2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That second clause makes a joke out of any "free speech" guarantee you think you have--it says that speech is free--EXCEPT when the government says it is not.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to demonstrate that ANY restriction on ANY speech can be legally justified by sufficiently bending the letter of "..are necessary... in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".
Most European countries have a similiar clause. Canada has a similar clause, Great Britain has one. The United States does not. Instead, we have "Congress shall make no law abridging...." Notice, no "except for such restrictions as are deemed necessary..." clause, either. Even so, throughout our 225 year history, federal, state and local governments have tried to restrict speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances and the press, but have been beaten back by those willing to fight in the courts for their rights. It's still happening, and will continue to happen, but I think things will eventually shake out into sanity again.
Why? Because we have a 225-year history and tradition that speech is free--and attempts to remove traditional freedoms just get under people's skins. The former monarchies of Europe do not have a good tradition of free speech and press, they have always subordinated freedom to the needs of the State, and (IMHO), Europeans tend to either (a) trust their government too much, or (b) feel they can't do anything about it anyhow. (And if you don't like (b), why the hell did you all decide to saddle yourself with Parlimentarian Democracies when you tossed out the absolutist monarchs? That just substitutes the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the monarch--so long as the majority party is the majority, it can do anything it wants, and the minority, even if it represents 49.9% of the country, can do nothing.)
Pay close attention: it wasn't "the government" that didn't want it publicized, it was the local provinicial government that didn't want it publicized--to reporters from the official Party newspaper! Notice they stopped interfering when the news finally made it to Beijing. Reading between the lines, what happened here was the provincial governor/commissioner/party hacks didn't want the central government learning about their screw-ups and sending them to a "re-education" camp for a few years.
Fred Pohl was merely extrapolating a then-current trend in military manuals. If you've ever seen any WWII or Korean-war era Army manuals, they used a lot of little funny cartoons to illustrate and draw attention to safety issues and correct procedures. I don't think they do that anymore, more's the pity. I still remember the little cartoons reminding artillerymen to set the hydraulic-brace thingies (like backhoes have) before firing the big gun. (If you don't, you get a impromptu demonstration of Newtonian physics = every action has an equal and opposite reaction).
Also, the camel book was very readable and enjoyable because Wall and Christiansen have a gift for using humor to illustrate a point. I wish more programming manuals were written like that--most put me to sleep in the first chapter.
As some one who has worked in both Civil Service and in the private sector, I can tell you: Hell, yes!
Free/OSS software doesn't take a chunk out of the budget and it doesn't have to go through the paperwork-heavy, time-consuming justification/requistion/procurement/etc. Cutting out the procurement/requisition cycle means that you might actually get the software before it becomes obsolete and put it to use while you still need it. $0 cost and no license hassles means less paperwork, and there's nothing a government employee wants to do less than paperwork. (Making other people do paperwork is a whole different story...)
(For the same reason the civil service likes to hire part-time workers--they don't have to budget-justify part-timers and issue an formal "position open" notice, they can just hire the person on the spot. Okay, they can't work "full-time", but they can work up to 39 hours a week for 20 working days a month--and they don't get full-timer benefits, so it's cheaper in the departmental budget).
Caveat: I agree with RMS about a lot of things, but I disagree with him on some things as well. I like the GPL I don't care for idiotic posturing over semantics.
To the driver, the firmware code is just data that is sent to the hardware device on startup. The hardware may see it as a program, but unless the hardware manufacturer has GPL'd his firmware and patents, the GPL does not apply.
Repeat: the firmware is data as far as the drivers and kernel are concerned. It is not linked to the kernel, it is merely hard-coded data to be sent to the hardware device. Last time I looked, the GPL did not require all data manipulated by GPL'd software to be public domain.
RMS is demolishing straw-men and resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Torvalds in this essay.... Seems to me he's done a good job of establishing the intellectual bankruptcy of his "GNU/Linux" argument.
Since SuSE kernels are usually a few version behind the latest stable kernel, AND config'd as one-compile-fits-all kernels, I download a vanilla source from kernel.org and compile a tailored kernel for my own machines shortly after installing a new SuSE version.
I wish they would make it easier to sort out the patches to their LILO, though--I'd like to use the latest LILO code with the pretty graphic menu SuSE has.
Well, you had me nodding and agreeing with you right up until you said you gave money to PETA. I assume you mean the so-called "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals", not some other org with the same acronym?
Since I think PETA is a bunch of raving loons who are totally against most of my values, and who use extremist, terrorist tactics to try and get their way, you just shot your credibility, and that of your argument in the foot. With a shotgun. Loaded with 00 buckshot.
Bingo! That's why SUVs took off--because cars were getting too damn small for the average family with kids. You can't pack two adults and two kids and luggage in a modern sedan in anything like comfort; I can't imagine trying to take a family on a 5-10 hour trip in what are being sold as cars these days. Trunks in those little dinky things aren't big enough for a week's grocery shopping, either.
That, and light trucks/SUVs are higher off the ground, which is a good thing in a city that is mostly below sea-level and is prone to street flooding every time it rains harder than a light drizzle.
In spite of decades of anti-Communist propaganda from the government, I can go to a PUBLIC LIBRARY and check out the works of Karl Marx. I can buy them in a bookstore. I can download them on the Internet. There is no ban, no law against it, no judge insisting that an website in a foriegn country must stop U.S. citizens from accessing Communist propaganda. I can join the Communist Party and vote for Communist candidates if I like. I can discuss the pros and cons of various economic forms on the Internet with a communist lawyer from New York, and it's all perfectly legal.
Can I do that vis-a-vis Nazism if I were a German or Frenchman in Germany or France?
And no, Joe McCarthy doesn't prove anything. The excesses of McCarthy and the House Un-American Committee have long since been condemned and reversed. The excesses of hysteria and demogoguery, in direct opposition to the ideals this country was founded on, do not invalidate those ideals.
After catching up on my casual history reading lately, and learning quite a bit about the socialist and democratic struggles of the 19th century, I now know that this is a fairly common attitude historically. I was also appalled to learn how uncivilized and backward Europe was compared to America during the 19th century, which is very ironic considering the classic European snobbishness toward Americans...
Historical note that applies later on: we (America) did not have a socialist revolution or the serious threat of one because our government was not in the business of squashing every lower-class worker who wanted better working conditions, or even--God forbid!--the vote. At the time, our government was in the business of handing out 40 acres to anyone who wanted to leave the Eastern factories and settle out west. And all those poor workers in America already had the vote. (Thank Ben Franklin for that. If Alexander Hamilton had gotten his way, the U.S. would have devolved into an oligarchy of rich landholders). Wonder why we had so much immigration from Europe during that period?
That's why radical groups are banned. That's why they have to operate underground. That's why Germany is quite keen to ban 'ideas' (I can hear the flames already) and things that are 'dangerous'.
The monarchs of Europe were also quite keen to ban dangerous ideas like "democracy", "freedom of the press", and "labor unions", too. Those ideas were dangerous--to dictators and absolutist monarchies. Again, this is history speaking.
Because people in general are easily seduced by things that make them feel good about themselves. Hitler told Germans that they were special and superior.
That is the classic excuse used by monarchs and oligarchs for not allowing democracy: the people will let themselves be seduced by bad ideas that might lead to chaos and violence. Of course, the real fear was that these ideas might lead to things like the rulers losing priviledges and power--which is, of course, Bad for Society. From their point of view.
Which is to say, it is always the excuse of the elite: we know better than you, you are as children who are easily swayed by the candy in the store window and don't know what's best for you. Frankly, history has shown that so-called elites don't know what's best for anyone, either, and are just concerned with maintaining their own selfish privileges, and that the average adult is quite capable of minding his own affairs if he hasn't been deliberately made incapable of handling them by lack of education and forced dependence. (Which, BTW, is why Jefferson, et al, insisted that an educated citizenry was necessary for democracy to work).
Now, I've never heard that Germans were uneducated, so what are you afraid that your neighbors might want or do, if they were allowed to hear about Nazis, or see a swastika?
Thus, you want to make sure that radical groups that want to dismantle democracy are not allowed a popular mandate. You do not want to legitimize them by allowing them to exist in the public sphere. You do not want to allow them to become coalition partners, to enter local governments, and to slowly subvert and destroy freedom, tolerance, and democracy.
Because that's what they want.
What they want and what they get are two different things. I see a problem with the European approach: who decides which groups are "dangerous radicals"? The government? In that case, anyone who threatens the political class' privileges, perks, and position will be deemed a "radical", count on it. Popular opinion? Well, if so-called "radicals" are unpopular, they aren't much of a threat in a democracy, are they? OTOH, allowing the majority to decide who should be suppressed introduces you to the tyranny of the majority, aka mob rule.
And they're not going to get it. We've been here, we're not going back. We like democracy, we like freedom, we like being able to say whatever we want without being locked up, we don't want to be herded into camps because of our racial distinctions or religious beliefs, and we sure as fuck don't want to let radicals who want to destroy all of that back into the limelight.
But you will, if you keep going as you are. They won't call themselves Nazis, and they won't use swastikas, but they will re-appear, and they will be the guys telling you who are the "dangerous radicals" that need to be suppressed, which speech and ideas are too dangerous to be published, and so on. They will tell the people what they want to hear, and they will be "democratically" chosen, because they will have suppressed all those other, "dangerous" voices. And you will have helped them.
So go on all you want about 'bans are bad!' and 'information wants to be free!'. Naivety will only get you so far, and jackbooted thugs will exploit all of it quite happily while you sit there letting them take away everything you hold dear.
Let me tell you something: we have Nazis and Aryan supremacist radicals in America, too. In Germany, you ban them and try to suppress them, and they have become a significant underground movement in some circles, with a lot of people being sympathetic to their views. In America, they are perfectly free to publicize themselves, preach their views and run for public office, as long as they don't break any of the laws that apply to ALL citizens (murder, theft, fraud, assault, etc.). In America, we laugh at them and consider them a bunch of jerks, and they are nothing more than a fringe movement--and they certainly don't have the passive support of the police when they commit violence (as I have heard has happened with some cases of anti-immigrant attacks in East Germany). If they do something violent, we arrest their asses and thrown them in jail like any other criminal.
Which method of dealing with radicals is working better?
That isn't to say that advocating illegal activity is automatically non-protected speech, but just that there is a point where expression becomes too "dangerous" to be protected. This may offend those with an especially idealistic view of the First Amendment, but is really a necessity in the real world.
It is not that it becomes "too dangerous", it is that beyond a certain point the speaker becomes an accessory to the crime (or a co-conspirator). Also, I believe that inciting someone else to commit a crime is a crime itself.
Why does our society allow for late-term abortions in the events of incest or rape? It's still a "human baby," no? Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?
Because our society is becoming decadent and sick and losing respect for human life and dignity? Yes, those exceptions should be scrapped! What did the baby do in those cases to deserve death? Do you consider it civilized to murder a child for the crimes of the father?
Which life has more "rights" if the woman's health is at risk should she attempt a delivery? Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life? Why?
That is always a hellish choice to be given. It's like separating a pair of lethally-conjoined siamese twins, where only one can live after separation, but both will die if not. Which one do you kill? There is NO right answer. And yes, some moral questions have no right answer--I believe story of Orestes, in Greek myth illustrates such a dilemma, where there was no right answer.
It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job. Unfortunately this world is full of people with less determination and character than yourself. Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?
Why is a crime to murder your toddler if you're too selfish, lazy and ignorant to raise him? Why does society still consider child abuse an appalling crime? Why, then, is it okay to murder a child before birth if his existance after birth will be a burden or inconvenience to you?
What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception?
I think you mean "to birth..." but anyway: a society that does not protect its weakest, most defenseless, most innocent members is a sick society. Do you really want to live in a society where the weak are allowed to live only if their existance is convenient to the strong?
If this were truly an accurate view of society's beliefs, why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools? Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?
We don't charge parents with child abuse when they let their kids eat junk food, either. And anytime anything related to sex is taught at school, a certain segment of the population screams that we're "encouraging kids to have sex!" There goes pre-natal care... Post-natal care used to be taught in schools--it was called "Home Economics". I think someone considered it sexist, so you don't see it except in "backward" states like Louisiana.
If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? Clearly society considers a fetus and a baby two very different things.
It is well known that women go through the same grief from a miscarriage as they do from losing an already-born child. It has also been observed, though it is not politically correct to acknowledge, that women who have abortions frequently suffer the same kind of grief. And the question is, not what society does, but what should it do? What kind of society do you want to live in?
Who thought it was original philosophy? Certainly not the producers--it's blatantly based on Eastern mystical themes. I can see Zen Buddhist and Hindu themes all through the movie... The World is Illusion. Far older than Orwell.
Is that a bad thing? No! It's certainly more interesting than the usual simplistic, one-dimensional themes and plots found in American action movies.
The Internet is nothing more or less than a global medium of communication. There is nothing intrinisic to the Internet that dictates whether what is communicated is good or bad, truth or lie, hateful or loving. The same is true of speech, writing, radio, telephone, or any other mode of two-way communications.
We are in a transition phase, where society around the world is still adjusting to this new, rapid communications medium. Obviously, there is a chunk of the world that has to re-learn the lesson of "don't believe everything you hear/read/etc--check the facts." Some will learn; some people will be perpetually gullible. That's life in the Real World.
By way of illustration, one of the nastiest, most persistant bits of inflammatory propaganda in the last three centuries, one that is still circulating and accepted as fact in some circles, is the infamous Protocols of Zion. That text, originally created by the Russian Czar's secret police in the late 19th century, circulated as a printed work decades before radio or television, let alone the Internet. (I believe you find it on the Internet, however). It was the basis of much of the Nazi's anti-Semitic propaganda, and provides the themes and lies for the current, virulent anti-Semeticism of the Middle East.
The point? The only thing new about the Internet is the rapidity of global communication; the same old evils are still here. On the flip side, the Internet gives everyone with access the chance formerly open only those who could afford global travel: the chance to talk to people in distant places, to read their local news, to hear their views and see their problems. However...
At the end of the day, the Internet is still only a communications medium. It won't magically grant you understanding of those problems, nor will it give you compassion for or empathy with people who face the same basic problems common to all humanity. Neither will it magically force you to hate what you don't understand, or brainwash you into believing rumors without thought.
The so-called "problems of the Internet" are the same problems people have always had with themselves and each other. That these two editorialists are shocked to discover this is rather like the French inspector being shocked to discover gambling in Rick's Cafe... one wonders what the ulterior motive is.
I believe in the strengths of a free press, for the same reasons as the authors of the U.S. Constitution--among other things, a free society is not possible without free communications/free press. I am aware that a free press has its drawbacks, but like the founders of the United States, I believe that an educated citizenry is capable of telling the good from the bad, and that, to such a citizenry, the downsides of a free press are no more than an annoyance.
I believe the Internet is potentially the most powerful free press in the world. I also know that there are governments and other interests that are terrified of the threat represented by a global free press, who would like to see it muzzled by any means possible. The excuse that an unfettered free press causes division and disturbs public order/encourages "agitators"/etc. has long been used by many governments to censor the printed press in their countries.
Traditionally, even the press in most "free" countries has been limited by the high barrier to entry: TV broadcasters have to jump through hoops to get government licensing and permission to use the EM spectrum, expensive equipment has to be bought, highly-paid technicians and support staff have to be hired, etc. Printed press requires a printing press, highly-paid staff, extensive, expensive channels of distribution, etc. TV broadcasters can't offend the government too greatly, or they don't get the licenses and spectrum. Printed publications can't offend the majority tastes too greatly, or they can't get enough customers to pay the cost of entry. Thus, freedom of the press traditionally belonged (as was once said) only those who could afford a printing press. It limits "the press" to a small, select group, and a small, select group is easier to sway to one viewpoint/keep under control than "everyone in the world with enough literacy to string two sentences together".
That's the threat and promise of the Internet as a free press: anyone who can get a website and the trivial technical skill to code a web page can put their views out for the entire to see, ignoring the even simpler methods of spreading news and rumors such as IRC/Usenet/web boards. It's still not a zero-difficulty barrier to entry, but it opens up the "free press" to an uncontrollable number of potential publishers.
As such, the Internet is a grave threat to governments and other bodies who have reason to fear a free press--either because their political model depends on a gullible, uneducated citizenry that only hears what it is believed to be safe for them to hear, or because they really do have something to hide. It is also a threat to the traditional press, who don't seem to welcome competition in their hard-won positions of influencers of public perceptions from a huge bunch of brash upstarts. (God knows they don't want the public deciding for themselves what is worthwhile news and entertainment!)
I ask again: what is the real agenda of these editorials? Keep an eye on whether or not this meme spreads, and what "solutions" are proposed and pushed to "solve" the "problem".
Yes, I've read it. And there are deeper themes in it if you look and are familiar with some of Doc Smith's less famous works, like the Skylark series.
One such theme is the deliberate evolution of humanity toward a superior form and mind. The original Skylark of Space is a lot more blatant in its exploration of eugenics, but it was written before WWII, before the Nazis made "eugenics" a dirty word.
Another theme looked at briefly is that of political science: how do you make an effective, good government for an interstellar empire? In the Lensmen stories, Doc Smith postulated that a good government would only be possible with an uncorruptible law enforcement and judiciary. (That's what the titular lensmen were in Civilization, BTW--incorruptible law enforcement and military authorities.)
Guess what? EU tax laws are NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE UNITED STATES! Officials of American companies that don't have a foreign subsidiary that can be pressured (like Yahoo France was) will no doubt roll on the floor laughing hysterically, and then start counting the extra sales they'll pick up by underpricing the companies that do have to abide by EU stupidities.
The EU cannot enforce this outside the EU, and they know it--look at their FAQ! The "enforcement" section is all about voluntary compliance--which will no doubt be a lot like the "voluntary compliance" where customers are supposed to voluntarily add required state sales taxes to mail orders here in the U.S. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND PAYS TAXES VOLUNTARILY!
If I want to give my money away, I give it away to a church or charitable organization, not the eternally-corrupt, wasteful government.
In the U.S., mail order companies are only required to collect sales taxes in states in which they have an actual storefront presence because there are Constitutional problems with forcing a private business to act as a tax collector in another state. The same laws and issues will prohibit any legal requirements to collect taxes for a foreign authority such as the EU. If Lousiana can't force a California mail-order business to collect sales taxes from a Louisiana customer, what makes those idiots in the EU think they can?
But try _seriously_ explaining that to someone who digs ditches for nine bucks an hour with no benefits.
In the U.S.A, is there any such person outside of prison work gangs? Digging ditches is usually part of either construction work, highway work or water/gas/sewer/electrical line work, and is done with a backhoe by heavily unionized laborers. I doubt that they're getting as little as $9/hour...
I am commenting as someone who has scratch-built many PCs, both for home and business use. First, I'll assume you know what your needs are, and not try to tell you that your 400 Mhz Pentiums are just fine. You said you need to upgrade, I'll take your word for it. I'm also not going to tell you exactly what you should buy, I assume you know what you need/want. And your Win2K license terms aren't my problem, either. Other people have also commented well on anti-static issues.
First, don't start this job until you are comfortable tearing computers apart and putting them back together. Building and repairing computers is fairly simple these days, when everything is componentized, but you do have to know what you are doing. You need to be able to understand those motherboard manuals and figure out what jumpers and BIOS settings you need for your particular configuration. You need to be able to screw motherboards into place and shove cards into slots without breaking them or slicing yourself open on the chassis (I swear every one of my personal computers is christened with my blood!), and plug cables in right-side up. All simple things to learn, but they can be expensive and frustrating to learn the hard way. If you're not comfortable doing these things, don't plan on building 60 PCs yourself. Farm the job out to a good local vendor or technician who is.
Line up a good vendor, either local or mail order, who can sell you what you need, when you need it (finding out replacement parts are unavailable or back-ordered for a month when you need them NOW is not helpful), at a satisfactory price and with a no-hassle return policy--because you will be returning bad components when you order enough for 60 PCs--unless you pay the higher price for a vendor that does 24-hour burn-in. Even then you may not weed out all the bad components.
Make your PCs as much alike as possible--it's easier to assemble a cookie-cutter configuration, and of course, ghosting a Win installation works a lot better if you're using the same drivers from computer to computer. As others have mentioned, don't cheap out on the components! Good quality, name-brand components are worth paying a few dollars extra for; you get fewer returns and mysterious failures, and name-brand quality components are more likely to actually follow the industry specs for whatever device they are, instead of cutting corners the way cheap components sometimes do. BTW, this is where you win over buying cheap pre-built computers: guys like Gateway and those Wal-Mart computers save money by putting the absolutely cheapest, bottom-of-the-line, no-name commodity parts in their computers. That's how they can sell them so cheap. Sometimes it works; back in the early 90s, the favorite no-name graphics card used in our company's computers had the Cirrus Logic chipset, which was a moderately accellerated, halfway decent graphics card that actually had OS/2 drivers (which we were using). Usually, you have the problem with discount computers that the cheapest no-name card changes from week to week, so this week's discount computer may have entirely different components and drivers than last week's discount computer, even though they are supposedly the same model. Now that is a major hassle in the support department!
OTOH, some parts are so commodity that it doesn't matter. Who cares what brand floppy drive you buy? It's a mature technology and they all work alike. IDE CD-ROM drives are much the same way. IDE hard drives are NOT. Neither are SCSI drives. I personally like Western Digital IDE drives and won't touch a Quantum if I can help it; YMMV.
If you're using AMD Athlons or similar chips, invest in a slot fan or bay fan in addition to the CPU fan. If the noise of all those fans is likely to drive people postal in a week, consider spending the extra dollars for low-noise fans.
So, you've got a vendor or three, and you've got a list of parts that meet your criteria for price, performance and quality. To lower your own frustration level, make sure you have plenty of tools; those Phillips-head screwdrivers and nut drivers seem to migrate of their own accord whenever you're not holding them in hand. Also, make sure you have plenty of small screws of various sizes, spare Y-junction internal power cables, and spare IDE cables. Save any leftover small screws that came with cases or whatever; you'll need them sooner or later. Spare mounting rails of various flavors are nice to have around; vendors never seem to ship the right mounting rails for your chassis, if they bother to ship mounting rails at all with the drives. If you are lucky, your chassis's don't need mounting rails at all, but support drives being bolted directly to the chassis. Wish mine did.
If an IDE drive doesn't work, check your master/slave jumper settings first, then the IDE cable (that's why you need spares--I've had a lot more bad cables than I ever had bad drives). Keep a "known good" AGP card around to test out the AGP slot when you think you have a bad graphics card--I've had more bad AGP slots on motherboards than I've had bad graphics cards or bad monitors. Ditto for memory and memory sockets. (The quality control on certain brands *cough*SOYO*cough* of VIA-chipset motherboards was a bit off...) Also, watch the fun-n-games of putting PCI cards that don't share interrupts happily (NIC & AGP combo, particularly) in the wrong slots.
Being able to ghost the first OS + software installation onto all subsequent PCs is a major time and hassle saver.
As for "support" issues, if you can put together the PCs yourself, you can handle most support issues yourself. PC hardware is commoditized and componentized, and a hell of a lot easier to support than PC software. Keep "known good" components around for troubleshooting, and have spares of everything on hand, including and especially power supplies. (Make sure you get an adequate power supply in the first place).
I admit it, I am careless about anti-static precautions. I don't wear a wriststrap, I don't stand on a rubber mat, and I don't have a proper workbench. I do most of my computer work on the dining room table, which is fine as long as I don't set the hard drive on the (open) butter dish and get done before dinner.
However... I live in a very humid climate. Most of the year, I can't build up a noticeable static charge even if I shuffle my sock-clad feet across the shag carpet. Things change in the winter, when it gets dry; I try to avoid working on the internals of my computers then.
I do ground myself to bleed off any static before opening my computers or handling any components. So far, things seem to work, though I do have the occasional brain-damaged motherboard--which I can't tell if it's because of my sloppy anti-static habits or because I buy cheap motherboards. However, the vendor is pretty no-hassle about replacing bad ones, and they are cheap enough in the first place that replacing a slightly flaky one two years down the road when I want to upgrade to the next CPU anyway is no big deal.
YMMV. Frankly, I probably couldn't get away with my current practices in a drier climate.
My age will really show here--I'm 40, and I haven't bought a CD in years. Even other members of my family have only bought a handful of CDs in the last 5-8 years, and those were all CDs of classic rock that we've known and liked for years, and used to have on tape before we had a CD player (plus the occasional blues compilation).
Why? Not because we're downloading infringing music; the only MP3s I have are ripped from my legally purchased CDs or downloaded from small bands that are choosing to distribute their music on the 'net. No, I've stopped buying CDs because there is very little new music that I care diddly about. There is, however, a great deal of old music that I like a lot and will continue to pick up now and then, but since I already have large enough collection to play a different song every hour and not have to hear repeats for a great many days, there isn't much motivation to buy more.... unless it is really, really good.
Oh, and the practice of putting out albums with one mediocre track and the rest not worth listening to also causes me to loose interest in buying new CD albums. When I do like a modern artist, I'll wait for the "Best of..." album to come out, because I prefer to have every track on an album be worth listening to. (If Godsmack is around long enough to have a "Best of..." album, I may pick it up). I'll also buy good movie soundtrack albums, because almost all of the tracks are worth listening to. Classic rock actually had groups that produced entire albums worth listening to!
If a significant fraction of people with disposable income have attitudes similar to mine, (Don't buy new albums, they're crap; if new group has good hits on the radio, wait for them to have enough albums to put together a "Best of..." album; occasionally buy a movie soundtrack or a back catalog item), that just might explain the slump in music sales a hell of a lot more than some imaginary losses to people downloading MP3s.
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business.
It happens in the publishing business every so often, usually by editors. Baen Books was founded/is still run by science-fiction editor Jim Baen. Del Rey Books is now an imprint of a much bigger publishing house, but it was originally the baby of science-fiction author and editor Lester del Rey.
I don't know what the status of Del Rey Books is these days, but from the outside, Baen Books looks like a pretty cool outfit. They are pioneering unencrypted e-books at reasonable prices (Baen Free Library, Webscriptions) and they are one of the very, very few publishers who still read and buy manuscripts "over the transom" (not submitted through an agent). Certain big name sci-fi authors have moved to them from other publishers, so they must be doing something that makes the authors happy, too.
There are also a lot of minor record labels founded by musicians and minor people in the industry, but I have no idea if they are any fairer to their clients than the big labels.
It seems ad-supported software preys on people's urge to try to get something for nothing. Do these adware companies appeal to our lowest urges?
Yes. Anything that says "free," people want. But eventually people will realize there's not really such thing as "free" software. It comes with a price--in this case the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations.
What's this guys address so I can send him a distro of Linux?
Linux, and any other truly free software, do have a hidden cost--but it's not the one cited by another poster. No, the cost is a subtle one, not noticed by most; it is the "cost" of charity. Let me explain.
The GPL as charity: I really like the GPL, because those who choose to distribute their software under its terms are choosing to give their work freely to others without thought or requirement of recompense. That is true charity (in the religious sense). Choosing to use the GPL or similar free software license rather than dumping your code or whatever in the public domain is a choice that says "I want this to be used by others to learn from, to build on, to pass on to others; I don't want you to take what I have given freely and make it into a secret passed on only a select few with money or influence."
Moving on to the next part of this explanation: choosing to pay for valuable goods, be it food or software, is a morally neutral transaction. You got something of value to you, the seller got something of value to him, no obligations remain. Accepting something charitably given (that is, freely given with no intent of recompense), places a subtle burden upon the conscience or soul of the receiver. He who always accepts freely what is given freely, but never gives freely in turn, is rightly regarded as miserly, niggardly, or mean. (Or in the more modern terms of the Internet age, "leech", "parasite", "hog".) If your miserliness is private, if no one knows how much you take and never give back, only you know what you are--but you are still what you choose to become. Believe me, it will affect you in both the short and long run, even if you think you see no real effects.
Finally, he who accepts freely what is given freely, but also gives freely to others of what he has to give, be it time or talent, is rightly known as generous, compassionate, kind, helpful and so on. Again, if what you do is known only to you, you still know what you are--and it will affect you.
That, my friends, is the subtle cost of accepting charity--the moral obligation to be charitable yourself. Personally, it's a cost I'll gladly to pay.
Addendum: I think this is why most people are so greatly offended by hidden scumware in what appears to be freeware: misunderstanding over the nature of the transaction. People downloading "free beer" software tend to naively assume that it is freely, charitably given, a debt to be repaid (or not) according to their own moral code--and are rudely surprised to find out that the supposed giver is a merchant who thought he was selling a valued good, and is now trying to extract his pound of flesh in repayment. It is one thing to knowingly engage in a commercial transaction; it is another to find out that supposed "charity" is the devil trying to collect his due.
Well, 4 years ago (adjust for inflation), in Louisiana (adjust for lower cost of living/lower pay rates), I worked for a computer consultant who charged $75/hour to people he liked, (i.e. his discount rate) for setting up/fixing Windows computers. He was also a greedy little cheat, too. (Adjust for dishonesty). That's one data point for you. Dunno how it compares.
I guess it's MY fault that I have to order a new laptop everytime this paticular sales lady goes out on travel and returns with a mangled laptop because "It's too much trouble to carry it on" This paticular lady i'm thinking of DESTROYED 9 laptops in 3 months! You would think MAYBE after the first one she would wise up BUT SHE KILLED 8 MORE!
Most places I've worked, the subsequent 8 laptops would have come out of HER paycheck--a great incentive to be more careful with company property. (The insane paperwork to get *anything* ordered at my current workplace is a good incentive not to wreck your current box, too). Frankly, as long as it's not coming out of YOUR paycheck, why does her idiocy with laptops spin you up so much? They were still paying you for the work involved, right?
You're laid off, and bitter--I can understand that. Been there, done that a few times. Job searching all over and getting nothing for months on end is incredibly demoralizing. However, you might want to learn to relax and enjoy things a bit more, because that bitterness will show in job interviews. Also, if the job situation is that bad locally, why not search elsewhere? The internet is damn useful for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Read that second clause again:
.)
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That second clause makes a joke out of any "free speech" guarantee you think you have--it says that speech is free-- EXCEPT when the government says it is not.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to demonstrate that ANY restriction on ANY speech can be legally justified by sufficiently bending the letter of "..are necessary... in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".
Most European countries have a similiar clause. Canada has a similar clause, Great Britain has one. The United States does not. Instead, we have "Congress shall make no law abridging...." Notice, no "except for such restrictions as are deemed necessary..." clause, either. Even so, throughout our 225 year history, federal, state and local governments have tried to restrict speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances and the press, but have been beaten back by those willing to fight in the courts for their rights. It's still happening, and will continue to happen, but I think things will eventually shake out into sanity again.
Why? Because we have a 225-year history and tradition that speech is free --and attempts to remove traditional freedoms just get under people's skins. The former monarchies of Europe do not have a good tradition of free speech and press, they have always subordinated freedom to the needs of the State, and (IMHO), Europeans tend to either (a) trust their government too much, or (b) feel they can't do anything about it anyhow. (And if you don't like (b), why the hell did you all decide to saddle yourself with Parlimentarian Democracies when you tossed out the absolutist monarchs? That just substitutes the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the monarch--so long as the majority party is the majority, it can do anything it wants, and the minority, even if it represents 49.9% of the country, can do nothing
Pay close attention: it wasn't "the government" that didn't want it publicized, it was the local provinicial government that didn't want it publicized--to reporters from the official Party newspaper! Notice they stopped interfering when the news finally made it to Beijing. Reading between the lines, what happened here was the provincial governor/commissioner/party hacks didn't want the central government learning about their screw-ups and sending them to a "re-education" camp for a few years.
Fred Pohl was merely extrapolating a then-current trend in military manuals. If you've ever seen any WWII or Korean-war era Army manuals, they used a lot of little funny cartoons to illustrate and draw attention to safety issues and correct procedures. I don't think they do that anymore, more's the pity. I still remember the little cartoons reminding artillerymen to set the hydraulic-brace thingies (like backhoes have) before firing the big gun. (If you don't, you get a impromptu demonstration of Newtonian physics = every action has an equal and opposite reaction).
Also, the camel book was very readable and enjoyable because Wall and Christiansen have a gift for using humor to illustrate a point. I wish more programming manuals were written like that--most put me to sleep in the first chapter.
You're Jon Katz posting under another user id, aren't you? Come on, admit it!
As some one who has worked in both Civil Service and in the private sector, I can tell you: Hell, yes!
Free/OSS software doesn't take a chunk out of the budget and it doesn't have to go through the paperwork-heavy, time-consuming justification/requistion/procurement/etc. Cutting out the procurement/requisition cycle means that you might actually get the software before it becomes obsolete and put it to use while you still need it. $0 cost and no license hassles means less paperwork, and there's nothing a government employee wants to do less than paperwork. (Making other people do paperwork is a whole different story...)
(For the same reason the civil service likes to hire part-time workers--they don't have to budget-justify part-timers and issue an formal "position open" notice, they can just hire the person on the spot. Okay, they can't work "full-time", but they can work up to 39 hours a week for 20 working days a month--and they don't get full-timer benefits, so it's cheaper in the departmental budget).
Caveat: I agree with RMS about a lot of things, but I disagree with him on some things as well. I like the GPL I don't care for idiotic posturing over semantics.
To the driver, the firmware code is just data that is sent to the hardware device on startup. The hardware may see it as a program, but unless the hardware manufacturer has GPL'd his firmware and patents, the GPL does not apply.
Repeat: the firmware is data as far as the drivers and kernel are concerned. It is not linked to the kernel, it is merely hard-coded data to be sent to the hardware device. Last time I looked, the GPL did not require all data manipulated by GPL'd software to be public domain.
RMS is demolishing straw-men and resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Torvalds in this essay.... Seems to me he's done a good job of establishing the intellectual bankruptcy of his "GNU/Linux" argument.
Since SuSE kernels are usually a few version behind the latest stable kernel, AND config'd as one-compile-fits-all kernels, I download a vanilla source from kernel.org and compile a tailored kernel for my own machines shortly after installing a new SuSE version.
I wish they would make it easier to sort out the patches to their LILO, though--I'd like to use the latest LILO code with the pretty graphic menu SuSE has.
Well, you had me nodding and agreeing with you right up until you said you gave money to PETA. I assume you mean the so-called "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals", not some other org with the same acronym?
Since I think PETA is a bunch of raving loons who are totally against most of my values, and who use extremist, terrorist tactics to try and get their way, you just shot your credibility, and that of your argument in the foot. With a shotgun. Loaded with 00 buckshot.
Bad example.
Bingo! That's why SUVs took off--because cars were getting too damn small for the average family with kids. You can't pack two adults and two kids and luggage in a modern sedan in anything like comfort; I can't imagine trying to take a family on a 5-10 hour trip in what are being sold as cars these days. Trunks in those little dinky things aren't big enough for a week's grocery shopping, either.
That, and light trucks/SUVs are higher off the ground, which is a good thing in a city that is mostly below sea-level and is prone to street flooding every time it rains harder than a light drizzle.
And your point is?
In spite of decades of anti-Communist propaganda from the government, I can go to a PUBLIC LIBRARY and check out the works of Karl Marx. I can buy them in a bookstore. I can download them on the Internet. There is no ban, no law against it, no judge insisting that an website in a foriegn country must stop U.S. citizens from accessing Communist propaganda. I can join the Communist Party and vote for Communist candidates if I like. I can discuss the pros and cons of various economic forms on the Internet with a communist lawyer from New York, and it's all perfectly legal.
Can I do that vis-a-vis Nazism if I were a German or Frenchman in Germany or France?
And no, Joe McCarthy doesn't prove anything. The excesses of McCarthy and the House Un-American Committee have long since been condemned and reversed. The excesses of hysteria and demogoguery, in direct opposition to the ideals this country was founded on, do not invalidate those ideals.
After catching up on my casual history reading lately, and learning quite a bit about the socialist and democratic struggles of the 19th century, I now know that this is a fairly common attitude historically. I was also appalled to learn how uncivilized and backward Europe was compared to America during the 19th century, which is very ironic considering the classic European snobbishness toward Americans...
Historical note that applies later on: we (America) did not have a socialist revolution or the serious threat of one because our government was not in the business of squashing every lower-class worker who wanted better working conditions, or even--God forbid!--the vote. At the time, our government was in the business of handing out 40 acres to anyone who wanted to leave the Eastern factories and settle out west. And all those poor workers in America already had the vote. (Thank Ben Franklin for that. If Alexander Hamilton had gotten his way, the U.S. would have devolved into an oligarchy of rich landholders). Wonder why we had so much immigration from Europe during that period?
That's why radical groups are banned. That's why they have to operate underground. That's why Germany is quite keen to ban 'ideas' (I can hear the flames already) and things that are 'dangerous'.
The monarchs of Europe were also quite keen to ban dangerous ideas like "democracy", "freedom of the press", and "labor unions", too. Those ideas were dangerous--to dictators and absolutist monarchies. Again, this is history speaking.
Because people in general are easily seduced by things that make them feel good about themselves. Hitler told Germans that they were special and superior.
That is the classic excuse used by monarchs and oligarchs for not allowing democracy: the people will let themselves be seduced by bad ideas that might lead to chaos and violence. Of course, the real fear was that these ideas might lead to things like the rulers losing priviledges and power--which is, of course, Bad for Society. From their point of view.
Which is to say, it is always the excuse of the elite: we know better than you, you are as children who are easily swayed by the candy in the store window and don't know what's best for you. Frankly, history has shown that so-called elites don't know what's best for anyone, either, and are just concerned with maintaining their own selfish privileges, and that the average adult is quite capable of minding his own affairs if he hasn't been deliberately made incapable of handling them by lack of education and forced dependence. (Which, BTW, is why Jefferson, et al, insisted that an educated citizenry was necessary for democracy to work).
Now, I've never heard that Germans were uneducated, so what are you afraid that your neighbors might want or do, if they were allowed to hear about Nazis, or see a swastika?
Thus, you want to make sure that radical groups that want to dismantle democracy are not allowed a popular mandate. You do not want to legitimize them by allowing them to exist in the public sphere. You do not want to allow them to become coalition partners, to enter local governments, and to slowly subvert and destroy freedom, tolerance, and democracy.
Because that's what they want.
What they want and what they get are two different things. I see a problem with the European approach: who decides which groups are "dangerous radicals"? The government? In that case, anyone who threatens the political class' privileges, perks, and position will be deemed a "radical", count on it. Popular opinion? Well, if so-called "radicals" are unpopular, they aren't much of a threat in a democracy, are they? OTOH, allowing the majority to decide who should be suppressed introduces you to the tyranny of the majority, aka mob rule.
And they're not going to get it. We've been here, we're not going back. We like democracy, we like freedom, we like being able to say whatever we want without being locked up, we don't want to be herded into camps because of our racial distinctions or religious beliefs, and we sure as fuck don't want to let radicals who want to destroy all of that back into the limelight.
But you will, if you keep going as you are. They won't call themselves Nazis, and they won't use swastikas, but they will re-appear, and they will be the guys telling you who are the "dangerous radicals" that need to be suppressed, which speech and ideas are too dangerous to be published, and so on. They will tell the people what they want to hear, and they will be "democratically" chosen, because they will have suppressed all those other, "dangerous" voices. And you will have helped them.
So go on all you want about 'bans are bad!' and 'information wants to be free!'. Naivety will only get you so far, and jackbooted thugs will exploit all of it quite happily while you sit there letting them take away everything you hold dear.
Let me tell you something: we have Nazis and Aryan supremacist radicals in America, too. In Germany, you ban them and try to suppress them, and they have become a significant underground movement in some circles, with a lot of people being sympathetic to their views. In America, they are perfectly free to publicize themselves, preach their views and run for public office, as long as they don't break any of the laws that apply to ALL citizens (murder, theft, fraud, assault, etc.). In America, we laugh at them and consider them a bunch of jerks, and they are nothing more than a fringe movement--and they certainly don't have the passive support of the police when they commit violence (as I have heard has happened with some cases of anti-immigrant attacks in East Germany). If they do something violent, we arrest their asses and thrown them in jail like any other criminal.
Which method of dealing with radicals is working better?
That isn't to say that advocating illegal activity is automatically non-protected speech, but just that there is a point where expression becomes too "dangerous" to be protected. This may offend those with an especially idealistic view of the First Amendment, but is really a necessity in the real world.
It is not that it becomes "too dangerous", it is that beyond a certain point the speaker becomes an accessory to the crime (or a co-conspirator). Also, I believe that inciting someone else to commit a crime is a crime itself.
Why does our society allow for late-term abortions in the events of incest or rape? It's still a "human baby," no? Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?
Because our society is becoming decadent and sick and losing respect for human life and dignity? Yes, those exceptions should be scrapped! What did the baby do in those cases to deserve death? Do you consider it civilized to murder a child for the crimes of the father?
Which life has more "rights" if the woman's health is at risk should she attempt a delivery? Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life? Why?
That is always a hellish choice to be given. It's like separating a pair of lethally-conjoined siamese twins, where only one can live after separation, but both will die if not. Which one do you kill? There is NO right answer. And yes, some moral questions have no right answer--I believe story of Orestes, in Greek myth illustrates such a dilemma, where there was no right answer.
It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job. Unfortunately this world is full of people with less determination and character than yourself. Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?
Why is a crime to murder your toddler if you're too selfish, lazy and ignorant to raise him? Why does society still consider child abuse an appalling crime? Why, then, is it okay to murder a child before birth if his existance after birth will be a burden or inconvenience to you?
What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception?
I think you mean "to birth..." but anyway: a society that does not protect its weakest, most defenseless, most innocent members is a sick society. Do you really want to live in a society where the weak are allowed to live only if their existance is convenient to the strong?
If this were truly an accurate view of society's beliefs, why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools? Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?
We don't charge parents with child abuse when they let their kids eat junk food, either. And anytime anything related to sex is taught at school, a certain segment of the population screams that we're "encouraging kids to have sex!" There goes pre-natal care... Post-natal care used to be taught in schools--it was called "Home Economics". I think someone considered it sexist, so you don't see it except in "backward" states like Louisiana.
If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? Clearly society considers a fetus and a baby two very different things.
It is well known that women go through the same grief from a miscarriage as they do from losing an already-born child. It has also been observed, though it is not politically correct to acknowledge, that women who have abortions frequently suffer the same kind of grief. And the question is, not what society does, but what should it do? What kind of society do you want to live in?
Who thought it was original philosophy? Certainly not the producers--it's blatantly based on Eastern mystical themes. I can see Zen Buddhist and Hindu themes all through the movie... The World is Illusion. Far older than Orwell.
Is that a bad thing? No! It's certainly more interesting than the usual simplistic, one-dimensional themes and plots found in American action movies.
Welcome to the real world, techno-idealists!
The Internet is nothing more or less than a global medium of communication. There is nothing intrinisic to the Internet that dictates whether what is communicated is good or bad, truth or lie, hateful or loving. The same is true of speech, writing, radio, telephone, or any other mode of two-way communications.
We are in a transition phase, where society around the world is still adjusting to this new, rapid communications medium. Obviously, there is a chunk of the world that has to re-learn the lesson of "don't believe everything you hear/read/etc--check the facts." Some will learn; some people will be perpetually gullible. That's life in the Real World.
By way of illustration, one of the nastiest, most persistant bits of inflammatory propaganda in the last three centuries, one that is still circulating and accepted as fact in some circles, is the infamous Protocols of Zion. That text, originally created by the Russian Czar's secret police in the late 19th century, circulated as a printed work decades before radio or television, let alone the Internet. (I believe you find it on the Internet, however). It was the basis of much of the Nazi's anti-Semitic propaganda, and provides the themes and lies for the current, virulent anti-Semeticism of the Middle East.
The point? The only thing new about the Internet is the rapidity of global communication; the same old evils are still here. On the flip side, the Internet gives everyone with access the chance formerly open only those who could afford global travel: the chance to talk to people in distant places, to read their local news, to hear their views and see their problems. However...
At the end of the day, the Internet is still only a communications medium. It won't magically grant you understanding of those problems, nor will it give you compassion for or empathy with people who face the same basic problems common to all humanity. Neither will it magically force you to hate what you don't understand, or brainwash you into believing rumors without thought.
The so-called "problems of the Internet" are the same problems people have always had with themselves and each other. That these two editorialists are shocked to discover this is rather like the French inspector being shocked to discover gambling in Rick's Cafe... one wonders what the ulterior motive is.
I believe in the strengths of a free press, for the same reasons as the authors of the U.S. Constitution--among other things, a free society is not possible without free communications/free press. I am aware that a free press has its drawbacks, but like the founders of the United States, I believe that an educated citizenry is capable of telling the good from the bad, and that, to such a citizenry, the downsides of a free press are no more than an annoyance.
I believe the Internet is potentially the most powerful free press in the world. I also know that there are governments and other interests that are terrified of the threat represented by a global free press, who would like to see it muzzled by any means possible. The excuse that an unfettered free press causes division and disturbs public order/encourages "agitators"/etc. has long been used by many governments to censor the printed press in their countries.
Traditionally, even the press in most "free" countries has been limited by the high barrier to entry: TV broadcasters have to jump through hoops to get government licensing and permission to use the EM spectrum, expensive equipment has to be bought, highly-paid technicians and support staff have to be hired, etc. Printed press requires a printing press, highly-paid staff, extensive, expensive channels of distribution, etc. TV broadcasters can't offend the government too greatly, or they don't get the licenses and spectrum. Printed publications can't offend the majority tastes too greatly, or they can't get enough customers to pay the cost of entry. Thus, freedom of the press traditionally belonged (as was once said) only those who could afford a printing press. It limits "the press" to a small, select group, and a small, select group is easier to sway to one viewpoint/keep under control than "everyone in the world with enough literacy to string two sentences together".
That's the threat and promise of the Internet as a free press: anyone who can get a website and the trivial technical skill to code a web page can put their views out for the entire to see, ignoring the even simpler methods of spreading news and rumors such as IRC/Usenet/web boards. It's still not a zero-difficulty barrier to entry, but it opens up the "free press" to an uncontrollable number of potential publishers.
As such, the Internet is a grave threat to governments and other bodies who have reason to fear a free press--either because their political model depends on a gullible, uneducated citizenry that only hears what it is believed to be safe for them to hear, or because they really do have something to hide. It is also a threat to the traditional press, who don't seem to welcome competition in their hard-won positions of influencers of public perceptions from a huge bunch of brash upstarts. (God knows they don't want the public deciding for themselves what is worthwhile news and entertainment!)
I ask again: what is the real agenda of these editorials? Keep an eye on whether or not this meme spreads, and what "solutions" are proposed and pushed to "solve" the "problem".
Yes, I've read it. And there are deeper themes in it if you look and are familiar with some of Doc Smith's less famous works, like the Skylark series.
One such theme is the deliberate evolution of humanity toward a superior form and mind. The original Skylark of Space is a lot more blatant in its exploration of eugenics, but it was written before WWII, before the Nazis made "eugenics" a dirty word.
Another theme looked at briefly is that of political science: how do you make an effective, good government for an interstellar empire? In the Lensmen stories, Doc Smith postulated that a good government would only be possible with an uncorruptible law enforcement and judiciary. (That's what the titular lensmen were in Civilization, BTW--incorruptible law enforcement and military authorities.)
EU shoots itself in the foot yet again...
Guess what? EU tax laws are NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE UNITED STATES! Officials of American companies that don't have a foreign subsidiary that can be pressured (like Yahoo France was) will no doubt roll on the floor laughing hysterically, and then start counting the extra sales they'll pick up by underpricing the companies that do have to abide by EU stupidities.
The EU cannot enforce this outside the EU, and they know it--look at their FAQ! The "enforcement" section is all about voluntary compliance--which will no doubt be a lot like the "voluntary compliance" where customers are supposed to voluntarily add required state sales taxes to mail orders here in the U.S. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND PAYS TAXES VOLUNTARILY!
If I want to give my money away, I give it away to a church or charitable organization, not the eternally-corrupt, wasteful government.
In the U.S., mail order companies are only required to collect sales taxes in states in which they have an actual storefront presence because there are Constitutional problems with forcing a private business to act as a tax collector in another state. The same laws and issues will prohibit any legal requirements to collect taxes for a foreign authority such as the EU. If Lousiana can't force a California mail-order business to collect sales taxes from a Louisiana customer, what makes those idiots in the EU think they can?
But try _seriously_ explaining that to someone who digs ditches for nine bucks an hour with no benefits.
In the U.S.A, is there any such person outside of prison work gangs? Digging ditches is usually part of either construction work, highway work or water/gas/sewer/electrical line work, and is done with a backhoe by heavily unionized laborers. I doubt that they're getting as little as $9/hour...
I am commenting as someone who has scratch-built many PCs, both for home and business use. First, I'll assume you know what your needs are, and not try to tell you that your 400 Mhz Pentiums are just fine. You said you need to upgrade, I'll take your word for it. I'm also not going to tell you exactly what you should buy, I assume you know what you need/want. And your Win2K license terms aren't my problem, either. Other people have also commented well on anti-static issues.
First, don't start this job until you are comfortable tearing computers apart and putting them back together. Building and repairing computers is fairly simple these days, when everything is componentized, but you do have to know what you are doing. You need to be able to understand those motherboard manuals and figure out what jumpers and BIOS settings you need for your particular configuration. You need to be able to screw motherboards into place and shove cards into slots without breaking them or slicing yourself open on the chassis (I swear every one of my personal computers is christened with my blood!), and plug cables in right-side up. All simple things to learn, but they can be expensive and frustrating to learn the hard way. If you're not comfortable doing these things, don't plan on building 60 PCs yourself. Farm the job out to a good local vendor or technician who is.
Line up a good vendor, either local or mail order, who can sell you what you need, when you need it (finding out replacement parts are unavailable or back-ordered for a month when you need them NOW is not helpful), at a satisfactory price and with a no-hassle return policy--because you will be returning bad components when you order enough for 60 PCs--unless you pay the higher price for a vendor that does 24-hour burn-in. Even then you may not weed out all the bad components.
Make your PCs as much alike as possible--it's easier to assemble a cookie-cutter configuration, and of course, ghosting a Win installation works a lot better if you're using the same drivers from computer to computer. As others have mentioned, don't cheap out on the components! Good quality, name-brand components are worth paying a few dollars extra for; you get fewer returns and mysterious failures, and name-brand quality components are more likely to actually follow the industry specs for whatever device they are, instead of cutting corners the way cheap components sometimes do. BTW, this is where you win over buying cheap pre-built computers: guys like Gateway and those Wal-Mart computers save money by putting the absolutely cheapest, bottom-of-the-line, no-name commodity parts in their computers. That's how they can sell them so cheap. Sometimes it works; back in the early 90s, the favorite no-name graphics card used in our company's computers had the Cirrus Logic chipset, which was a moderately accellerated, halfway decent graphics card
that actually had OS/2 drivers (which we were using). Usually, you have the problem with discount computers that the cheapest no-name card changes from week to week, so this week's discount computer may have entirely different components and drivers than last week's discount computer, even though they are supposedly the same model. Now that is a major hassle in the support department!
OTOH, some parts are so commodity that it doesn't matter. Who cares what brand floppy drive you buy? It's a mature technology and they all work alike. IDE CD-ROM drives are much the same way. IDE hard drives are NOT. Neither are SCSI drives.
I personally like Western Digital IDE drives and won't touch a Quantum if I can help it; YMMV.
If you're using AMD Athlons or similar chips, invest in a slot fan or bay fan in addition to the CPU fan. If the noise of all those fans is likely to drive people postal in a week, consider spending the extra dollars for low-noise fans.
So, you've got a vendor or three, and you've got a list of parts that meet your criteria for price, performance and quality. To lower your own frustration level, make sure you have plenty of tools; those Phillips-head screwdrivers and nut drivers seem to migrate of their own accord whenever you're not holding them in hand. Also, make sure you have plenty of small screws of various sizes, spare Y-junction internal power cables, and spare IDE cables. Save any leftover small screws that came with cases or whatever; you'll need them sooner or later. Spare mounting rails of various flavors are nice to have around; vendors never seem to ship the right mounting rails for your chassis, if they bother to ship mounting rails at all with the drives. If you are lucky, your chassis's don't need mounting rails at all, but support drives being bolted directly to the chassis. Wish mine did.
If an IDE drive doesn't work, check your master/slave jumper settings first, then the IDE cable (that's why you need spares--I've had a lot more bad cables than I ever had bad drives). Keep a "known good" AGP card around to test out the AGP slot when you think you have a bad graphics card--I've had more bad AGP slots on motherboards than I've had bad graphics cards or bad monitors.
Ditto for memory and memory sockets. (The quality control on certain brands *cough*SOYO*cough* of VIA-chipset motherboards was a bit off...) Also, watch the fun-n-games of putting PCI cards that don't share interrupts happily (NIC & AGP combo, particularly) in the wrong slots.
Being able to ghost the first OS + software installation onto all subsequent PCs is a major time and hassle saver.
As for "support" issues, if you can put together the PCs yourself, you can handle most support issues yourself. PC hardware is commoditized and componentized, and a hell of a lot easier to support than PC software. Keep "known good" components around for troubleshooting, and have spares of everything on hand, including and especially power supplies. (Make sure you get an adequate power supply in the first place).
Anyway, hope this helps.....
I admit it, I am careless about anti-static precautions. I don't wear a wriststrap, I don't stand on a rubber mat, and I don't have a proper workbench. I do most of my computer work on the dining room table, which is fine as long as I don't set the hard drive on the (open) butter dish and get done before dinner.
However... I live in a very humid climate. Most of the year, I can't build up a noticeable static charge even if I shuffle my sock-clad feet across the shag carpet. Things change in the winter, when it gets dry; I try to avoid working on the internals of my computers then.
I do ground myself to bleed off any static before opening my computers or handling any components. So far, things seem to work, though I do have the occasional brain-damaged motherboard--which I can't tell if it's because of my sloppy anti-static habits or because I buy cheap motherboards. However, the vendor is pretty no-hassle about replacing bad ones, and they are cheap enough in the first place that replacing a slightly flaky one two years down the road when I want to upgrade to the next CPU anyway is no big deal.
YMMV. Frankly, I probably couldn't get away with my current practices in a drier climate.
My age will really show here--I'm 40, and I haven't bought a CD in years. Even other members of my family have only bought a handful of CDs in the last 5-8 years, and those were all CDs of classic rock that we've known and liked for years, and used to have on tape before we had a CD player (plus the occasional blues compilation).
Why? Not because we're downloading infringing music; the only MP3s I have are ripped from my legally purchased CDs or downloaded from small bands that are choosing to distribute their music on the 'net. No, I've stopped buying CDs because there is very little new music that I care diddly about. There is, however, a great deal of old music that I like a lot and will continue to pick up now and then, but since I already have large enough collection to play a different song every hour and not have to hear repeats for a great many days, there isn't much motivation to buy more.... unless it is really, really good.
Oh, and the practice of putting out albums with one mediocre track and the rest not worth listening to also causes me to loose interest in buying new CD albums. When I do like a modern artist, I'll wait for the "Best of..." album to come out, because I prefer to have every track on an album be worth listening to. (If Godsmack is around long enough to have a "Best of..." album, I may pick it up). I'll also buy good movie soundtrack albums, because almost all of the tracks are worth listening to. Classic rock actually had groups that produced entire albums worth listening to!
If a significant fraction of people with disposable income have attitudes similar to mine,
(Don't buy new albums, they're crap; if new group has good hits on the radio, wait for them to have enough albums to put together a "Best of..." album; occasionally buy a movie soundtrack or a back catalog item), that just might explain the slump in music sales a hell of a lot more than some imaginary losses to people downloading MP3s.
I've been wondering why some of the bigger names in the industry (those with a conscience, that is), like the folks in the Recording Artists Coalition, or people with huge clout like Stephen King, etc., don't get together and start their own media business.
It happens in the publishing business every so often, usually by editors. Baen Books was founded/is still run by science-fiction editor Jim Baen. Del Rey Books is now an imprint of a much bigger publishing house, but it was originally the baby of science-fiction author and editor Lester del Rey.
I don't know what the status of Del Rey Books is these days, but from the outside, Baen Books looks like a pretty cool outfit. They are pioneering unencrypted e-books at reasonable prices (Baen Free Library, Webscriptions) and they are one of the very, very few publishers who still read and buy manuscripts "over the transom" (not submitted through an agent). Certain big name sci-fi authors have moved to them from other publishers, so they must be doing something that makes the authors happy, too.
There are also a lot of minor record labels founded by musicians and minor people in the industry, but I have no idea if they are any fairer to their clients than the big labels.
It seems ad-supported software preys on people's urge to try to get something for nothing. Do these adware companies appeal to our lowest urges?
Yes. Anything that says "free," people want. But eventually people will realize there's not really such thing as "free" software. It comes with a price--in this case the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations.
What's this guys address so I can send him a distro of Linux?
Linux, and any other truly free software, do have a hidden cost--but it's not the one cited by another poster. No, the cost is a subtle one, not noticed by most; it is the "cost" of charity. Let me explain.
The GPL as charity: I really like the GPL, because those who choose to distribute their software under its terms are choosing to give their work freely to others without thought or requirement of recompense. That is true charity (in the religious sense). Choosing to use the GPL or similar free software license rather than dumping your code or whatever in the public domain is a choice that says "I want this to be used by others to learn from, to build on, to pass on to others; I don't want you to take what I have given freely and make it into a secret passed on only a select few with money or influence."
Moving on to the next part of this explanation: choosing to pay for valuable goods, be it food or software, is a morally neutral transaction. You got something of value to you, the seller got something of value to him, no obligations remain. Accepting something charitably given (that is, freely given with no intent of recompense), places a subtle burden upon the conscience or soul of the receiver. He who always accepts freely what is given freely, but never gives freely in turn, is rightly regarded as miserly, niggardly, or mean. (Or in the more modern terms of the Internet age, "leech", "parasite", "hog".) If your miserliness is private, if no one knows how much you take and never give back, only you know what you are--but you are still what you choose to become. Believe me, it will affect you in both the short and long run, even if you think you see no real effects.
Finally, he who accepts freely what is given freely, but also gives freely to others of what he has to give, be it time or talent, is rightly known as generous, compassionate, kind, helpful and so on. Again, if what you do is known only to you, you still know what you are--and it will affect you.
That, my friends, is the subtle cost of accepting charity--the moral obligation to be charitable yourself. Personally, it's a cost I'll gladly to pay.
Addendum: I think this is why most people are so greatly offended by hidden scumware in what appears to be freeware: misunderstanding over the nature of the transaction. People downloading "free beer" software tend to naively assume that it is freely, charitably given, a debt to be repaid (or not) according to their own moral code--and are rudely surprised to find out that the supposed giver is a merchant who thought he was selling a valued good, and is now trying to extract his pound of flesh in repayment. It is one thing to knowingly engage in a commercial transaction; it is another to find out that supposed "charity" is the devil trying to collect his due.
Most people don't want that kind of "gift"!
Well, 4 years ago (adjust for inflation), in Louisiana (adjust for lower cost of living/lower pay rates), I worked for a computer consultant who charged $75/hour to people he liked, (i.e. his discount rate) for setting up/fixing Windows computers. He was also a greedy little cheat, too. (Adjust for dishonesty). That's one data point for you. Dunno how it compares.
I guess it's MY fault that I have to order a new laptop everytime this paticular sales lady goes out on travel and returns with a mangled laptop because "It's too much trouble to carry it on" This paticular lady i'm thinking of DESTROYED 9 laptops in 3 months! You would think MAYBE after the first one she would wise up BUT SHE KILLED 8 MORE!
Most places I've worked, the subsequent 8 laptops would have come out of HER paycheck--a great incentive to be more careful with company property. (The insane paperwork to get *anything* ordered at my current workplace is a good incentive not to wreck your current box, too).
Frankly, as long as it's not coming out of YOUR paycheck, why does her idiocy with laptops spin you up so much? They were still paying you for the work involved, right?
You're laid off, and bitter--I can understand that. Been there, done that a few times. Job searching all over and getting nothing for months on end is incredibly demoralizing. However, you might want to learn to relax and enjoy things a bit more, because that bitterness will show in job interviews. Also, if the job situation is that bad locally, why not search elsewhere? The internet is damn useful for that.