost all the issues I'm concerned with, though being a little bit cooky on some issues (as much as I hate taxes, we do need taxes in society).
The point is that people shouldn't vote on party lines. Anyone who agrees with all of the tenants of one party is a zealous idiot who's obviously never thought a minute in his or her life, and shouldn't be voting anyways. Even such a idiot shouldn't vote along party lines, because not all Republicans stick to the tenants of the Republican party (refer to mavericks like Hatch and McCain).
People should look at what each candidate has done in his or her past, and compare that to what they say they're going to do in the future. If these two things don't mesh, they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If they have a history of defaulting on campaign promises (more-so-than usual), then they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you agree with them, then you should vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you disagree with them, then you shouldn't vote for them.
Proper voting is all about finding the (wo)man who's positions on various issues match your's as closely as possible, accounting for what you think is important.
Here's a brief an incomplete checklist for myself:
1. Abortion. I'm 100% Pro-Choice all the way, and support the right to choose at any time during a pregnancy (though I think that if its late, modern technology should be used to keep the fetus alive). I won't vote for anyone who doesn't support the absolute right to choose, without any hindrance from doctors or husbands/boyfriends, for at least the first trimester.
2. Prostitution. I support the right of a (wo)man to be a prostitute. Her body, her choice, as with abortion. Unfortunately, because our politicians both Democrat and Republican have been brainwashed by Christians, few of them support the right to prostitution. This is why I'm glad for Libertarians. In practice, I'll vote for whoever I deem most likely to be concerned with prostitutes rights, and who-ever's most likely to take steps towards legalizing what should be a basic freedom.
3. Euthanasia. This is one I'm adamant about, and one of the few issues for which I have no tolerance of the opposite side of the idea. I won't vote for anyone who is against euthanasia. My grandmother's brother (my great uncle) died a horrible death, suffering excruciating pain, as cancer paralized him. I hope that anyone who is against euthanasia meets a slow ending as horrible as they'd inflict on those who want to end their lives. Perhaps if Ronald Reagan had known he was going to spend his last years as a babbling moron who doesn't even remember he was President, he'd have supported the right to euthanasia.
4. "Animal rights". I hate this crap, especially the extreme positions espoused by PETA. I consider these animal-rigths nutcases to be just as fanatical as the anti-choice fetus-freaks. They prove my case by engaging in the same type of activity that anti-choice people engage in: blowing up buildings, breaking and entering, and other illegal activities. I don't give a flying fuck if an animal feels pain because of some experiment, or even if some angry person throws a dog out of a car into an oncoming traffic lane. Doesn't mean I'd be cruel to animals; cruelty without cause is stupidity, as Erwin Rommel once said.
5. Intellectual property. I support the drastic scaling back of both the scope and duration of all current forms of IP. I also think that many things currently covered by IP shouldn't be. If a candidate agrees with me on this issue (i.e., Orrin Hatch, Rick Boucher) that's a big plus. If they disagree with me, its a big minus. Again, this is an area where both parties have been bribed and blackmailed by special interests; this time, its the corporate interests. This is part of why I consider myself to be a Libertarian.
6. Digital freedoms. Tied into #5. I'm also against any restriction of our digital freedoms; refer to the anti-P2P bill by Fritz Hollings. The right to privacy and freedom of speech should be just as sacred online as it is in the real world.
7. Freedom of speach. I strongly support the right to freedom of speach. Thus, I am against any censorship laws (especially the vague "community standards of decency and properiety"). I am also against defamation laws, which only serve as tools of the rich to silence criticism.
8. Privacy. Again, I strongly support this right, both online and in the real world. I believe that new Amendments need to be passed to clarify the strong position of freedom of speach and privacy; the founding father's never imagined infra-red privacy-violations. They had a non-resolutional agreement, because these issues never arose in their time. In all cases, intrusions on privacy must be supported by a court order with good cause.
9. Clarity of the law and shortness of the law. Laws are vague because they use bullshit pretentious language and are written by lawyers to be understood by lawyers only. The tax code is some 29,000 pages long. Laws should be short and clear. They should be perfectly understandable by any literate person within a standard deviant of the average intelligence level. What politicians and lawyers have done is conspire to make laws impossible to understand by the average person, requiring fees to lawyers to interpret and understand it. Also, some laws are so poorly written that their exact meaning isn't even known by the best lawyers. Thesea are all bad laws and should be stricken immediately. We shouldn't wait until someone's head is on the chopping block to decide what a law means or if its constitutional (that's basically the way our current system works). Also immoral and unconstitutional is the way that politicians can now draft laws for specific individuals or groups of people. Refer to The Case Against Lawyers by Catherine Crier. Critics disparge it for being a "laymans" treatment of the topic; but they're the same evil lawyers who want everything written so that only lawyers can understand it.
10. Our constitutional system. As alluded to in #9, our current system is messed up. We have to wait until someone's life is on the line before we can decide if a law is constitutional. What bullshit is that? The minute a question arises about the constitutionality of a law, it should be challenged in court. This is the way it works in Germany, and its very good. Unclear laws should immediately be strucken down by courts. If two lawyers need to debate about what a law means, its unclear and unconstitutional, and should be struck down. Void for vagueness. The right to choose was only affirmed after Roe had already had her child; thus, after that right had been denied her.
11. Taxes. We already pay enough money to the government. If that's not enough, too bad. The government always whines about how its needs arent' being met. Cut some of your needs. Don't punish citizens because government officials are too incompetent to get results with the enormous amounts of money we give them. Also on taxes, I support eliminating this lawyers tax-code, and replacing it with a one-tax system: you get taxed on your income alone. Nothing else. This would save billions in paperwork and IRS investigations. It would also save taxpayers, because they wouldn't have to either hire lawyers or spend hours deciphering tax forms. The amount of taxes you pay should be directly proportional to the percent of the national GNP that you account for. If you account for twice as much as the GNP as the next person, then you should pay twice the percentage tax as they do. Thus, the income tax you should pay should be proportional to $earned * $earned/GNP.
There are many others, but the point is, I know exactly what my position is on each issue, and vote for the person who's closest to my overal political outlook. Other people should do likewise. That requires making a list of the issues and figuring out (and re-evaluating regularly) what your position is on each issue.
I also find your party-line voting suggestion to be harmful.
Voting along party lines is only for idiots, and will invariably produce undesireable results.
You can only vote along party lines if you agree with *everything* that a party stands for; even then, its not safe, because many Republicans deviate from the Republian platform, likewise with many Democrats. I consider myself Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can just vote for any Libertarian who runs...why? Because there's some thing in the Libertarian platform I disagree with, and I don't know which tenants of the Libertarian platform someone is going to stick to.
The only way to vote intelligently is to research the candidates thoroughly and decide if you like what they stand for, or if you don't. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely; the idea is to vote for the one who's positions and actions are the closest to those you have or you'd take.
Voting along party lines for Democrats might be good in one state, regarding digital freedoms and intellectual property. But in Utah, it might elect Orin Hatch -- a pro-Napster, pro-technology, anti-IP (in its current form) Senator (R) -- out of office.
The best thing to do is to figure out what each candidates positions are on various issues. Attention should be paid to what they say they will do, but you should take that with a grain of salt. More important, is how did they vote on various bills. Firstly, look at their attendance record for voting on bills. If they're absent on half of them, they're not good Senators or Representatives. For those they did vote on, did they vote as you would have? Make a simple list like such. +1 is assigned for voting as you would voe, -1 for voting against your wishes. Add appropriate weights for things which you consider more important.
It is the kind of party-lines thinking that the parent advocates which is a major problem in our system, and why the wrong people get elected; its also part of why third parties -- though usually being superior -- are kept off the voting ballot and rarely elected.
I used to think like the parent, when I was a teenager. I thought of myself as a Republican. However, as I grew older (hence smarter), I realized that I disagreed with the Republican platform on many things which were important to me (i.e., abortion, prostitution, drugs, stripping, euthanasia, gay rights, and religion).
Don't be locked into the "I'm a Dem/Repub" mentality. Determine what your position is on the issues, and vote for (s)he who's closer to that position by in what they say and what they've done.
Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.
Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans, as was the 1998 Copyright Extension Act; likewise with almost all other draconian anti-consumer intellectual property laws, and digital laws.
It is serious when someone steals bandwidth from an ISP, thus hurting other customers. However, it is nothing the FBI should be involved in; its a matter for the state authorities.
Also, you have to remember, this is not like stealing in the conventional sense. In this case, the defendants modified their own computer software to uncap bandwidth. It seems to me that you should be able to alter you're own property in any way you want to. If the ISP doesn't like that, they should include clauses in the contract which say they can terminate you're account for doing so, and can fine you extra for the extra bandwidth you used.
However, I can see how this can be contrieved as stealing; you're modifying your own computer to be used as a tool to steal bandwidth from an ISP (and from other customers) which you haven't paid for and don't have a right to by the agreement with you're ISP. You may have the right to alter your computer in any way you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right to use those modifications for any means you want; i.e., I can add Nitroboosters to my Boxter, but that doesn't mean I can cruise down the highway at 250mph.
I'm fine with these people being prosecuted. What they did is, in fact, theft; not only from their ISP, but also from other customers. Other customers experience obscene slowdowns to dialup speed because a few selfish customers want to download at 10MB/s. But the FBI should not be involved, and certainly these crimes don't call for armed raids. The FBI should be focusing on serious criminals, like terrorists, serial killers, serial rapists, organized child-molesters, organized crime, and large-scale frauds (refer to Enron, Global Crossings).
This brings up an interesting note on ISPs. Why do broadband companies cap bandwidth at all? Why not just divide up the available bandwidth evenly among all the requesting users. Lets say that there's a 100 users and that the ISP can offer 100MB/s of bandwidth total. If they all request bandwidth at the same time, they should each get 1MB/s of bandwidth. If, later on, only 50 of them are requesting bandwidth, each should get 2MB/s of bandwidth. If only one is requesting bandwidth, (s)he should get 100MB/s of bandwidth. They could also integrate prioritized bandwidth, where you get preference in accordance to how much extra you pay; i.e., if you pay 2x the average, you get 2x the bandwidth at any given moment. Another useful thing to do would be to minimize net wait-times. If person A is downloading a file of 1MB and person B is downloading a file of 2MB, then it makes sense to let person A do his download first, then let person B do his download. This way, the net wait time is 2(1MB / 100MB/s) + 2MB / 100MB/s = 0.04s; instead of 2(2MB / 100MB/s) + 1MB / 100MB/s = 0.05s.
So, let me get this straight, MS doesn't have to release the API's involving how programs interact to non-commercial entities? MS' biggest threat is GNU/Linux, yet they don't have to release the API's to how their programs interact with the OS to non-profits? What a crock of shit.
As someone else said, MS should be required to make ANY AND ALL RELEVANT information available to ANYONE who wants to make a product which interacts well with Windows, or who wants to make an OS which will interact well with programs designed to run on windows.
Even with these provisions, you need enforcement and quick resolution for conflicts. With such a resolution, MS would undoubtedly insist that what people were reasonably requiring from them isn't necessary for interoperability; thus, we need a quick way to resolve and enforce this within a matter of a few days, where MS can't appeal endlessly using their lawyer power.
This deal is a joke.
I agree, and think that's a good idea, in addition to forcing many things (as I mentioned) to be opened up right away. I'm leaning toward thinking that the best way to solve this problem is by imposing strict punishments and sanctions on MS, as well as stringent requirements, as opposed to breaking them up. If you break them up, all of the subunits (even if you split the OS department into several pieces) can continue acting in the same anti-competitive ways, loosely cooperating with eachother through "united fronts".
The problem with breaking MS up is that once you break them up, you can no-longer impose punishments on the individual broken up parts. But that is no matter if you break them up in the proper way.
The proper way to break MS up isn't breaking it into hardware, software, and OS parts. That's idiotic, and would just create 3 more monopolies in the hardware, software, and OS areas. What you need to do is split MS up vertically and horizontally. That is, split it up by departmental lines; then also split up each department into multiple companies.
If they're to be split up, they should be split up into software, hardware, and OS components; then the software, hardware, and OS components should be split up further. This way, several MSlets would be competing in regards to an OS. This destroy's the OS monopoly.
Of course, the problem with this is that Windows is so universal that their products might still continue to dominate by inertia, even though they're inferior. Thus, careful consideration needs to be taken in deciding whether to split them up or punish them harshely.
If we're to punish them, we need to demand they release the source for their standards, and release the source for the various parts of the OS which programs directly interact with; this will allow competitors to make products which can compete against MS natives on MS Windows. We also need them to open up these specifications so other OS's like Linux can offer better emulation layers for Windows. You need to prevent MS from blackballing OEMs and the like. You need to give OEMs the right to modify Windows any way they choose before selling it. You need to ensure that MS can't enter into any contract with OEMs which would prevent or dissuade them from also offering Linux or BSD on their computer. Also, large fines should be imposed on MS, the money from which would be used to bring drivers and software to competing OS'. The only way that GNU/Linux, BeOS, Amiga SDK, and *BSD can compete with MS is if they have alot of software support and alot of hardware support. The problem is that software and hardware companies won't offer their software/drivers for alternate OS' unless those OS' are popular; and those OS' won't become popular unless they have large software and hardware support. Hence, a hellish cycle which favors the current monopoly, MS. The main consideration of the government should be to break that cycle and allow all OS' to compete on their merits.
Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein? Rised to power through illegitimate means; eliminate true public elections; now organize these scam elections which are just like the elections in Iraq.
ICANN has no legitimacy. If they did, ALL of their board member's would be publicly elected. Unless ALL of their board member's are publicly elected, the entire organization is a illegitimate crock.
"This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said
What a fucking moron. How the fuck is it possible to be more "plugged-in to the community" by eliminating public elections? It isn't. The only possible reason for eliminating public elections is to dodge all responsibility, so you can never be held accountable.
As for more efficient, yes, it will be more efficient at making immoral decisions; just like Saddam Hussein is very efficient at quickly deciding how to execute his enemies. Its really tough to make immoral decisions when you have to worry about public elections. Much easier to just cave in to business demands when you don't have to be held accountable to the public at large.
As long as they keep it within reasonabl bounds.
People do not want "shared computing"; they do not want to put their data on "borrowed computers" nor do everything on "rented computing power" or "rented space". IBM should realize that most people will still want their applications and most of their processes and files on their own computers.
What IBM should be offering -- and what it seems like they're offering -- is loaning supercomputer time to people (for a price) for specific tasks which they can't accomplish in a reasonable amount of time on their own computers. This is a reasonable and useful idea; however, it is hardly new at all. At the University of Rochester, there are shared computers within biology labs, where people dump some heavy-duty computing operations and pick them up later. This went on during the 60's when computers were so expensive no-one could afford them. In short, this is hardly new nor revolutionary, though IBM may be putting a new twist on it by trying to use it as a business model.
It makes sense. After all, most people don't need supercomputing power for the majority of their tasks; why spend money on a supercomputer when it'll be unutilized 90% of the time? But what IBM can do is maximize supercomputer utilization by selling a percentage of its resources to various customers; these customers save money because they pay on a per-need basis.
For example, I often run Bayesian phylogenies. Recently, I ran a Bayesian phylogeny with about 50 taxa in it. This took 7 days on a dual G4 (2x 800MHz) Mac. That's with all of the computer's power focusing just on that. The time requires to complete the trees increases at a steep rate as one adds more taxa. If I was doing 200 taxa, it would have taken two or three months.
So this can offer a great service to many people.
1, 2. This is true, we don't always know what basic research leads to. But we do often know what higher level, more applied research will lead to, so we should invest more in that, respectively.
3. There are alot of things we don't vote on because no politicians run on them. We're given a two-item menu, where most of the ingredients of both meals are identical. The DMCA was passed unanimously, as was the USAPA. The 1998 Copyright Extention Act was passed unanimously. Every single proposal for a pay raise was voted on unanimously; the only debate was about how much they could raise their own salaries without upsetting the people too much. These are things in which voters simply don't have a choice on, because the Democrats and Republicans have conspired to keep the names of 3rd parties and independents off the voting ballots.
4. The point regarding the limo is that they don't need a limo. A Volkswagon would do just as good, or almost any other car. If they think that its so important that they have a limo, they can pay for it with their own money, not ours. Btw, with today's computer age, its hard to see how they can't get things done while in a car.
5. I'm not saying politicians should dress in rags. However, they also need not spend OUR money buying themselves thousand dollar suits. If they want to buy the most expensive suits on the market, again, they can use their own money. If they want to rely on public money, then that should buy them respectable suits, nothing more. A $100 dollar suit looks fine.
6. The amount of money we'd save from not wasting resources on this complicated tax system would in and of itself more than counteract the losses due to not being able to promote as many different things. Btw, a one-tax system can still support charities; I've always thought that it would be good to allow people to subtract from their taxes the amount of money they spent on charities, and to decide what programs/services their taxes will go to support. The other reason why we should do away with this complicated tax system is that it is immoral on two counts. First, it makes it difficult if not impossible for many Americans to properly do their taxes without a lawyer. Second, its a way in which the government can regulate without consequence (refer to Lessig). Taxes are a shady way by which the government regulates that which would otherwise be unconstitutional to regulate, or widely criticized. Its a way to regulate without facing the consequences of regulation -- namely criticism. A bunch of Christians in the government don't like contraceptives and abortion; so rather than taking a public stand and pushing for their illegalization, (s)he immorally decides to raise taxes on those things behind people's backs.
7. Again, I'm not suggesting the least expensive option. But statues and what-not really don't do anything. People only notice them for the first few times they go somewhere, then ignore them. You can justify it with psychological arguments, but the reason its done is for self-important arrogant Gatsby's.
8. Its understandable that individuals can't always balance their budget. But the government has trillions of dollars to work with here. If they're running into money problems, that means they're spending too much. We give them more than enough money (ranging from 20 - 50% of our income).
9. Has the US government ever gotten smaller? Any agencies you know of that have dissappeared? Mandating that the government grow in proportion to our population growth is reasonable and feasible. Again, if that's a problem, they need to cut some of their programs.
10. The issue here is that government money goes towards helping those in power get re-elected, or elected. Refer to the Hillary Clinton issue where she ran for NY Senator using our tax dollars.
11. Most people don't know about the programs that are useless because they aren't doing anything. That's why there's no push to get rid of them. The programs and organizations themselves will do whatever it takes to stay alive.
12. Rigid rules preventing the firing of an employee are absurd, which is what tenure amounts to. I'll focus on a specific case here, that of Rita Wilson. She asked girls to lift their skirts and prove to her they weren't wearing thongs before letting them into a school dance; when some refused, she forcibly pulled them up. This is a violations of several laws (illegal search/seizure, violation of privacy, sexual harassment, sexual assault) as well as the CA Educational Code, which forbids the rearrangement of clothing around the private areas to examine underclothes. She should have been fired and put in jail; yet, she was only "demoted" from Vice Principal to teacher, putting her in closer contact with the students she violated.
13, 14, 15. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs. People are responsible for their own actions. If someone has a drug problem or a gambling problem, that's their issue. Also, I didn't say there should be no regulation; people shouldn't be allowed to walk around doing LSD in a public park, or be high in a public place. Same thing for prostitution.
Focusing on prostitution, yes there are abuses and problems that come with it (marital issues, stds). But there are abuses and problems in every industry. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with prostitution. Its a (wo)man's body, it should be his or her choice whether or not to sell it for money. No one is necessarily getting hurt, and its an activity between two consenting adults. The objections to it focus around misplaced concerns, such as (a) "its indignifying to women", (b) "its immoral", (c) "it spreads stds", and it (d) "promotes marital infidelity.
(a) Indignant to women. The feminist argument. What's insulting to women is when some feminist elitists have some idea of what "feminism" is and then want to use that to deny all other women the right to choose how to run their own life. Also, how exactly is it indignant? Because women may not want to do it? Well, there are alot of things that we don't want to do but do to survive; for example, being a janitor. Prostitution (like Stripping) offers an alternative to women and men which is higher paying. I don't see that as demeaning, I see it as giving them a choice. Maybe some think its insulting to women, but in that case, don't do it. If you don't like it, don't do it; if someone else does, or is neutral, they might. The actions of one woman in no way reflect upon another woman. Btw, elitist feminists will be interested to note that there is a whole class of feminists out there who think that Stripping and Prostitution (broadly referred to as "Sex Work") is empowering to women.
(b) Its immoral. The Christian argument. Really? I thought that blowing up abortion clinics was immoral. I thought molesting little boys was immoral. Certain people may find prostitution immoral; in that case, they shouldn't do it. This is a free country, and no-one has to believe in this tyrannical god which forbids all things pleasureable. There are many things to be said for the benefits of prostitution. Of all the things you can do to someone, giving them an orgasm is hardly the worst. In the army, you get a medal (and paycheck) for spraying napalm on people; in civillian life, you go to jail for giving someone and orgasm for a few bucks. Hardly makes sense.
(c) It spreads stds. Which is exactly why protection should be mandated in legally sanctioned brothels, and why women who'd be licensed to be prostitutes would be expected to use condoms. Similarly, regular std testing would be mandated. Also, one should note that it can only spread stds to willing participants, or their partners (who are willing with them). Again, people are responsible for their own actions. Unprotected sex also spreads stds, but we don't illegalize that between people who aren't married.
(d) Promotes marital infidelity. Well, this isn't the fault of the prostitute, or the industry. This is the fault of the married couple, where one of them is cheating on the other. Its not the government's job to babysit people and ensure that their marriage works out. If infidelity is a problem in a marriage, then there's a problem with the marriage itself -- not with the prostitue who's the unknowing outlet for a (wo)man's infidelity.
Final thought. Irrelevant of the arguments against it, none of them are strong enough or direct enough to ban prostitution on solid ground. Murder and rape harms people in obvious and direct ways, hence they are illegal. But the effects of prostitution are indirect and highly variable; no one is necessarily hurt from prostitution, as people are necessarily hurt when murder or rape occurs. There is no justification for violating someone's right to body by preventing them from becoming a prostitute.