I dislike letting people coast on the work of others, especially by government granted mandate, but I think it's better to have a set period of time rather than 'life', it lets someone's spouse plan a purchase knowing the work will have the same value tomorrow (even if the creator is hit by a car) as it does today. But this term should be short enough that you don't have generations of brats holding onto works from the only talented member of their family, milking a piece of society's shared history for every dollar.
But with 100+ year copyrights, it's not as if someone is going to pay four times more for a work than they would with an ~28 year copyright... At some point you get diminishing returns. The problem is that lawmakers don't see copyright as a balance, so to them, any return (to the corporations who fund their campaigns) is worth it.
Personally I imagine that 25-50 years is about enough to get close to the maximum that people will pay.
One thing I think would be good, whatever the term, is for people to have to file an unencrypted original with the copyright office, for long-term protection (past a year or two after publication) so that once the work's copyright does expire, however far down the road, it can actually be accessed by the public instead of still being locked on a DVD which can't be accessed without committing a crime, despite the contents beyond legally copyable.
Re:Death before dis' Honor.
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
A few minor nits. The invulnerable top and bottom of the ships doesn't make everything 2D because ships roll onto their sides (relative to the enemy) to escape incoming fire and as such, having someone "above" them means they don't have this safety. Weber discusses 2d walls of battle instead of the lines of battle (and calls his capital ships "ships of the wall" instead of "ships of the line") because to prevent someone "crossing their T" they often form into a wall to trade fire.
Granted, when there are only two ships (or small numbers on each side) they'll always rotate to face the majority of their weapons at the enemy (and at the distances between them, rotating is almost instant compared to wet-navy maneuvers) so everything would appear to be a 2D battle, though perhaps tipped weirdly to the POV of any spectator.
It's not until the LACs (smaller units equivalent to fighters) come into the later books that battles get fought at close range with maneuverable ships that can move around/over the enemy fast enough to keep an enemy from rotating to face them as desired.
I think this is actually fairly realistic, given the technology as written. In a babylon 5 world where weapons appear to be close-ranged only and they employ fighter-type units, this wouldn't be so realistic (the bab5 ships are lumbering compared to the 500+Gs of acceleration in the HH books.)
Secondly, Honor didn't challenge the guy to a duel, she was essentially trapped by her honorary position as the "defender" of the monarch, which let a clause in the constitution allow her to be challenged and meant she (and the monarch) would face fairly severe penalties if they didn't go along with it.
She won the fight with a "what's the real goal" kind of insight like Ender (Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card) where she fought an opponent who was more skilled, but in a stylized form of combat. She opened herself up to take a potentially crippling blow, but only because she didn't care about "touches" and was going for a quick kill. It was the kind of thing that only works once, but actually seems fairly reasonable in a society where duels aren't fought and people train in a stylized form of combat, for an outsider to see a weakness like this.
You may be thinking of where she challenged the professional duelist to a duel (as revenge) and won. It wasn't so much skill, though she is portrayed as being competition level, but the fact that her bionic eye (and presumably fairly obvious targetting software) let her make shots that would have been impossible for a non-cyborg.
As to luck, her main military defeat (only?) was a luck-based one, where she was on the lead ship that walked into an ambush and was unable to escape. This is partly explained as "she makes her own luck" in that she usually plays the role of a system defender and gets to plan an ambush, rather than moving into hostile systems and having to face an encamped enemy.
It reminds me of Ender's Game where while she's very good at many things (Ender too was a martial artist) her success mainly comes down to not getting stuck in the same conceptual traps as her enemies. She always seems to get as good as she gives when it comes to actual back-and-forth missile tossing or the like.
(If I remember a lot of nitpicky details it's because I just read the whole series after buying the CD-ROM, not because I've read them multiple times or anything.)
Couldn't you just not do an SSL site, and thus not offer a signature at all? Or would the updater require it? Ideally it would, but I dunno.
Yeah, the version number incrementing and either upgrading everyone, so the OS would see the broken one as a downgrade, or a "trusted" site that had md5 sums and a list of the latest versions (if not the actual downloadables) so that software could be "expired" remotely.
Re:Brief Plot Description
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
They seem Soviet after book 4(?) when the government changes and people start vanishing for all sorts of reasons.
Of course, that's not a Soviet exclusive, and their financial system isn't (even in name) a socialism, but the USSR is the most recent, obivous, example of this kind of totalitarianism. I think it's actually supposed to be revolutionary France.
Re:Worst Book out of the Series
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
While I do agree that the tech was designed to make space ships into analogues to old wet-navy ships, I don't mind as much, because it gets rid of the "if you can see it, you can kill it" aspect of modern warfare and makes it survivable enough that humans can play a part. Couple that with the lack of FTL communications (over a wide area) and the convenient spacing of star empires, and you've got just enough communications lag to drive the story by allowing the characters enough leeway.
And I like how the technology is always well defined before use. Not the technobabble, he doesn't often explain how something works, unless the specifics matter as to how it will be used, but he always nails the uses down exactly so Honor's clever tactics are something that anyone could have done (and indeed, in one book she uses stolen enemy ships instead of her own navy's ships). This precisely defined technology means it comes across as clever, not some cheesy device to save a character once the emergency has gone on long enough, as Star Trek seems to do.
They both have a character overcome tremendous odds to triumph both militarily first, then politicially. Both characters are very likable and are very "good people" with a strong sense of integrity.
But both authors have a different writing style. Weber is a little more clancy-ish in battles, Bujold's characters tend not to get into fleet-level engagements quite as much.
Both very good, and I'll recommend Elizabeth Moon (writing alone) as well if you like either of them.
Honor, a young female (40ish - in a society with "prolong") naval officer with a strong sense of personal duty and a near-catholic sense of guilt over her failings commands a starship (starting quite small) and fights the enemy, often despite obstructionist politically motived people.
She forms strong friendships, leads people to do great things, and displays great tactical skill (and develops strategic skill) which, when coupled with her drive to serve, make her rise fairly rapidly though the ranks.
Her honesty and sense of duty often gets her into trouble, yet her personal integrity in the end makes people trust her more.
The series rarely (never?) hangs on technobabble or other deus-ex-machina advantage. In fact, she almost always has to do something clever (and it's interesting seeing what Weber will come up with) because she's got fewer forces, or has to defend a planet where the enemy has freedom of movement, etc...
But above that, it reads very well and the characters are deep enough to get into.
Re:Plot, and a little more.
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
Nope. She reminds me of her too. In fact, Weber mentioned a possible mini-series and even though the actress who plays Ivanova isn't 6'2" and half asian, I still think she'd handle it well. She's fairly tall, and has the right, thin yet strong look. And her complexion is mostly right...
I find paperbacks to be much more convenient. I've got so many paperbacks that even with shelves on every clear wall I'm running out of space. Hardcovers take up much more room and are more awkward to carry and read away from home.
I also resent paying more for something I don't want. I'd actually prefer to buy the paperback for the same price as the hardcover and if they brought it out at a premium for the first year, I'd pay it instead of waiting, but not for an awkward version.
What I really want is paperback (pocketbook) sized hardcovers. Something sturdy enough to carry around and spread wide open without losing pages, yet small and light enough to carry and store easily. And without these lame dust-jackets...
Re:This is where a tablet pc would be nice
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
I have half the series in paper, 1, 3-4 and 8-10. I bought the hardcover of 10, with the CD, just after finishing book 4 and by the time I got to 8 (a week later) I didn't switch to the paper book except to take with me to the doctor's office.
I didn't think I'd really like reading on the screen, but it grows on you. It's faster, there's less page flipping (just tap space) and nothing to wear out or hold awkwardly to avoid bending the spine.
I'm going to read this way from now on, when I can. (I should borrow a palm pilot and try the reader on there...)
While the centrists could be seen as a bit libertarian (one of the characters grumbles about instituting a progressive tax during the war) and the society as a whole seems to lean towards the less-laws system of government, I think the social views of the main characters are dead-on for military personel. They realize that the military requirements aren't being met and that despite all the nice sentiments, you need to be able to ensure your safety by making enemies think you're too dangerous to attack.
The problem with calling the main characters libertarians is that modern-day libertarians have many ideas that most people agree with such as "don't pass laws that are useless" and "don't tax me to pay for social programs that nobody wants, or that we could do cheaper" as well as a bunch of ideas that most people would see as somewhat wacky. If a character in a book ever proposes the more reasonable of these ideas, people often call them a libertarian (in a derogatory sense) without realizing that some of the libertarians platforms are reasonable and future societies very well might move in these directions without being a gun-toting anarchy.
Or, the propulsion system emmerged naturally from Weber's desire to make space battles seem like old wet-navy battles (1600-1800s) and from the desire to seperate characters from central command long enough to allow real field commanders who didn't have to phone home for permission to do every little thing, as you'd end up with in a world that had instantaneous communication over interstellar distances. A good design choice, imho.
Quite right. One of the characters says "there's no such thing as suprise, Under those circumstances, 'surprise' usually means not that one opponent truly failed to see what was coming, but rather that she simply misinterpreted what she saw."
I like how Weber can describe a battle in tiny detail, yet doesn't every time, unlike some authors of military fiction. He always describes the new aspects, how Honor yet again "surprises" her opponent, but doesn't discuss each individual hit, except in the first book where it's new.
And you're right, there's no technobabble. If something new is invented (and the books are over twenty years, technology does change) it's discussed and you get to see the navy play with it in simulators and such, where its capabilities are firmly nailed down, so that it can't be a magic widget when needed.
Keep reading. The "bad guys" go from a class-ist "communism in name only" with "evil" motives to an "egalitarian" society run by madmen who'll vanish people for not cheering loudy enough, to a society that in many ways seems to be the better of the two. Through all these phases you follow people on the "evil" side who dislike the totalitarian regime they live in and yet their personal honor doesn't let them abandon their people despite their leaders. And we even see how good intentions aren't enough as a well-meaning rebel ends up being worse than the government he overthrew. But the individual people always have real motives and are always striving to do what they see as right.
In fact, Honor (the character, not the concept) deeply respects many of the enemy commanders and were circumstances different, she'd be good friends with them.
I think partly that the view of the enemies as evil changes as Honor ages and gets a broader view of her own society.
Re:Who is Honor? What's It About? How Do I Work Th
on
War of Honor
·
· Score: 2
If I'd read your review first I'd have been turned off. I don't see Honor Harrington as being Randian in any way except that she's very talented. She isn't one of the socialists in the series, but neither does she come across as a libertarian (the professional tax-dodging whiners, as Berke Breathed called them.)
While the enemy (in the early books) is a dolist state, where everyone is on welfare, it strikes me as a comment about people who sell out for temporary gain more than people who take government handouts. It does bite them, this large burden they have to carry, but then all the political and social systems in the book get examined and we see the flaws in all of them.
Weber makes a few comments that indicate he's on the libertarian side of politics, but mainly in that some characters (not Honor) complain about a progressive tax, and that the "better" societies (that people enjoy living in) have less government control of sexuality and such, but that just seems to make sense.
It's also interesting in that Honor isn't religious, in fact she's an athiest though she rarely says anything that would indicate it, yet the book has what I (an athiest) feel is a fair and positive view of religion.
In fact, I feel less political and social commentary in these books than in most others.
Without getting all metaphysical and silly, I think you can say that people deserve treatment like they give to others. If they go around killing other people I think they "deserve" to be killed in a similar fashion. Much like someone who goes around helping others "deserves" to be treated kindly and helped in return.
I don't see any reason why I need to be completely without sin (if I believed in the concept) to be "better" than a murderer and capable of supporting their death.
That said though, I think a death penalty law is always a bad idea.
So why bother signing code if it's all going to come down to trusted-host security?
What prevents someone downloading all the MS updates, making a collection of all of them with reported bugs, and then when they have a collection of software with enough holes to allow them to "root" any windows box, hacking into a few DNS servers and pointing the XP update name to them (or, if it's an IP, changing routing information) and offering people the authentically signed, broken, MS patches?
Microsoft needs a PK-signed list of current updates, on a signed and dated page (with the ID address of the server in it) so that when you go to a page and it offers you a pluggin you instead go to MS and ask for the most recent version, downloading it from the site only if MS says they're up-to-date and then carefully checking the signature.
Looks like the ACLU supports what they should, equality of religion and the right of even unpopular people to exercise free speech. They probably wouldn't like Nazis any more than we do, but they'd realize that it's better than idiots get the right to speak than that people need government approval first. Most of the rest (drugs, prostitution, etc) is about letting adults decide how to live their own lives and removing "victimless crimes" from the books.
Rights, granted by god... Uh huh, and your presents are really from Santa. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny as well?
The ACLU may be widely supported by communists and socialists, but you might want to consider that the only agency really committed to supporting constitutional rights is supported by these people. I don't see anyone else doing it... Capitalists want to prevent comminists from speaking, communists are evidently comfortable with everyone being able to state their opinion.
If a cable co. can stop uncapping, and they know it's happening, yet they don't bother, it's probably not worth $250k to them as they claimed to the FBI.
Don't blame the victim, yada yada yada. It is the fault of the agressor, but we do tell people to lock their cars. Why is this any different? Do people have no responsibility to protect themselves our has the lawsuit-crazed society decided that personal responsibility is non-PC?
It would be a stupid statement, except that it's in response to MS's line about how they need freedom to innovate. They also bash open source authors for never creating anything new, only copying existing applications. In that light, it makes sense to point out that nothing MS has made has ever been more than an obvious step, or purchased from a smaller, more original company.
If they spout FUD, they can expect to have it thrown back at them.
Those numbers show me firmly in the Windows camp, IE6 on XP. But I run Mozilla on Linux.
I don't doubt there are a lot of Windows users here, but keep in mind that nobody spoofs using Mozilla on Linux, but many people spoof the other way, thanks to web designers without clues.
And they get their training in India, and they sit in India waiting to be hired (basically). That provides a fairly large pool of skilled and semi-skilled workers who will work for local (Indian) wages instead of N.A. wages.
Those wages might be expensive compared to others in the country, but compared to going overseas for anything they need, it's dirt cheap.
Besides, Linux is perfect for a university. It's a working system that you can look into and examine. You couldn't become either an automotive engineer or a mechanic without taking cars apart, nor can you become a decent CS grad, or admin, without disecting a few systems and seeing what makes them tick.
Slashdot Mirror
I dislike letting people coast on the work of others, especially by government granted mandate, but I think it's better to have a set period of time rather than 'life', it lets someone's spouse plan a purchase knowing the work will have the same value tomorrow (even if the creator is hit by a car) as it does today. But this term should be short enough that you don't have generations of brats holding onto works from the only talented member of their family, milking a piece of society's shared history for every dollar.
But with 100+ year copyrights, it's not as if someone is going to pay four times more for a work than they would with an ~28 year copyright... At some point you get diminishing returns. The problem is that lawmakers don't see copyright as a balance, so to them, any return (to the corporations who fund their campaigns) is worth it.
Personally I imagine that 25-50 years is about enough to get close to the maximum that people will pay.
One thing I think would be good, whatever the term, is for people to have to file an unencrypted original with the copyright office, for long-term protection (past a year or two after publication) so that once the work's copyright does expire, however far down the road, it can actually be accessed by the public instead of still being locked on a DVD which can't be accessed without committing a crime, despite the contents beyond legally copyable.
A few minor nits. The invulnerable top and bottom of the ships doesn't make everything 2D because ships roll onto their sides (relative to the enemy) to escape incoming fire and as such, having someone "above" them means they don't have this safety. Weber discusses 2d walls of battle instead of the lines of battle (and calls his capital ships "ships of the wall" instead of "ships of the line") because to prevent someone "crossing their T" they often form into a wall to trade fire.
Granted, when there are only two ships (or small numbers on each side) they'll always rotate to face the majority of their weapons at the enemy (and at the distances between them, rotating is almost instant compared to wet-navy maneuvers) so everything would appear to be a 2D battle, though perhaps tipped weirdly to the POV of any spectator.
It's not until the LACs (smaller units equivalent to fighters) come into the later books that battles get fought at close range with maneuverable ships that can move around/over the enemy fast enough to keep an enemy from rotating to face them as desired.
I think this is actually fairly realistic, given the technology as written. In a babylon 5 world where weapons appear to be close-ranged only and they employ fighter-type units, this wouldn't be so realistic (the bab5 ships are lumbering compared to the 500+Gs of acceleration in the HH books.)
Secondly, Honor didn't challenge the guy to a duel, she was essentially trapped by her honorary position as the "defender" of the monarch, which let a clause in the constitution allow her to be challenged and meant she (and the monarch) would face fairly severe penalties if they didn't go along with it.
She won the fight with a "what's the real goal" kind of insight like Ender (Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card) where she fought an opponent who was more skilled, but in a stylized form of combat. She opened herself up to take a potentially crippling blow, but only because she didn't care about "touches" and was going for a quick kill. It was the kind of thing that only works once, but actually seems fairly reasonable in a society where duels aren't fought and people train in a stylized form of combat, for an outsider to see a weakness like this.
You may be thinking of where she challenged the professional duelist to a duel (as revenge) and won. It wasn't so much skill, though she is portrayed as being competition level, but the fact that her bionic eye (and presumably fairly obvious targetting software) let her make shots that would have been impossible for a non-cyborg.
As to luck, her main military defeat (only?) was a luck-based one, where she was on the lead ship that walked into an ambush and was unable to escape. This is partly explained as "she makes her own luck" in that she usually plays the role of a system defender and gets to plan an ambush, rather than moving into hostile systems and having to face an encamped enemy.
It reminds me of Ender's Game where while she's very good at many things (Ender too was a martial artist) her success mainly comes down to not getting stuck in the same conceptual traps as her enemies. She always seems to get as good as she gives when it comes to actual back-and-forth missile tossing or the like.
(If I remember a lot of nitpicky details it's because I just read the whole series after buying the CD-ROM, not because I've read them multiple times or anything.)
Couldn't you just not do an SSL site, and thus not offer a signature at all? Or would the updater require it? Ideally it would, but I dunno.
Yeah, the version number incrementing and either upgrading everyone, so the OS would see the broken one as a downgrade, or a "trusted" site that had md5 sums and a list of the latest versions (if not the actual downloadables) so that software could be "expired" remotely.
They seem Soviet after book 4(?) when the government changes and people start vanishing for all sorts of reasons.
Of course, that's not a Soviet exclusive, and their financial system isn't (even in name) a socialism, but the USSR is the most recent, obivous, example of this kind of totalitarianism. I think it's actually supposed to be revolutionary France.
While I do agree that the tech was designed to make space ships into analogues to old wet-navy ships, I don't mind as much, because it gets rid of the "if you can see it, you can kill it" aspect of modern warfare and makes it survivable enough that humans can play a part. Couple that with the lack of FTL communications (over a wide area) and the convenient spacing of star empires, and you've got just enough communications lag to drive the story by allowing the characters enough leeway.
And I like how the technology is always well defined before use. Not the technobabble, he doesn't often explain how something works, unless the specifics matter as to how it will be used, but he always nails the uses down exactly so Honor's clever tactics are something that anyone could have done (and indeed, in one book she uses stolen enemy ships instead of her own navy's ships). This precisely defined technology means it comes across as clever, not some cheesy device to save a character once the emergency has gone on long enough, as Star Trek seems to do.
They both have a character overcome tremendous odds to triumph both militarily first, then politicially. Both characters are very likable and are very "good people" with a strong sense of integrity.
But both authors have a different writing style. Weber is a little more clancy-ish in battles, Bujold's characters tend not to get into fleet-level engagements quite as much.
Both very good, and I'll recommend Elizabeth Moon (writing alone) as well if you like either of them.
Honor, a young female (40ish - in a society with "prolong") naval officer with a strong sense of personal duty and a near-catholic sense of guilt over her failings commands a starship (starting quite small) and fights the enemy, often despite obstructionist politically motived people.
She forms strong friendships, leads people to do great things, and displays great tactical skill (and develops strategic skill) which, when coupled with her drive to serve, make her rise fairly rapidly though the ranks.
Her honesty and sense of duty often gets her into trouble, yet her personal integrity in the end makes people trust her more.
The series rarely (never?) hangs on technobabble or other deus-ex-machina advantage. In fact, she almost always has to do something clever (and it's interesting seeing what Weber will come up with) because she's got fewer forces, or has to defend a planet where the enemy has freedom of movement, etc...
But above that, it reads very well and the characters are deep enough to get into.
Nope. She reminds me of her too. In fact, Weber mentioned a possible mini-series and even though the actress who plays Ivanova isn't 6'2" and half asian, I still think she'd handle it well. She's fairly tall, and has the right, thin yet strong look. And her complexion is mostly right...
I find paperbacks to be much more convenient. I've got so many paperbacks that even with shelves on every clear wall I'm running out of space. Hardcovers take up much more room and are more awkward to carry and read away from home.
I also resent paying more for something I don't want. I'd actually prefer to buy the paperback for the same price as the hardcover and if they brought it out at a premium for the first year, I'd pay it instead of waiting, but not for an awkward version.
What I really want is paperback (pocketbook) sized hardcovers. Something sturdy enough to carry around and spread wide open without losing pages, yet small and light enough to carry and store easily. And without these lame dust-jackets...
I have half the series in paper, 1, 3-4 and 8-10. I bought the hardcover of 10, with the CD, just after finishing book 4 and by the time I got to 8 (a week later) I didn't switch to the paper book except to take with me to the doctor's office.
I didn't think I'd really like reading on the screen, but it grows on you. It's faster, there's less page flipping (just tap space) and nothing to wear out or hold awkwardly to avoid bending the spine.
I'm going to read this way from now on, when I can. (I should borrow a palm pilot and try the reader on there...)
While the centrists could be seen as a bit libertarian (one of the characters grumbles about instituting a progressive tax during the war) and the society as a whole seems to lean towards the less-laws system of government, I think the social views of the main characters are dead-on for military personel. They realize that the military requirements aren't being met and that despite all the nice sentiments, you need to be able to ensure your safety by making enemies think you're too dangerous to attack.
The problem with calling the main characters libertarians is that modern-day libertarians have many ideas that most people agree with such as "don't pass laws that are useless" and "don't tax me to pay for social programs that nobody wants, or that we could do cheaper" as well as a bunch of ideas that most people would see as somewhat wacky. If a character in a book ever proposes the more reasonable of these ideas, people often call them a libertarian (in a derogatory sense) without realizing that some of the libertarians platforms are reasonable and future societies very well might move in these directions without being a gun-toting anarchy.
Or, the propulsion system emmerged naturally from Weber's desire to make space battles seem like old wet-navy battles (1600-1800s) and from the desire to seperate characters from central command long enough to allow real field commanders who didn't have to phone home for permission to do every little thing, as you'd end up with in a world that had instantaneous communication over interstellar distances. A good design choice, imho.
Quite right. One of the characters says "there's no such thing as suprise, Under those circumstances, 'surprise' usually means not that one opponent truly failed to see what was coming, but rather that she simply misinterpreted what she saw."
I like how Weber can describe a battle in tiny detail, yet doesn't every time, unlike some authors of military fiction. He always describes the new aspects, how Honor yet again "surprises" her opponent, but doesn't discuss each individual hit, except in the first book where it's new.
And you're right, there's no technobabble. If something new is invented (and the books are over twenty years, technology does change) it's discussed and you get to see the navy play with it in simulators and such, where its capabilities are firmly nailed down, so that it can't be a magic widget when needed.
Keep reading. The "bad guys" go from a class-ist "communism in name only" with "evil" motives to an "egalitarian" society run by madmen who'll vanish people for not cheering loudy enough, to a society that in many ways seems to be the better of the two. Through all these phases you follow people on the "evil" side who dislike the totalitarian regime they live in and yet their personal honor doesn't let them abandon their people despite their leaders. And we even see how good intentions aren't enough as a well-meaning rebel ends up being worse than the government he overthrew. But the individual people always have real motives and are always striving to do what they see as right.
In fact, Honor (the character, not the concept) deeply respects many of the enemy commanders and were circumstances different, she'd be good friends with them.
I think partly that the view of the enemies as evil changes as Honor ages and gets a broader view of her own society.
If I'd read your review first I'd have been turned off. I don't see Honor Harrington as being Randian in any way except that she's very talented. She isn't one of the socialists in the series, but neither does she come across as a libertarian (the professional tax-dodging whiners, as Berke Breathed called them.)
While the enemy (in the early books) is a dolist state, where everyone is on welfare, it strikes me as a comment about people who sell out for temporary gain more than people who take government handouts. It does bite them, this large burden they have to carry, but then all the political and social systems in the book get examined and we see the flaws in all of them.
Weber makes a few comments that indicate he's on the libertarian side of politics, but mainly in that some characters (not Honor) complain about a progressive tax, and that the "better" societies (that people enjoy living in) have less government control of sexuality and such, but that just seems to make sense.
It's also interesting in that Honor isn't religious, in fact she's an athiest though she rarely says anything that would indicate it, yet the book has what I (an athiest) feel is a fair and positive view of religion.
In fact, I feel less political and social commentary in these books than in most others.
If genetic material is called exons, shouldn't junk DNA, that which serves no purpose, be called Enrons?
Without getting all metaphysical and silly, I think you can say that people deserve treatment like they give to others. If they go around killing other people I think they "deserve" to be killed in a similar fashion. Much like someone who goes around helping others "deserves" to be treated kindly and helped in return.
I don't see any reason why I need to be completely without sin (if I believed in the concept) to be "better" than a murderer and capable of supporting their death.
That said though, I think a death penalty law is always a bad idea.
So why bother signing code if it's all going to come down to trusted-host security?
What prevents someone downloading all the MS updates, making a collection of all of them with reported bugs, and then when they have a collection of software with enough holes to allow them to "root" any windows box, hacking into a few DNS servers and pointing the XP update name to them (or, if it's an IP, changing routing information) and offering people the authentically signed, broken, MS patches?
Microsoft needs a PK-signed list of current updates, on a signed and dated page (with the ID address of the server in it) so that when you go to a page and it offers you a pluggin you instead go to MS and ask for the most recent version, downloading it from the site only if MS says they're up-to-date and then carefully checking the signature.
Looks like the ACLU supports what they should, equality of religion and the right of even unpopular people to exercise free speech. They probably wouldn't like Nazis any more than we do, but they'd realize that it's better than idiots get the right to speak than that people need government approval first. Most of the rest (drugs, prostitution, etc) is about letting adults decide how to live their own lives and removing "victimless crimes" from the books.
Rights, granted by god... Uh huh, and your presents are really from Santa. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny as well?
The ACLU may be widely supported by communists and socialists, but you might want to consider that the only agency really committed to supporting constitutional rights is supported by these people. I don't see anyone else doing it... Capitalists want to prevent comminists from speaking, communists are evidently comfortable with everyone being able to state their opinion.
My only problem with the death penalty is that you can't take it back if you made a mistake.
Many (most?) of the people killed deserve it, but I'd rather foot the bill to keep them alive in prison forever than kill any innocent people.
If a cable co. can stop uncapping, and they know it's happening, yet they don't bother, it's probably not worth $250k to them as they claimed to the FBI.
Don't blame the victim, yada yada yada. It is the fault of the agressor, but we do tell people to lock their cars. Why is this any different? Do people have no responsibility to protect themselves our has the lawsuit-crazed society decided that personal responsibility is non-PC?
It would be a stupid statement, except that it's in response to MS's line about how they need freedom to innovate. They also bash open source authors for never creating anything new, only copying existing applications. In that light, it makes sense to point out that nothing MS has made has ever been more than an obvious step, or purchased from a smaller, more original company.
If they spout FUD, they can expect to have it thrown back at them.
Those numbers show me firmly in the Windows camp, IE6 on XP. But I run Mozilla on Linux.
I don't doubt there are a lot of Windows users here, but keep in mind that nobody spoofs using Mozilla on Linux, but many people spoof the other way, thanks to web designers without clues.
I'd be somewhat sceptical of those numbers.
And they get their training in India, and they sit in India waiting to be hired (basically). That provides a fairly large pool of skilled and semi-skilled workers who will work for local (Indian) wages instead of N.A. wages.
Those wages might be expensive compared to others in the country, but compared to going overseas for anything they need, it's dirt cheap.
Besides, Linux is perfect for a university. It's a working system that you can look into and examine. You couldn't become either an automotive engineer or a mechanic without taking cars apart, nor can you become a decent CS grad, or admin, without disecting a few systems and seeing what makes them tick.