It's precisely because Apple retains this control over the use of the software that puts them in a position to make ethical judgements about the way people are using their software.
If I release software that is extendable, with no restrictions on how you use the software, how would it be my fault if you used the software to control a bomb or something?
If, however, I put a list of forbidden actions in an "EULA" such as "Do not use this software for copyright violations", then it becomes easy to say "Well, why didn't you also forbid using the software for bomb control systems! You are liable!"
It closely parallels the situations with ISP and liability for content. Once you start making judgements about the use of your product, you have opened pandora's box.
The only real solution is to not place restrictions on the way your users use your software, only on how they may copy and redistribute it. This is the way it always was until about 2 years ago, when software companies started to go EULA crazy and think they could dictate the way their software was used with no repercussions.
That must have been one of the older types of platters that were some sort of glass. Haven't seen that in any modern drive though. Newer ones are indeed some sort of metal.
and it's very easy to recover the data on the drive from that chip,
Yeahhh...
In fact, it's incredibly difficult to recover that data, for the same reasons.
I've never read about or seen any sort of court case in which data was recovered this way. As far as I know, it's only a proposed method of data recovery.
The FAA regulations are much tighter on tethered balloons from my understanding of them (Just as the guy in the article had some confusion, I think everyone who launches balloons does, they are vague).
I launched a tethered balloon up to about 200-300 feet once with live video over ham radio ATV frequencies. Pretty cool pictures, not as cool as 80,000 feet, but still.:)
The funky thing about this is that you could just added a whopping huge amount of on-die cache. That'd increase performance while also increasing the surface area.
Yes, but... wafer isn't cheap. Double the size and you use twice as much silicon, but it's not just a linear cost relationship because of defects.
Assuming the defect rate of SRAM is as high as the rest of the core*, then you also double the defect rate when you double the size of the core. It actually costs 4 times as much to make a chip that has double the surface area under these assumptions.
*That may not be true, but surely the defect rate is not zero.
I don't think anyone is proposing an alternative to the Internet. Ham radio can't carry commercial traffic, can't carry encrypted traffic, must identify with a callsign every 10 minutes, etc.
Intel recently scrapped plans to firebomb the AMD Fab30 plant. When reached for comment an Intel spokesman said "The war for the desktop processor market is mostly over." AMD has declined to comment.
For some reason Google charges insane amounts to advertise in Japan with certain keywords. It's strange, because the Japanese really seem to be in a minority compared to the number of europeans (native english speaking and non-native english speaking) that I run into on IRC or forums.
The analogy are the people that though Jay-Z had a great original song with "Hard Knock Life", or that Vanilla Ice had an original sound with "Ice, Ice, Baby", MC Hammer with "Can't touch this".... etc.
People repacking something and getting much more famous than the original happens all the time. It happens in technology too, a lot of the people credited as the "inventor" of such and such really just repackaged someone else's work and happened to market it just the right way.
WHERE messageID = form.messageID AND userID = cookie.userID
Yeah, it's a good thing users can't edit the cookies that are stored on their hard disk..... oh wait.
To do something like this securely, give the user a unique session ID and put only that in the cookie. Then manage all their session data on the server side. That's what PHP does.
Strategies for producing joints? Sounds like a cushy job. Wonder if they get to do some quality assurance on the final product, if you know what I mean.
Greens propose: Comprehensive campaign finance reform, including caps on spending and contributions, and/or full public financing of elections. Significant lobbying regulation.
Takes away the following freedoms:
Freedom of speech (significant lobby regulation) Property rights, the freedom to give my money to whoever I choose. (Caps on spending, higher taxes for subsidised programs)
Issue: Political Participation Greens support: Free television and mail for every qualified statewide, congressional, and presidential candidate.
Property Rights (free mail and TV ads for candidates, even the ones I don't agree with, paid for with my dollars)
Issue: Foreign Policy
Greens call for:
Military spending to be cut by 50% over the next 10 years, with increases in spending for social programs.
Abolishing nuclear weapons.... Domestic and international regulation must protect the global ecology, utilizing the UNITED NATIONS and related agencies. We believe in the core right of self-determination and the special character and needs of indigenous peoples.
Increased social programs.. Social programs mean that people are under the control of the government. Greens bash "big brother" on one hand and then talk about making the public even more dependant on handouts, paid for by the taxpayer's dollars, and administered by an expanded bureaucracy. Which is better, the government taking your money and then giving it back to you if it deems you fit, or letting you keep your money and choose how to spend it? Which is "more free"?
They even go as far as supporting the World Court and giving it more power, a clear conflict with their feelgood plank "We do not place faith in paternalistic big government." What government is bigger than a world government comprised of the UN and World Court?
As far as their stance on nuclear weapons... It just seems plain unrealistic. If we get rid of ours, how will that cause other people to get rid of theirs?
Tuition-free post secondary (collegiate and vocational) public education.
Same argument as above regarding their other socalist positions. The government has already used grants and scholarships to control and punish students (see the NORML battle vs the Higher Education Act). More government involvement means more control, less freedom.
Health care is a human right.
Uh, OK.
We support universal health care and a single-payer insurance program, that is publicly financed at the national level, administered locally, and privately delivered with freedom of choice of provider. It would cover all standard medical procedures, as well as drug treatment, dental care, medication for chronic and terminal illness, equal coverage of mental illness, and abortion.
Thanks for spending my money for me. Lord knows, I wouldn't know what to do with it if my paycheck wasn't 70% taxes. Right now, insurance with low deductibles and co-payments are driving health care costs sky high. Why? Because patients don't know or don't care how much the procedure or drug really costs, and therefore don't make rational decisions as to whether they really need said drug or procedure, or whether an alternate and cheaper procedure or drug would suffice. I've recently seen this firsthand where I work. Our medical insurance was being driven through the roof with drug costs. A restructuring of the co-pay caused people to look critically at their medications and ask the doctor about cheaper alternatives. The result was dramatically reduced drug costs and lower insurance for everyone. I didn't see anyone sick who couldn't afford their drugs either.
This is an example of where the free market can work if not interfered with. The Green's proposal will cause skyrocketing medical costs, which comes out of every taxpayers pocket and into the pocket of large corporations. Not a very consistant thing to happen considering the Green's overall anti-corporate position.
All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, a living wage job, education, and support in times of hardship.
Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me. A right to a job means that as a business owner I will be compelled to hire incompetant people? After all, the person applying for the job has a right to it!
Alternatively, I guess they mean they would give government jobs to people who have no skills, which means I would be bankrolling people to do absolutely nothing, with my tax money.
Again, the standard objection to this socialist stuff... Socalism=more government, bigger government, with more control over the people.
We call for a graduated supplemental income (negative income tax) that would maintain all adult incomes above the poverty level.
Great! I can quit my job as soon as a Green is elected. In fact, why would anyone keep their job? I sure wouldn't be motivated to work if I could get everything free, including food, housing, medical care, entitlements to keep me above the poverty level, etc. What would be the point of working at all? I think the economy would collapse.
We support independent civilian review of police misconduct and carefully considered gun control.
Gun control is a direct "erosion of rights". Law abiding citizens should be able to own and use guns how they please, so long as they do nothing illegal.
Decriminalization of "victimless" crimes, for example, the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Oh, but not the victimless "crime" of owning a gun and using it for sport/defense? This is where the Greens really lose me. I don't see how they can support MJ legalization but also support gun control. One implies the assumption that responsible and law abiding adults should be trusted, and the other does not.
We support affirmative action and reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation.
Yeah, especially since most of the people that were around during the worst descrimination are dead or dying (or at least retired and not paying taxes). Reparations paid to the children of the descriminated against, by the children of people who may or may not have descriminated. Sounds fair to me. A very Klingon way of thinking.
Aggressive prosecution of hate crimes.
Hate crimes are inherently thought crimes. They punish the perpetrator above and beyond the normal punlishment for their actions, because of what they thought, because of what they were (allegedly) motivated by. I thought Greens were against big brother? A free society punishes damaging actions, not damaging thought. Punishing thought is a direct attack on free speech.
We support the creation of consumer advocacy agencies
More governmental bloat. More taxes.
The scope of the First Amendment is extensive and prohibits any law which would abridge the freedom of speech or press, most clearly in reference to political matters.
Except that the government determines what is "hate speech" and censors it through hate crime laws.
So what about the freedom to spend my money the way I see fit? Under a Green system, if I work, it will all be taxed away to nothing, so I can never get ahead. If I don't work, I am guaranteed a pretty nice life (at least until the economy collapses from other people also not working), but I can still never get ahead.
Having read some of her stuff, and even corresponded with her, I think I can safely say she does not represent Libertarians as a whole. She seems very out of touch with reality.
Libertarians who think laws like the DMCA don't go far enough
Well, it makes enough sense, Libertarians protect property rights.
A "natural rights" Libertarian with this view obviously doesn't realize is that these property rights are artificial to start with, not a natural right.
The strict constitutionalists would be against your next assertion, that these same people believe IP should be forever, since the constitution specifically says they should be for a limited time.
So really, any Libertarian that believes what you assert really isn't very Libertarian at all, in any way I would consider Libertarian.
not a time for such black and white sentiments as "you are either with us, or with the fascists".
It wasn't meant as name calling, just pointing out that there is no way to support the Democrats or Republicans or even Greens without seriously eroding freedom in one way or another. It seems very ironic that the NRA Republicans can be so blind to what is happening in the name of being "tough on crime".
Really it all comes down to this: "As long as you are taking someone else's rights away, I'm OK with it"... and that is the real problem.
One large charity is easy for the government to ignore.
I don't know about that, the NRA is a very effective lobby, as is the NEA, the various trade unions, the NAACP, ACLU, etc...
It's not like we have to choose one or the other either. We can still take action as individuals even if we are members of a larger lobby. The Gun Owners of America action network is an example of a mobilized grassroots force.
I'm in agreement with you that no one's efforts should stop at only membership in a group, if they feel strongly at all about the issues, they should do something on their own also.
Unless you were involved with drug law reform before all this copyright stuff started getting hot, you really have little room to ask NRA type people for help.
The downhill slide started when it started to become illegal to buy things that "might" be used for manufacturing or using drugs. The NRA people in general were too blind to see the parallels then, and I doubt they will see them now, involving this much more complex issue.
I hope the majority of conservatives realize soon that it is impossible to have a certain Republican brand of freedom, without having all the rest. In many ways, I hate to say this, but you are either Libertarian, or you support facism in one form or another. There is little middle ground anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
It's precisely because Apple retains this control over the use of the software that puts them in a position to make ethical judgements about the way people are using their software.
If I release software that is extendable, with no restrictions on how you use the software, how would it be my fault if you used the software to control a bomb or something?
If, however, I put a list of forbidden actions in an "EULA" such as "Do not use this software for copyright violations", then it becomes easy to say "Well, why didn't you also forbid using the software for bomb control systems! You are liable!"
It closely parallels the situations with ISP and liability for content. Once you start making judgements about the use of your product, you have opened pandora's box.
The only real solution is to not place restrictions on the way your users use your software, only on how they may copy and redistribute it. This is the way it always was until about 2 years ago, when software companies started to go EULA crazy and think they could dictate the way their software was used with no repercussions.
Would Linus be evil if someone was violating the GPL using linux and he sued?
The GPL is not an EULA and does not place any restrictions on the use of the software. You do not need to agree to the GPL to use GPL software.
The GPL only covers redistribution of the software.
That must have been one of the older types of platters that were some sort of glass. Haven't seen that in any modern drive though. Newer ones are indeed some sort of metal.
and it's very easy to recover the data on the drive from that chip,
Yeahhh...
In fact, it's incredibly difficult to recover that data, for the same reasons.
I've never read about or seen any sort of court case in which data was recovered this way. As far as I know, it's only a proposed method of data recovery.
Isn't it ridiculous how people can have lethal chemicals, like Dihydrogen Monoxide, and yet the DMCA is around?
Dihydrogen Monoxide kills more people per year than any other chemical.
There is a whole hobby called blimpography
The FAA regulations are much tighter on tethered balloons from my understanding of them (Just as the guy in the article had some confusion, I think everyone who launches balloons does, they are vague).
:)
I launched a tethered balloon up to about 200-300 feet once with live video over ham radio ATV frequencies. Pretty cool pictures, not as cool as 80,000 feet, but still.
The funky thing about this is that you could just added a whopping huge amount of on-die cache. That'd increase performance while also increasing the surface area.
Yes, but... wafer isn't cheap. Double the size and you use twice as much silicon, but it's not just a linear cost relationship because of defects.
Assuming the defect rate of SRAM is as high as the rest of the core*, then you also double the defect rate when you double the size of the core. It actually costs 4 times as much to make a chip that has double the surface area under these assumptions.
*That may not be true, but surely the defect rate is not zero.
I don't think anyone is proposing an alternative to the Internet. Ham radio can't carry commercial traffic, can't carry encrypted traffic, must identify with a callsign every 10 minutes, etc.
Intel recently scrapped plans to firebomb the AMD Fab30 plant. When reached for comment an Intel spokesman said "The war for the desktop processor market is mostly over." AMD has declined to comment.
For some reason Google charges insane amounts to advertise in Japan with certain keywords. It's strange, because the Japanese really seem to be in a minority compared to the number of europeans (native english speaking and non-native english speaking) that I run into on IRC or forums.
The analogy are the people that though Jay-Z had a great original song with "Hard Knock Life", or that Vanilla Ice had an original sound with "Ice, Ice, Baby", MC Hammer with "Can't touch this".... etc.
People repacking something and getting much more famous than the original happens all the time. It happens in technology too, a lot of the people credited as the "inventor" of such and such really just repackaged someone else's work and happened to market it just the right way.
Yeah, but your comparision is flawed too. People seek out and buy tobacco products because they want them.
This will likely be slipped in without informed consent of the user, something that is nearly impossible to argue for tobacco use.
WHERE messageID = form.messageID AND userID = cookie.userID
Yeah, it's a good thing users can't edit the cookies that are stored on their hard disk..... oh wait.
To do something like this securely, give the user a unique session ID and put only that in the cookie. Then manage all their session data on the server side. That's what PHP does.
Which link is the story?
They are planning to convert to PNGs on June 21, 2003.
What does a Joint Strategist make, anyways
Strategies for producing joints? Sounds like a cushy job. Wonder if they get to do some quality assurance on the final product, if you know what I mean.
I disagree strongly with your contention that supporting the Greens is to support the erosion of freedom
.... Domestic and international regulation must protect the global ecology, utilizing the UNITED NATIONS and related agencies. We believe in the core right of self-determination and the special character and needs of indigenous peoples.
Ready for a long message? I better save this one for future reference. Times like this make me wish browsers had vi edit box plugins.
This site for context.
Issue: Political Reform
Greens propose:
Comprehensive campaign finance reform, including caps on spending and contributions, and/or full public financing of elections. Significant lobbying regulation.
Takes away the following freedoms:
Freedom of speech (significant lobby regulation)
Property rights, the freedom to give my money to whoever I choose. (Caps on spending, higher taxes for subsidised programs)
Issue: Political Participation
Greens support:
Free television and mail for every qualified statewide, congressional, and presidential candidate.
Property Rights (free mail and TV ads for candidates, even the ones I don't agree with, paid for with my dollars)
Issue: Foreign Policy
Greens call for:
Military spending to be cut by 50% over the next 10 years, with increases in spending for social programs.
Abolishing nuclear weapons
Increased social programs.. Social programs mean that people are under the control of the government. Greens bash "big brother" on one hand and then talk about making the public even more dependant on handouts, paid for by the taxpayer's dollars, and administered by an expanded bureaucracy. Which is better, the government taking your money and then giving it back to you if it deems you fit, or letting you keep your money and choose how to spend it? Which is "more free"?
They even go as far as supporting the World Court and giving it more power, a clear conflict with their feelgood plank "We do not place faith in paternalistic big government." What government is bigger than a world government comprised of the UN and World Court?
As far as their stance on nuclear weapons... It just seems plain unrealistic. If we get rid of ours, how will that cause other people to get rid of theirs?
Tuition-free post secondary (collegiate and vocational) public education.
Same argument as above regarding their other socalist positions. The government has already used grants and scholarships to control and punish students (see the NORML battle vs the Higher Education Act). More government involvement means more control, less freedom.
Health care is a human right.
Uh, OK.
We support universal health care and a single-payer insurance program, that is publicly financed at the national level, administered locally, and privately delivered with freedom of choice of provider. It would cover all standard medical procedures, as well as drug treatment, dental care, medication for chronic and terminal illness, equal coverage of mental illness, and abortion.
Thanks for spending my money for me. Lord knows, I wouldn't know what to do with it if my paycheck wasn't 70% taxes. Right now, insurance with low deductibles and co-payments are driving health care costs sky high. Why? Because patients don't know or don't care how much the procedure or drug really costs, and therefore don't make rational decisions as to whether they really need said drug or procedure, or whether an alternate and cheaper procedure or drug would suffice. I've recently seen this firsthand where I work. Our medical insurance was being driven through the roof with drug costs. A restructuring of the co-pay caused people to look critically at their medications and ask the doctor about cheaper alternatives. The result was dramatically reduced drug costs and lower insurance for everyone. I didn't see anyone sick who couldn't afford their drugs either.
This is an example of where the free market can work if not interfered with. The Green's proposal will cause skyrocketing medical costs, which comes out of every taxpayers pocket and into the pocket of large corporations. Not a very consistant thing to happen considering the Green's overall anti-corporate position.
All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, a living wage job, education, and support in times of hardship.
Sounds an awful lot like socialism to me. A right to a job means that as a business owner I will be compelled to hire incompetant people? After all, the person applying for the job has a right to it!
Alternatively, I guess they mean they would give government jobs to people who have no skills, which means I would be bankrolling people to do absolutely nothing, with my tax money.
Again, the standard objection to this socialist stuff... Socalism=more government, bigger government, with more control over the people.
We call for a graduated supplemental income (negative income tax) that would maintain all adult incomes above the poverty level.
Great! I can quit my job as soon as a Green is elected. In fact, why would anyone keep their job? I sure wouldn't be motivated to work if I could get everything free, including food, housing, medical care, entitlements to keep me above the poverty level, etc. What would be the point of working at all? I think the economy would collapse.
We support independent civilian review of police misconduct and carefully considered gun control.
Gun control is a direct "erosion of rights". Law abiding citizens should be able to own and use guns how they please, so long as they do nothing illegal.
Decriminalization of "victimless" crimes, for example, the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Oh, but not the victimless "crime" of owning a gun and using it for sport/defense? This is where the Greens really lose me. I don't see how they can support MJ legalization but also support gun control. One implies the assumption that responsible and law abiding adults should be trusted, and the other does not.
We support affirmative action and reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation.
Yeah, especially since most of the people that were around during the worst descrimination are dead or dying (or at least retired and not paying taxes). Reparations paid to the children of the descriminated against, by the children of people who may or may not have descriminated. Sounds fair to me. A very Klingon way of thinking.
Aggressive prosecution of hate crimes.
Hate crimes are inherently thought crimes. They punish the perpetrator above and beyond the normal punlishment for their actions, because of what they thought, because of what they were (allegedly) motivated by. I thought Greens were against big brother? A free society punishes damaging actions, not damaging thought. Punishing thought is a direct attack on free speech.
We support the creation of consumer advocacy agencies
More governmental bloat. More taxes.
The scope of the First Amendment is extensive and prohibits any law which would abridge the freedom of speech or press, most clearly in reference to political matters.
Except that the government determines what is "hate speech" and censors it through hate crime laws.
So what about the freedom to spend my money the way I see fit? Under a Green system, if I work, it will all be taxed away to nothing, so I can never get ahead. If I don't work, I am guaranteed a pretty nice life (at least until the economy collapses from other people also not working), but I can still never get ahead.
An internal UPS could be made that would last at least 30 seconds. It would have to go in a drive bay though.
You mean power transformers like on a utility pole? They are filled with oil and do have large vanes that act as heat sinks.
On the plus side, every new game I have installed recently uses Ogg.
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Having read some of her stuff, and even corresponded with her, I think I can safely say she does not represent Libertarians as a whole. She seems very out of touch with reality.
Libertarians who think laws like the DMCA don't go far enough
Well, it makes enough sense, Libertarians protect property rights.
A "natural rights" Libertarian with this view obviously doesn't realize is that these property rights are artificial to start with, not a natural right.
The strict constitutionalists would be against your next assertion, that these same people believe IP should be forever, since the constitution specifically says they should be for a limited time.
So really, any Libertarian that believes what you assert really isn't very Libertarian at all, in any way I would consider Libertarian.
not a time for such black and white sentiments as "you are either with us, or with the fascists".
It wasn't meant as name calling, just pointing out that there is no way to support the Democrats or Republicans or even Greens without seriously eroding freedom in one way or another. It seems very ironic that the NRA Republicans can be so blind to what is happening in the name of being "tough on crime".
Really it all comes down to this: "As long as you are taking someone else's rights away, I'm OK with it"... and that is the real problem.
I read Jerkcity sometimes, but doesn't it seem pretty hit or miss?
Maybe I just don't get it.
One large charity is easy for the government to ignore.
I don't know about that, the NRA is a very effective lobby, as is the NEA, the various trade unions, the NAACP, ACLU, etc...
It's not like we have to choose one or the other either. We can still take action as individuals even if we are members of a larger lobby. The Gun Owners of America action network is an example of a mobilized grassroots force.
I'm in agreement with you that no one's efforts should stop at only membership in a group, if they feel strongly at all about the issues, they should do something on their own also.
Unless you were involved with drug law reform before all this copyright stuff started getting hot, you really have little room to ask NRA type people for help.
The downhill slide started when it started to become illegal to buy things that "might" be used for manufacturing or using drugs. The NRA people in general were too blind to see the parallels then, and I doubt they will see them now, involving this much more complex issue.
I hope the majority of conservatives realize soon that it is impossible to have a certain Republican brand of freedom, without having all the rest. In many ways, I hate to say this, but you are either Libertarian, or you support facism in one form or another. There is little middle ground anymore.