Ever since the apollo program happened, I have thought it would be cool to point a telescope at the moon and look at the junk we left up there. So I have two questions for the more celestially inclined at Slashdot - 1) what kind of telescope would it take? (I have access to a 20 or 22 incher) and 2) where can I find a map of the landing sites to know where to look to see the landers and flags and rovers? Also, wouldn't this end all the controversy? They landed on the face we see and it was lit by the sun when they landed so it should at least always be facing us. Any ideas anyone.
And let me tell YOU how it was. A phone survey came to my home handset one day claiming it was a random survey of voters. I, of course, later found it strange that the only ones who ever got this survey were those of us who were state delegates. (We are a clse knot group here.) What I found even more strange is that the called ME and asked explicitly for ME at a phone number that is not in my name. I haven't had a phone in my own name for over 9 years now. But the asked explicitly for ME. The only people who know I am at this number are my close friends, (both of them), my church leaders, and my kids - OH YEAH, and the republican party of Utah since they needed it because I was a state delegate. So when I asked the surveyors how they got my number, they had no real answer and I refused to answer the questions. So they called me back and tried again. It was obvioiusly sponsored by the teachers lobby, who have usurped control of the republican party here in Utah (and thus political control of the state thereby). But at the convention, we were informed that the nomination for "all federal seats" could be declaired won by acclaimation if the convention vote for one candidate was greater than only 60%! It used to be over 75%. But this time it was only 60%. And wouldn't you know it - Hatch got 61% of the vote. Think of it - Hatch would not have to fight a costly runoff campaign within the party for the primary elections. I just suspect they knew (by virtue of this so-called random survey) what the outcome would be since that was one of the questions they asked explicitly.
They already have such a thing - it's part of Robert's rules of order, and it's called the ungermain ammendment objection. Unfortunately it requires someone to verbally raise the objection - it doesn't kick in automatically. And since they (up on Capitol Hill) all live by these ungermain ammendments, no one is going to ever raise the objection. So unless we can get a constitutional ammendment restricting this sort of thing - we're FSCKed. I guess the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.
It has long been recognized by legal theorists that it is impossible to license work on intellectual property. This is because you cannot stop someone - or anyone for that matter - from thinking. Or reasoning. Or asking qustions. It is simply intrinsic to being human. And there is virtually no other human activity of any significance that is outside the reach of legal control by licensing. And for all recorded history, from the most ancient of biblical times to the present, there has never been a time when someone has not been trying to control the whole of the human race. Or at least as much of it as they were aware of at the time.
We who work with intellectual property all day and every day are the last "freemen" on planet earth. The last "cowboys". Or the last group of "loose cannons". You may look at this treaty in any number of ways, as the responses here have shown. To me it is not much more than a first step to regulating those of us who work on intellectual property.
They cannot stop us from asking questions or tinkering or "hacking". But if they can control access to the tools we use and the ability to share our answers with each other then a form of licensing suddenly exists. I do not believe this will stop until we are just another trade union or professional association, as it were - licenseable and regulated.
(FWIW, everyone here can think of at least one large corporation that would certainly not mind if we could not share our discoveries of THEIR security holes. But I digress.)
Like all of you, I have heard the "justifications" they give for what they are trying to do. If they can give no better reasons that those they proffer, then I can only call what they are proposing an ignorant and paranoid overreaction to a misunderstanding of what may actually be a contrived "problem". It is certainly an excessive measure in light of the limited scope of the problem they say they are trying to solve.
But what they are proposing makes much more sense if you consider that their first intent is to control. This could easily be seen as another implementation of the oldest trick of tyrants - 1)create a "problem" 2)get people agitated 3)hold out a "solution" that no one would otherwise accept in a million years - a "solution" that invariably results in severe reductions of freedom.
Bogy Wan,
A firm believer in conspiracy.
[Flame shields on]
. . . even the US Postal Service didn't want anything to do with.US. . . .
And there is a very good reason for this. Back in 1981 (the year that they took the copper out of our pennies) The US Post Office and all it's operations were turned over to the Rockefeller Foundation. And they are not a part of the U. S. government. That is why they do not go by the name "United States Post Office" anymore. Because they are *NOT* the U.S Post Office. "It" is now a private organization that provides a *service* to the "United States".
Like most of us - you were probably asleep while it happened.
Bogy
Slashdot Mirror
Ever since the apollo program happened, I have thought it would be cool to point a telescope at the moon and look at the junk we left up there. So I have two questions for the more celestially inclined at Slashdot - 1) what kind of telescope would it take? (I have access to a 20 or 22 incher) and 2) where can I find a map of the landing sites to know where to look to see the landers and flags and rovers? Also, wouldn't this end all the controversy? They landed on the face we see and it was lit by the sun when they landed so it should at least always be facing us. Any ideas anyone.
And let me tell YOU how it was. A phone survey came to my home handset one day claiming it was a random survey of voters. I, of course, later found it strange that the only ones who ever got this survey were those of us who were state delegates. (We are a clse knot group here.) What I found even more strange is that the called ME and asked explicitly for ME at a phone number that is not in my name. I haven't had a phone in my own name for over 9 years now. But the asked explicitly for ME. The only people who know I am at this number are my close friends, (both of them), my church leaders, and my kids - OH YEAH, and the republican party of Utah since they needed it because I was a state delegate. So when I asked the surveyors how they got my number, they had no real answer and I refused to answer the questions. So they called me back and tried again. It was obvioiusly sponsored by the teachers lobby, who have usurped control of the republican party here in Utah (and thus political control of the state thereby). But at the convention, we were informed that the nomination for "all federal seats" could be declaired won by acclaimation if the convention vote for one candidate was greater than only 60%! It used to be over 75%. But this time it was only 60%. And wouldn't you know it - Hatch got 61% of the vote. Think of it - Hatch would not have to fight a costly runoff campaign within the party for the primary elections. I just suspect they knew (by virtue of this so-called random survey) what the outcome would be since that was one of the questions they asked explicitly.
They already have such a thing - it's part of Robert's rules of order, and it's called the ungermain ammendment objection. Unfortunately it requires someone to verbally raise the objection - it doesn't kick in automatically. And since they (up on Capitol Hill) all live by these ungermain ammendments, no one is going to ever raise the objection. So unless we can get a constitutional ammendment restricting this sort of thing - we're FSCKed. I guess the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.
It has long been recognized by legal theorists that it is impossible to license work on intellectual property. This is because you cannot stop someone - or anyone for that matter - from thinking. Or reasoning. Or asking qustions. It is simply intrinsic to being human. And there is virtually no other human activity of any significance that is outside the reach of legal control by licensing. And for all recorded history, from the most ancient of biblical times to the present, there has never been a time when someone has not been trying to control the whole of the human race. Or at least as much of it as they were aware of at the time. We who work with intellectual property all day and every day are the last "freemen" on planet earth. The last "cowboys". Or the last group of "loose cannons". You may look at this treaty in any number of ways, as the responses here have shown. To me it is not much more than a first step to regulating those of us who work on intellectual property. They cannot stop us from asking questions or tinkering or "hacking". But if they can control access to the tools we use and the ability to share our answers with each other then a form of licensing suddenly exists. I do not believe this will stop until we are just another trade union or professional association, as it were - licenseable and regulated. (FWIW, everyone here can think of at least one large corporation that would certainly not mind if we could not share our discoveries of THEIR security holes. But I digress.) Like all of you, I have heard the "justifications" they give for what they are trying to do. If they can give no better reasons that those they proffer, then I can only call what they are proposing an ignorant and paranoid overreaction to a misunderstanding of what may actually be a contrived "problem". It is certainly an excessive measure in light of the limited scope of the problem they say they are trying to solve. But what they are proposing makes much more sense if you consider that their first intent is to control. This could easily be seen as another implementation of the oldest trick of tyrants - 1)create a "problem" 2)get people agitated 3)hold out a "solution" that no one would otherwise accept in a million years - a "solution" that invariably results in severe reductions of freedom. Bogy Wan, A firm believer in conspiracy. [Flame shields on]
. . . even the US Postal Service didn't want anything to do with .US. . . .
And there is a very good reason for this. Back in 1981 (the year that they took the copper out of our pennies) The US Post Office and all it's operations were turned over to the Rockefeller Foundation. And they are not a part of the U. S. government. That is why they do not go by the name "United States Post Office" anymore. Because they are *NOT* the U.S Post Office. "It" is now a private organization that provides a *service* to the "United States".
Like most of us - you were probably asleep while it happened.
Bogy