Does anyone else think the only solution to most of our problems is to stop taking federal money?
1. If you accept federal money, you have to track all of your students personal information and send it to Washington D.C.
2. If you accept federal money, you have to run national tests on your students make sure they meet standards set in Washington which may have little or nothing to do with the needs of your region.
3. If you accept federal money you have to limit the number of billboards on your roads, your drinking age, safety laws, etc... etc...
Congress, the cause, and solution, to our copyright woes...
Has any effort been made to request of congress the creation of a statutory "safe harbor" with respect to the use of material eligible for copyright protection but otherwise abandoned? Would it hurt Disney if the law included protection from liability for those who make a good faith effort to get permission but receive no response?
For that matter, if we really want to treat IP with the same rules as physical property, then should notions about adverse possession, abandonment, and eminent domain apply?
Many ask why aol/netscape bother with maintaining a browser. Perhaps the answer can be found by looking at AOL as a whole rather than just at the browsers themselves.
Sure, this version of Netscape will probably go the way of others. It will also create, for a short while at least, greater diversity in the browser arena. This would, it seems, tend to force all browsers toward a unified standard of interoperability.
AOL does not sell browsers, it sells content. If unified standards are used, it is better able to deliver that content. With a diverse browser environment, AOL also stands a better chance of not being "shut out" when a single, dominant, browser is "innovated" such that it can no longer reach AOL services. (Not that Microsoft would ever do that sort of thing.)
I hear postage stamps are going up to $.41 soon, its getting pretty expensive. Maybe I'll have to try out this electronic mail to send letters to my friends and family.
Why yes, I DO live in North Dakota. Why do you ask?
people feel that they are qualified to vote for a presidential candidate more or less directly.
This is exactly the problem. In the last election, every time I thought I had the best candidate identified, news media outlets or the other campaign would refute me. The only solid way to find the best candidate is to spend hours and dollars rooting through their records over the years. Even if I can muster the time, energy, and money to do this, I don't want to. Rather, let me or my legislature vote for some up-standig citizen from my own state to be the elector. And lets give him a budget and a staff while we're at it.
I guess I was operating under the assumption that one would buy the machine with windows pre-installed and operating. I'm assuming I guess that the vendor who sold me the pirate copy pre-installed has already clicked through everything in the way of first-run wizards et al, and sold me a running machine.
Say I have a pre-installed pirate copy of windows. I go to Microsoft and take advantage of their offer. I now have a legitimate copy of XP, and as I'm installing I actually (gawd forbid) read the EULA and decide I don't agree...
1. Can I get a refund from Microsoft since they shut down the dealer who was selling pirate copies?
2. What information will Microsoft keep about me if I try to take advantage of this offer?
I've followed this thread for quite a while, fascinating stuff. Does anyone else see that the reasoning proposed by Marxis Hacker, that a man must do absolutely everything he can to support an idea if he really believes in it, is exactly the same sort of reasoning that led to the reformation in the first place?
I'll wager that no matter how much you do to support any cause, I can think of something else that you could have done. Perfection is an impossibility, and when you impose it on others you only drive a wedge between them and your beliefs.
You may be onto something here... how soon till we see a nice FOSS "screen saver" that, instead of searching for ET or calculating the number of monkeys required to type Shakespear, does the really useful task of screwing up efforts to mine data from the internet?
I've been wondering for years why I don't see any chatroom bots built on Eliza or Alice. It seems to me these could be much more useful in both advertising and gathering information.
On the other hand, if the internal combustion engine was never invented, why would we have these safety and environmental laws?
Oh, and why not just use nature's solar generators in the form of ethanol and soy diesel? They're easy to make and more fun to look at than 100 square miles of silver dishes.
(Yes, ethanol can be made by energy efficient means once enough production infrastructure is in place. It will not, over the long run take more energy to make than it produces.)
"Considering we here in Canada have no such right to refuse testimony and we still don't torture citizens for evidence, I'm not sure what your point is."
My point is that your government COULD. In most United States, at the time this right was drafted, such action was quite likely. It seems you are arguing that because neither the right nor the "torture" exist in Canada, the right is of no value in the United States. This reasoning suffers from two flaws:
1. The United States have different cultures than Canada, and thus require different laws.
2. To argue that what because Canada never had this problem and therefore the right is useless is like arguing that, since I've never been in an accident I shouldn't wear my seatbelt.
I would also suggest that allowing a person who'se entire future is in the hands of the government which seeks to convict him, to be compelled to testify by that same government creates an inherent conflict of interest.
Then of course there are the Natural Law origins of rights in general... but these are the subject of a much longer discussion.
Of course elrong was tempted by the ring - as was Galadriel... But more to the point, it is evil to take the lives of those whose only crime is to fall victim to the ring. This is why nobody ever killed Gollum. Elrond, like Gandalf, was wise and knew this.
Actually it exists to keep the regime in power from using "leverage" to get you to confess. Pleading the fifth might occasionally look bad to a jury, but they're not stupid and they know not to consider that in deciding their verdict. Of corse the argument can be made that we don't torture people to get confessions anymore - But that is because we have this rule on the books. Consider the terrorist prison camps - any "torture" going on there?
Where the 5th really comes into play is when the defendant simply does not testify at all. This lets the trial proceed without the whole "I plead the 5th" thing even comming up. The state cannot call the defendant to be a witness, the witness does not need to "plead the fifth" and the jury never worries about it.
Actually, a lot of these posts raise an interesting question. If technology is going to be able to tell everything about you, for good or ill, what exactly is your right not to testify against yourself worth?
As for the seatbelt thing, most state laws require you to use one if your car was manufactured with one pursuant to the federal regulations. In many states, the seatbelt laws are such that not wearing one in and of itself is not a crime, but it increases the fine if you're cited for some other infraction. The regulations mentioned are promulgated under the commerce power and reach manufaturers selling in interstate commercee. The federal regulations do not reach the individual building for himself, therefore the car can in fact be manufactured without seatbelts, or a gas guage, or a speedometer, or even seats that are attached.
"Today's society" is probably a misnomer, since at least where I live nobody has ever heard of yearly inspections, and seatbelts are something you wear on certain trips (like those where you'll actually SEE another car.) But the bit about New Hampshire is very astute - the Kit Car lets you build to suit your needs and the society where you live. So this is a second benefit.
If you're reading slashdot you're probably technically-minded. You can build things. Rather than mucking about with trying to hack the black box, I present- THE KIT CAR.
Not only do you get to customize every single detain of one of these vehicles to your own tastes, and not only do the often cost considerably less than a car off the lot but consider the following:
1. You know exactly what your car's electrical system is doing and how it works. If you only want 3 circuits (and plan to use hand signals to turn) you can have only 3 circuits.
2. You can avoid emissions and horsepower limitations (these are imposed at the federal level on manufacturers - build for yourself and you're not regulatable.)
3. You can be selective about the equipment. Not a fan of seatbelts? Don't install them. Don't like the idea of an airbag in the face making you loose control of your car after the first bump in a possible 10 car pile-up? Don't install it. (Drive at your own risk.)
4. It need not look like a jelly bean.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. Just like your software, if you don't want someone sneaking features in - build it yourself.
(Except of course that given the way language works I think it would be far easier to come up with new words than to get the masses to change old habits. And I'm sure there are reporters who use the word science when they mean philosophy... but they probably shouldn't.)
They are not practicing science and are only interested in proving what they already believe.
You've also articulated what is probably the biggest way modern christianity harms its own credibility... but since the slashcode isn't even nesting these comments anymore it'll have to wait for another thread.
Lots of ranting about how the US is just going to scoff at this "international law." But perhaps one point of clarification should be presented.
Treaties do constitute international law, but they are only binding on those nations which sign (and in the case of the US ratify) it. As such non-signatory nations who do not adhere to the terms of the Kyoto treaty are not in violation of any law.
The states & local governments still retain the power to enact a personal property tax. They're going to get the money they need to operate somehow, would you prefer they tax the access, or tax ownership of a modem?
I think we're degenerating into questions of symantics and personal experience.
For symantics, I doubt that the readers or the reporter make any distinction between "science" as any effort to learn more about the world and "science" as limited by reproduceable physical experiment and extrapolation. To the common reader, "science" is something done by anyone in a lab coat. "Philosophy" is something done by bearded men with greek names a couple thousand years ago. Neither of these is accurate.
For experience, my undergraduate studies at state funded universities were spent among very educated people doing amazing research in the areas of animal science, muscle cell biology, and geology, by ardent creationists. I suspect from your tone though that your environment was overrun with an entirely different sort of creationist.
If we really want to maintain a distinction in the popular consciousnes between that research which limits itself as you define "science" and that which permits the inclusion of "soft" evidence and probability we'll need new words for both, and a means to convince the reading public to adopt them.
The basis (sic) behind the tax deductibility of mortgage interest (and the tax exemp statuts of the first $250,000 gain on sale of a principle residence) is to encourage home ownership. Ownership is encouraged because it tends to create a society of people with a vested interest in their community and reduce transience - home owners vote more than renters for example.
In addition, there is nothing that says the value of your property will increase even though you're making payments on your investment. If the value remains conastant, in the end when you've paid off your loan you have paid double what it's worth. This would be a loss, but rather than try to predict the market the system simply exempts the interest you pay. Thus assuming no market change your home is worth exactly the money you put into it, and that money you already earned and paid income tax upon.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone else think the only solution to most of our problems is to stop taking federal money?
1. If you accept federal money, you have to track all of your students personal information and send it to Washington D.C.
2. If you accept federal money, you have to run national tests on your students make sure they meet standards set in Washington which may have little or nothing to do with the needs of your region.
3. If you accept federal money you have to limit the number of billboards on your roads, your drinking age, safety laws, etc... etc...
Anyone else see a theme to all of these problems?
Congress, the cause, and solution, to our copyright woes...
Has any effort been made to request of congress the creation of a statutory "safe harbor" with respect to the use of material eligible for copyright protection but otherwise abandoned? Would it hurt Disney if the law included protection from liability for those who make a good faith effort to get permission but receive no response?
For that matter, if we really want to treat IP with the same rules as physical property, then should notions about adverse possession, abandonment, and eminent domain apply?
Many ask why aol/netscape bother with maintaining a browser. Perhaps the answer can be found by looking at AOL as a whole rather than just at the browsers themselves.
Sure, this version of Netscape will probably go the way of others. It will also create, for a short while at least, greater diversity in the browser arena. This would, it seems, tend to force all browsers toward a unified standard of interoperability.
AOL does not sell browsers, it sells content. If unified standards are used, it is better able to deliver that content. With a diverse browser environment, AOL also stands a better chance of not being "shut out" when a single, dominant, browser is "innovated" such that it can no longer reach AOL services. (Not that Microsoft would ever do that sort of thing.)
I hear postage stamps are going up to $.41 soon, its getting pretty expensive. Maybe I'll have to try out this electronic mail to send letters to my friends and family.
Why yes, I DO live in North Dakota. Why do you ask?
people feel that they are qualified to vote for a presidential candidate more or less directly.
This is exactly the problem. In the last election, every time I thought I had the best candidate identified, news media outlets or the other campaign would refute me. The only solid way to find the best candidate is to spend hours and dollars rooting through their records over the years. Even if I can muster the time, energy, and money to do this, I don't want to. Rather, let me or my legislature vote for some up-standig citizen from my own state to be the elector. And lets give him a budget and a staff while we're at it.
You know, if we'd just let the electors do their jobs, none of this would be an issue. Unless of course Diebold can predict:
1. Which presidential electors will be nominated for each candidate in each party two or more years in advance;
2. Which of these candidates will be favored by each state legislature candidate in each district two or more years in advancec;
3. Which of these electors will be favored by the state legislature as a whole when november 2008 comes around;
4. How each elector, once finally slected, is going to vote.
The Electoral College - its solid, secure, hard to influence, not subject to ad campaigns, and what the founders intended. Why don't we use it?
I guess I was operating under the assumption that one would buy the machine with windows pre-installed and operating. I'm assuming I guess that the vendor who sold me the pirate copy pre-installed has already clicked through everything in the way of first-run wizards et al, and sold me a running machine.
Say I have a pre-installed pirate copy of windows. I go to Microsoft and take advantage of their offer. I now have a legitimate copy of XP, and as I'm installing I actually (gawd forbid) read the EULA and decide I don't agree...
1. Can I get a refund from Microsoft since they shut down the dealer who was selling pirate copies?
2. What information will Microsoft keep about me if I try to take advantage of this offer?
I've followed this thread for quite a while, fascinating stuff. Does anyone else see that the reasoning proposed by Marxis Hacker, that a man must do absolutely everything he can to support an idea if he really believes in it, is exactly the same sort of reasoning that led to the reformation in the first place?
I'll wager that no matter how much you do to support any cause, I can think of something else that you could have done. Perfection is an impossibility, and when you impose it on others you only drive a wedge between them and your beliefs.
-1 off topic...
You may be onto something here... how soon till we see a nice FOSS "screen saver" that, instead of searching for ET or calculating the number of monkeys required to type Shakespear, does the really useful task of screwing up efforts to mine data from the internet?
Heck, I'd probably even pay for such a program.
I've been wondering for years why I don't see any chatroom bots built on Eliza or Alice. It seems to me these could be much more useful in both advertising and gathering information.
Has anyone ever tried this?
Fortunately, different governments with competing interests control different aspects of the military, the law, the prisons, and most of the schools.
Lets hope greed and avarice can keep things on an even keel between them.
On the other hand, if the internal combustion engine was never invented, why would we have these safety and environmental laws?
Oh, and why not just use nature's solar generators in the form of ethanol and soy diesel? They're easy to make and more fun to look at than 100 square miles of silver dishes.
(Yes, ethanol can be made by energy efficient means once enough production infrastructure is in place. It will not, over the long run take more energy to make than it produces.)
"Considering we here in Canada have no such right to refuse testimony and we still don't torture citizens for evidence, I'm not sure what your point is."
My point is that your government COULD. In most United States, at the time this right was drafted, such action was quite likely. It seems you are arguing that because neither the right nor the "torture" exist in Canada, the right is of no value in the United States. This reasoning suffers from two flaws:
1. The United States have different cultures than Canada, and thus require different laws.
2. To argue that what because Canada never had this problem and therefore the right is useless is like arguing that, since I've never been in an accident I shouldn't wear my seatbelt.
I would also suggest that allowing a person who'se entire future is in the hands of the government which seeks to convict him, to be compelled to testify by that same government creates an inherent conflict of interest.
Then of course there are the Natural Law origins of rights in general... but these are the subject of a much longer discussion.
Of course elrong was tempted by the ring - as was Galadriel... But more to the point, it is evil to take the lives of those whose only crime is to fall victim to the ring. This is why nobody ever killed Gollum. Elrond, like Gandalf, was wise and knew this.
That work for you?
Actually it exists to keep the regime in power from using "leverage" to get you to confess. Pleading the fifth might occasionally look bad to a jury, but they're not stupid and they know not to consider that in deciding their verdict. Of corse the argument can be made that we don't torture people to get confessions anymore - But that is because we have this rule on the books. Consider the terrorist prison camps - any "torture" going on there?
Where the 5th really comes into play is when the defendant simply does not testify at all. This lets the trial proceed without the whole "I plead the 5th" thing even comming up. The state cannot call the defendant to be a witness, the witness does not need to "plead the fifth" and the jury never worries about it.
Actually, a lot of these posts raise an interesting question. If technology is going to be able to tell everything about you, for good or ill, what exactly is your right not to testify against yourself worth?
As for the seatbelt thing, most state laws require you to use one if your car was manufactured with one pursuant to the federal regulations. In many states, the seatbelt laws are such that not wearing one in and of itself is not a crime, but it increases the fine if you're cited for some other infraction. The regulations mentioned are promulgated under the commerce power and reach manufaturers selling in interstate commercee. The federal regulations do not reach the individual building for himself, therefore the car can in fact be manufactured without seatbelts, or a gas guage, or a speedometer, or even seats that are attached.
"Today's society" is probably a misnomer, since at least where I live nobody has ever heard of yearly inspections, and seatbelts are something you wear on certain trips (like those where you'll actually SEE another car.) But the bit about New Hampshire is very astute - the Kit Car lets you build to suit your needs and the society where you live. So this is a second benefit.
For us at least:
If you're reading slashdot you're probably technically-minded. You can build things. Rather than mucking about with trying to hack the black box, I present- THE KIT CAR.
Not only do you get to customize every single detain of one of these vehicles to your own tastes, and not only do the often cost considerably less than a car off the lot but consider the following:
1. You know exactly what your car's electrical system is doing and how it works. If you only want 3 circuits (and plan to use hand signals to turn) you can have only 3 circuits.
2. You can avoid emissions and horsepower limitations (these are imposed at the federal level on manufacturers - build for yourself and you're not regulatable.)
3. You can be selective about the equipment. Not a fan of seatbelts? Don't install them. Don't like the idea of an airbag in the face making you loose control of your car after the first bump in a possible 10 car pile-up? Don't install it. (Drive at your own risk.)
4. It need not look like a jelly bean.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. Just like your software, if you don't want someone sneaking features in - build it yourself.
Wow... it has taken a long time, but I agree.
(Except of course that given the way language works I think it would be far easier to come up with new words than to get the masses to change old habits. And I'm sure there are reporters who use the word science when they mean philosophy... but they probably shouldn't.)
They are not practicing science and are only interested in proving what they already believe.
You've also articulated what is probably the biggest way modern christianity harms its own credibility... but since the slashcode isn't even nesting these comments anymore it'll have to wait for another thread.
Alas, this does not appear to be it, I think I saw this back in the early 1980's
Lots of ranting about how the US is just going to scoff at this "international law." But perhaps one point of clarification should be presented.
Treaties do constitute international law, but they are only binding on those nations which sign (and in the case of the US ratify) it. As such non-signatory nations who do not adhere to the terms of the Kyoto treaty are not in violation of any law.
The states & local governments still retain the power to enact a personal property tax. They're going to get the money they need to operate somehow, would you prefer they tax the access, or tax ownership of a modem?
I think we're degenerating into questions of symantics and personal experience.
For symantics, I doubt that the readers or the reporter make any distinction between "science" as any effort to learn more about the world and "science" as limited by reproduceable physical experiment and extrapolation. To the common reader, "science" is something done by anyone in a lab coat. "Philosophy" is something done by bearded men with greek names a couple thousand years ago. Neither of these is accurate.
For experience, my undergraduate studies at state funded universities were spent among very educated people doing amazing research in the areas of animal science, muscle cell biology, and geology, by ardent creationists. I suspect from your tone though that your environment was overrun with an entirely different sort of creationist.
If we really want to maintain a distinction in the popular consciousnes between that research which limits itself as you define "science" and that which permits the inclusion of "soft" evidence and probability we'll need new words for both, and a means to convince the reading public to adopt them.
The basis (sic) behind the tax deductibility of mortgage interest (and the tax exemp statuts of the first $250,000 gain on sale of a principle residence) is to encourage home ownership. Ownership is encouraged because it tends to create a society of people with a vested interest in their community and reduce transience - home owners vote more than renters for example.
In addition, there is nothing that says the value of your property will increase even though you're making payments on your investment. If the value remains conastant, in the end when you've paid off your loan you have paid double what it's worth. This would be a loss, but rather than try to predict the market the system simply exempts the interest you pay. Thus assuming no market change your home is worth exactly the money you put into it, and that money you already earned and paid income tax upon.