Apple has NOT attacked this company yet. And I don't think they will. Why? Because this is quite clearly not an iMac ripoff.
People here seem to have the misconception that Apple's just suing people who make their cases out of translucent plastic. This isn't right, and it wouldn't be right of Apple to do it. No, Apple goes after companies that blatantly rip off the iMac's design. And it does have a right to do this. Look at FuturePower's own ripoff, the ePower. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't just leave the Apple logo on the cases; it is the only difference. It is clearly meant to confuse the consumer.
Translucent plastic certainly isn't new. But it's not the issue, either. The iMac has a design that is clearly non-generic, and computer companies have done little but rip it off. I applaud AMD for making a "cool" case that doesn't rip off the iMac; this would be why Apple won't sue them. It's an original design, and even though most of the color schemes are quite awful (at least the iMac doesn't clash with itself, even though it might clash with everything else) it's a good and original idea.
I hadn't heard about this. However, there's a rather large problem with using it to track descent. Only men have Y-chromosomes (even individuals with Kleinfelter syndrome, in which case they have two X's and a Y, come out male).
So while you could use the Y-chromosome technique to track patrilinear descent of men, the technique is rather useless for women. And even if it could be used to track women, it has all the same problems that mitochondrial tracking does (namely, since it's basically identical from generation to generation, you still can't get specific with it).
There is one possible interesting use for this, though: it could be used to determine how many men were in this tribe with the seven women, and furthermore it could be used to track which men and which women mated. Just think of the fun the tabloids could have with that one: "Prehistoric sex scandal! OOG seen with mysterious "eighth woman!"
However, it won't be that useful to geneaologists in the long run. The reason: a sad fact of European society (and most others, actually, dating back for most of recorded history): the family name and identity was generally handed down in a patrilineal manner, while mitochondria can only trace matrilineal ancestry. I guess it's sorta understandable, though; back when those rules were made the people didn't know about mitochondrial DNA (or, for that matter, any other kind of DNA).
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA tracing is far less specific, since barring mutations mitochondrial DNA is identical from generation to generation. In other words, you're not going to get accurate family lineage tracing this way. You can get into the general ballpark (tracing back to one of seven women 150,000 years ago, for example) but you can't be very exact.
I guess it would have important symbolic value, however, particularly among warring nations. It proves that, in a way, we're all brothers (and sisters too, of course). Now if only we could get a few certain groups in the world, who shall remain nameless, to get that through their skulls...
One: The real OOG actually posts good, insightful comments. He delivers them in a singularly annoying way because it's his way of protesting moderation. But it actually works wuite well (take it from the buy who swapped personalities with him on April Fool's; it's actually fun). But this one really was just a troll, not like OOG at all. (And yes, I am an OOG fan). Two: OOG uses spaces in his name, not underscores. That one's actually probably more definitive evidence that this was an OOG-poser.
You do know that Imperial Japan had conquered a large portion of East Asia long before the US became involved, right? You do know of the Rape of Nanking, and the serial war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese army throughout Korea and the Philipines?
You're correct. However, that was a separate war. Japan later joined up with the Axis, and in a sense joined the two wars together in doing so. I suppose you could say that the combinations of the two wars (the one in Asia and the one in Europe) did make it a true World War, and then in one sense Japan could have started it (it then depends on who approached whom about Japan's alliance with the Axis).
However, Hitler and Nazi Germany are generally credited with starting what would later become World War II in any case. Japan had its own wars, and did not join the Axis until later.
First, Japan didn't start World War II as we know it. You know that it wouldn't have happened without Europe.
Of course not. Though Japan gave the US a convenient reason to get into the war, it was not responsible for starting the war itself.
Second, what is a Samurai-like technique? Do the companies go around wearing masks throwing throwing-stars at eachother?
Nope. But the techniques you described weren't used by samurai anyway. Shuriken (throwing stars, you called them) were more typically the tools of the shinobi (who had another name that I dare not mention simply because it would get a certain Slashdot troll very excited).
How does "the country" use techniques to root out competition.
Actually, it's possible by using protectionist tariffs, something the US has also done in the past (Hawley-Smoot, anyone?) And Japan is known to do this. However, the trend has been reversing in recent years, albeit slowly.
Your post is way too full of B.S. to make any sense whatsoever.
Will the book include all of the posts? I ask this because not all of the posts are in the Slashdot archive. For example, two posts in the original Hellmouth piece which were modded to -1, and everything in reply to them , are not in the archive. This is bad, since some of the best posts were in reply to those (some had even been modded to 5), and are now gone. I only realized this recently, when I had to do a speech for a Persuasion class and was looking through those archives for research (yes, the speech was against geek profiling).
Frankly, that's enough that I can now say I have a grievance with the moderation system. And as an ardent believer in the system otherwise that's no small feat. But post archives should be complete archives, even if that means including the trolls. Otherwise, too many "good" posts (as defined even by moderation) are cut out.
And to the trolls reading this: don't think this means I'm joining your immature ranks anytime soon. I have better things to do then meet in the big UCTAM treehouse for milk and cookies. But I do agree with you on one small and easily-fixed aspect of the moderation system now.
While I do agree that under normal circumstances something like this would be tacky, there are some good reasons for it in this case.
1) It's not even being published yet; this is only pre-ordering. Similar, true, but this is likely to be forgotten, whereas an actual ship date would not. Pretty shrewd move on Katz's part, actually. 2) Consider: it is the anniversary. The very hysteria the book seeks to fight will likely run high today, and probably will continue for a while. We need a countering force to that. 3) Is it not possible that this is nothing but coincidence? Or even if it's not, that it might not have been Katz's decision? Don't blame him so quickly for a decision which could very well have not been his to make.
I've seen arrogance in my lifetime. But this guy just about takes the cake. Let's see...
"So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing," said Billington.
First, the Internet is not television. Must as reactionaries and luddites would love to believe it, it's simply not true. Also, even if this is true, it's nothing more than a problem. What do you do with a problem? You fix it. The only way to counter "bad" stuff is with "good" stuff, and if all the stuff he's talked about is bad, then what could be better than to ass whole libraries to the Net?
"We have so much special format material that nobody has seen that it is more important to get those out."
Point for Billington's side. If you're going to get your stuff, better to start with the rarer materials. But that doesn't mean to ignore the more common ones.
"Secondly, behind this... is an implicit belief [that books] are not going to be replaced, and should not be replaced."
Agreed. But online access to books certainly does not replace books. All it does is make the book's contents more widely available.
"There is a difference between turning pages and scrolling down," he said. "There is something about a book that should inspire a certain presumption of reverence."
Interesting idea. But a book itself should not be revered. It is the ideas therein that are worthy of reverence. Books have become an important symbol for this reverence, yes. But symbols come and go. Before books ever existed, literature was still revered; I'm willing to bet similar arguments to Billington's were raised when someone first had the idea to print Homer's Iliad. But certainly the literature is still revered, even when its physical form changes.
"We should be very hesitant... that you are going to get everything you want electronically." "You don't want to be one of those mindless futurists," said Billington, "who sit in front of a lonely screen."
As opposed to... what? Read on...
"It is isolating. It is a lonely thing." In contrast, "libraries are places, a community thing."
Oh, really? I don't see particularly much community-oriented activity taking place at most libraries. I don't see that as the purpose of a library at all. To me, a library is an almost sacred place, a "temple of knowledge" if you will. I've been to many libraries over the course of my life, and I've never felt any less lonely than when reading in front of a computer screen.
"It is dangerous to promote the illusion that you can get anything you want by sitting in front of a computer screen." He described this as "arrogance" and "hubris". He added that while electronic books may succeed commercially, they are "seductive."
I see a more than a little elitism here. Enough that I could well call that statement "arrogance" and "hubris."
He also stated that the Reformation was largely fought with the printing press, and that "media revolutions provoke intense debate."
True. And the Internet is to our age what the printing press was to theirs. A new medium, used to spread knowledge more than ever before. But there's an interesting problem here. The Reformation was a fight against a corrupt religion. Clearly, we are embroiled in a fight that has many interesting parallels to the Reformation. But just what is it that we fight against? I'm not certain. But I think I can guess, and it frightens people like Billington.
However, he elaborated that "there should be no question that the tradition of free public libraries... is the absolute platform of essentiality for our democracy." Furthermore, in public libraries "there is an inherent adversity to censorship."
Again, point for Billington's side. Two, actually. The tradition of free public libraries is necessary for a democracy, yes. But how would that be diminished by digitization? In addition to the simple fact that a library can easily adapt to change, there's the fact that not everything that has ever been printed will eventually be online. Consider, for example, the decades of old newspapers now on microfiche. I'd call the chances of these ever being digitized slim to none. There's also a need to keep hard copies of things, both for research purposes and archives; libraries fit this bill well (indeed, this is precisely what they have been doing as long as they have been in existence).
And yes, in public libraries there does seem to be an adversity to censorship. Look all around you at the filtering-software battles carried out by the Reactionary Religious Right, The Lunatic Liberal Left, and Positively Pottering Parents. You'll be very hard-pressed to find a library that actually wants to use filtering software; more often than not they're fighting against the measures which would force them to use censorware.
He said that at the Library of Congress, the focus is to provide "an example of the good." In contrast, if the government gets into "defining the bad, you get onto the slippery slope of defining the bad."
Um... what the hell was that? I think he meant to say that if the government gets into defining the good, it gets onto the slippery slope of defining the bad. However, providing an example of the good is defining the good to some degree (it's a damn weak definition, but it is one). And because good and bad can only be defined in terms of each other, once you define the good you do define the bad.
I do find it interesting, though, that Billington never mentioned copyright in this article. Very strange.
And now, for my own views on the subject (sorry this post is taking so long). First, people here are stating that digitizing books will create unequal access to these works. I disagree; digitization will create more equal access to the Library of Congress' collection. Consider: I come from Virginia. I can go to the Library of Congress and look at the works there, more or less whenever I want (unless, of course, the Library is closed). So can anyone else in the area. Equal access, at least in one region.
But I'm currently at college in Rochester. I cannot go to the Library, and therefore I am cut off from accessing its collection. For no better reason than that I live in a different region. Were the Library's works online, I could at least access the contents of the collection.
No, the digitization of the Library's works won't create equal access. But we're already faced with unequal access. Digitization is a step in the right direction, because physical location will no longer be a barrier to accessing the content (you still can't access the physical works if you can't get to the Library, of course, but access to the content is better than no access at all).
Also, the idea that online access will ever totally replace books is simply absurd. Tell you what, here's a challenge. Go to Project Gutenberg. Pick up their copy of Les Miserables, and without printing it read it all in one pull (stopping only to eat, sleep, and such). I can pretty much guarantee that even if you do succeed, you'll be needing a case of Excedrin and a new pair of eyeballs. You can't simply curl up with a good, long Website the way you can with a book. And for that reason alone, books are here to stay, to say nothing of the other advantages books have over online content.
The two media can coexist. The Net itself cannot replace print media completely. It's not a true replacement for most of the media out there. The reason for this is that the Internet is a distribution medium, like television and radio. It is not a storage medium, like books or CD's, and it's not a very good delivery medium (like movies and books). So books aren't going anywhere; the Librarian of Congress' job is in no danger. But we all have to get rid of the arrogance pervading both the old and new media if we're going to make any progress.
First, I'll assume that you're talking about "free speech" as commonly defined in the United States.
Is speech always as free as the GPL?
No. But it should be. Freedom which is not guaranteed isn't freedom at all. The removal of a guarantee on any right reduces it to a privilege, and privileges can be revoked. This is what the GPL does; it guarantees that the code it covers stays free.
Is speech always as restricted as GPL software?
Yes. A French revolutionary put it best: "The right to swing my fist ends at the next man's nose." I have free speech, but that doesn't give me the right to slander others, (which would interfere with their rights). The GPL gives me free code, but doesn't give me the right to remove the freedom on that code (which would similarly interfere with my users' rights).
Never forget: the only program which is "yours" is the one you have written. You may make relatively small modifications to another's program, but that doesn't make it your program; it still belongs to the person who wrote it. And since this is so, you must respect the wishes of the person who actually wrote the program that you only modified.
The spammers cry free speech, and they do have a point. They are allowed their say. This is a sad fact of the Constitution, but it's one we must put up with if we're to continue enjoying the benefits of our own free speech without the fear that those same rights could someday be taken away.
However, don't forget that we also have a right to free speech. The First Amendment isn't just for corporations (much as they'd love to think it were... cough... filters...) So while they have the right to approach us and say their piece, we have the right to then tell them to go away and never bother us again. And thanks to the nation's anti-harassment laws, they then have to agree because we've made it clear.
So in the end, I would propose this. All commercial e-mail, solicited or not, must include a genuine e-mail address to which someone can then reply and opt out. If a user takes this option and ever gets an e-mail from that company again without permission, then the offending e-mail is considered harassment.
I know this won't be popular here, because of the "everybody gets one shot" inherent in it. I admit, I don't like it either. I'd probably feel a rather perverse glee if every telemarketer on the planet were to spontaneously combust right now. But I have my rights, and they have theirs, and we both have to respect each other's, and that's simply the way it's got to be. And yeah, I take a bit of annoying crap from them because of it (with the assurance that I can stop any company from harassing me at any time). It will still cut down on the spam.
On a related note, I also think the US needs a privacy amendment to the Constitution. I do think this is needed to stop the involuntary datamining and tracking done by marketers. It's outright silly that we're the last industrialized nation to not treat privacy as a right, but those are the business lobbies for you. I'd recommend a wording something like this:
1. All United States citizens and residents are recognized to have a right to privacy concerning themselves, their property, and their personal information. 2. Neither Congress nor the States shall make any law permitting the infringement of the rights defined above, except by consent of the person whose rights would be infringed, or when a proper warrant has been issued by a court of law. 3. All laws enacted by Congress which would permit such nonconsensual infringement of the rights defined above are hereby repealed.
My point here is that this, too, would help to cut down on unwanted spam, by making sure that ValueClick's little scheme, and those like it, are illegal unless you agree to be tracked. If you don't want to be tracked, then you simply say so, and you cannot be touched.
No, the system isn't perfect. No system is. The best you can do is create a system in which everyone's rights are respected. These proposals are an attempt at bringing us closer to that goal.
Sorry, one line of GPL'd code is certainly not enough of BeOS to warrant open sourcing the entire product.
I didn't say they should have to Open-Source the entire product. The offending code is in a single shared library (librrot.so, if I'm not mistaken). So if they remove the offending code, or Open-Source the lib, there's no problem, right?
By the way, far more than one line of code is at stake here. This is a significant chunk of code (specifically, Bruce Perens' ElectricFence) that's being ripped off.
Any court in the land would back Be on this.
No court in the land ever has. It should be noted that UCITA, as fundamentally wrong as the law may be, actually would place the law on the side of the GPL here.
Hell, I violate the GPL all the time (modify GPL code and don't distribute my modifications)...
So long as you distribute the app in source or object form, this is perfectly acceptable by the terms of the GPL. In other words, if you're not distributing the app you modded at all, you're not violating the GPL at all. To put it as you dod, "so nyah.."
...because 1) I don't believe in the GPL...
Sucks to be you. Even if you don't believe in something, you still have a legal and moral obligation to respect it. That's the way most modern societies work.
...and 2) I don't want anyone else to have my mods.
Then don't mod code that says you have to distribute your mods in source form. Or are you too lazy to write a decent program yourself, so you leech off of other people's work without respecting their wishes as to how their work should be treated? Show us your work (if indeed you do have the gall to distribute in binary-only form) and let's see what you've got.
So nyah.
Does your mommy know you're posting such naughty, nasty stuff? Or do you just have the mind of a six-year-old? Your lack of maturity indicates one or the other.
So what punishment would you recommend? drawn and quartered?
No, simply that they should have to either comply with the license or remove the offending code. If that means they have to Open-Source the lib, so be it. If it means they choose to rewrite the whole lib rather than Open-Source it, that's fine too. But they should comply with the license.
It's Be's responsibility to make sure they're in compliance with the licenses regarding any software they decide to use which they didn't write. The GPL is no different. If this means their only options are to Open-Source the offending code or completely rewrite it, then so be it. If they wanted to keep the whole OS proprietary, they should have written it all themselves and not relied on Open-Source software to do some of their work for them. They shouldn't be let off the hook just because they're a corporation, as some would advocate.
Oh, you're right? I'd all but forgotten about the series (which is particularly sad since the opening theme still gets stuck in my head every once in a while). Bit unless I remember right it was Ulysses 31, not 2000.
Er, you mean that democracies only function to your spec if there is "some capacity for thought in its citizens". Sure, I'd like a smart, issue oriented electorate, too. But fact is, in a world in which power is disposed of by popular vote, it's obviously in a candidate's best interest (as far as getting elected goes) to keep the populace ignorent and uncritical -- if he can somehow manage it. School boards in conjunction with mandatory schooling provide precisely that power.
On a state level, this is theoretically possible. Not on a national level, however (schools are run by the states, not the federal government). Even then, you only say it can happen. Let's see examples of it really happenning.
Oh, that's right, you don't provide any.
Actually, I think I just did. Kindly remove your foot from your throat.
No need; you didn't present the evidence until someone pointed out that you weren't doing it. My statement was still valid for the time.
And what else is the bid to have Oklahoma schools teach creationism but an attempt at state sponsored propaganda?
One: For crying out loud, you don't even have the state right. It's Kansas, not Oklahoma. Two: Seems you've been brainwashed more than you claim the students have. Nowhere in any state does any school curriculum mandate the teaching of creationism. What happened in Kansas is that evolution is no longer mandatory learning. Creation is not mandatory there either. Nothing is. In other words, except perhaps at parochial schools (which, incidentally, are not ) not a single thing is going to change.
The people who have seized the reins there have an agenda for how they'd like people to think.
Here, again, I must disagree, but my view is actually more extreme than yours for once. It's not that they have an agenda on how they want people to think. They simply don't want people to think for themselves at all. It's the perverted brand of pseudo-Christianity that you see in the religious right nowadays that's the problem there.
Don't kid yourself that it's purely a love of Christianity which moves those people.
The hell of it is, it probably is purely a love of Christianity that moves most of them. You forget, the brand of Christianity practiced by the religious right scorns individual thought. Most of the people are just plain duped. Matter of fact, once the original leaders all finally keel over, they'll all be dupes of dead men.
They know that if everyone grows up thinking Christianity is more valid than other religions (which don't get their origin myths put in science text books) and, heck, just as valid as science...
One: that's illegal. Try as they might, they can't do that in a state-run school (parochial schools, perhaps). Two: You speak of creationism being just as valid as science with a very disparaging tone. My guess is that you too have had a bit of indoctrination going on. Mainly the fact that the two answer totally different questions, and in fact both could well be valid or invalid (evolution asks how it happened, whereas creation asks why. My point is this: we're never going to know which one is truly what happened until someone can figure out how to build a time machine. The only truly fair way to do it is something like this. "How did life originate? We're not certain. These are the major theories, and the pros and cons of each. There are many other theories also." Present the students with all the theories and let them decide for themselves. After all, isn't independent thought what you wanted? Let's see you back it up.
...and Christianity (as practiced widely) teaches that Christians are better than unbelievers...
If you could call that perverse twisting of the religion Christianity, yes. But that part of it's bullshit, made up by psychos out to... well, I don't claim to know what was going through their heads (probably a mixture of greed and arrogance).
By the way, a little tip which is really fun when going up against the religious right: read the Bible. Seriously. Reading (even skimming) through it once will give you a better working knowledge of what it says than at least 90% of the religious right. This is particularly fun because you learn just how much crap has been spoon-fed to them by their own corrupt religion (example: you know that Hell place they're always saying you're headed for? The Bible never mentions it, or anything like it, ever. Not even once). You can use this to take the Bible they're trying to cram down your throat and cram it right back.
Christianity becomes a virtuous trait in a candidate -- as has already happened (the Boston Globe had a nice article on it if you hadn't figured it out for yourself). Promulgating Christianity in schools is a good way to make sure eventually only Christians are elected to office.
But not the only way. It should interest you to know that all of the past U.S. Presidents have practiced some form of Christianity. I believe only two (maybe three; I'm not certain) were Catholic, and the first of those came as recently as the 1960's. And all this even after evolution became mandatory.
But, hey, this is other people. You went to (or are going through) ~12 years of schooling in the US, right?
Correct.
Think for yourself. Look back on your own experience and ask "Hey, did I learn a lot?
Nope. Not till I hit college at any rate.
How does it compare to what I learned on my own?
Extremely little. However I'm not exactly a usual case; I was reading encyclopedias when I was three. I read Tolkien at six.
How does it compare to what I learned from other people?"
If you're speaking about in-school experience, I learned more from other people than I cared to.
Ask yourself "Did I like being in school? Did it engage my intellect and introduce me to new things?
No and no. With some exceptions. It depended more on the teacher than anything else. There are damn good teachers out there, even in the public schools.
Or did I sit either bored or terrified in most of my classes wishing I could be somewhere else, doing somewhere else?"
Could be somewhere else: hell yes. I really didn't like my schools, but not because of anything wrong with the schools themselves. It was the people there. Doing something else: not really. Maybe taking a higher-level class, but that's it.
What they did to you was wrong. They had no right. It could have been different. It could have been better. Having to spend your childhood in a state-run or state-authorized institution being told the state's version of reality was wrong.
Now you sound like you're the one doing the indoctrinating. While I agree that it could have been different and/or better, there's a few things I see in your argument that don't seem right. "The state's version of reality"? You're being a big harsh. Two plus two equals four, no matter where you go (Mathematics). The word "guarantee" means a promise (English). Butterflies go through four stages of life: egg, larva, pupa, and adult (Biology). E = mc^2 (Physics). Potassium reacts violently with water (Chemistry). Well over 50% of the United States' annual budget goes to Social Security (Economics). These things are all true, no matter which way you slice them. You can say 2+2=5, but that's still not right.
What you seem to have odds with is history. And here, you certainly do have a point. I remember as a fourth grader in Maryland studying the state's history; when we got to the point of the Civil War the textbooks did acknowledge that Maryland was a slave state, but tried to gloss over it (the main argument being that since Maryland's major cash crop was wheat instead of tobacco, the slaves weren't as bad off there as in other places). It should also be noted that this book was custom-printed, and not in widespread use. Interesting, the things you remember from elementary school.
That will destroy us more surely than the current system will.
What evidence do you have for that? Or is that just "what everyone knows"?
The exact opposite, actually: what people don't know. The sad fact is, to survive in this world you need a good, broad education. The public schools currently don't provide this, but the answer is to improve the schools, not destroy them. It should be noted that as recently as two generations ago we were leading the world in every aspect of education. These things you speak of are recent phenomena, and I con't think they can be attributed to the school system (at least not entirely).
Can you think of any forces in your life which would benefit by your believing that uncritically?
By believeing what uncritically? Or are you using "that" as a means of demonstrating that I am thinking very uncritically? Either you never got it through your head that voice inflection doesn't travel over Unix, or you needed to pay more attention in English class ^_^
I suppose it merits pointing out that the nations which are starting to catch up to our lead and even pull ahead all run mandatory schooling programs, most even more restrictive and "fascist" than the ones you find in the U.S.
Oh, don't worry. In three generations (~90years) they'll be in exactly the same boat as we are now.
You're not giving any evidence again, but this time you're not even giving a reason for the evidence to support. Why will it happen there?
The so-called "education" system of the US is a State-run propaganda organ mated to a state subsidized day-care program. It has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself". Schools exist to promulgate conformity as practice and as virtue.
And you think privatized education would be any different? Businesses would do just the same thing. Worse, actually; a democracy has to preserve at least some capacity for thought in its citizens (elections and all). Businesses don't even have to do that; it's more profitable to squash even those last vestiges of independence.
The admission that large percentages of our population would be in severe financial crisis if the state did not pay for the daily supervision of their children is more an indictment of our economy than an argument for that system's virtue.
Correct. Now, how do you propose to fix the economy such that this is not so?
If it is the state which is educating your children, you have already abdicated your responsibility.
Please explain. Far better to have a child taught by a trained professional than by someone who, in the end, may well not know much more than the student.
The system of mandatory schooling in the US is despicably corrupt. It must end.
Again, please explain. While I have seen more than my share of corruption in individual school administrations, I don't see where the corruption is in the system itself.
But having a propaganda organ to indoctinate the entirety of society is the One Ring of our culture -- it it utterly addictive and utterly corrupting.
You know, you've been using the word "corrupt" and derivations thereof quite a lot. Without giving a single shred of evidence as to where the corruption lies, no less. I do like the Tolkien reference, however.
One last note on this: I have yet to see a kid who is truly addicted to school. The few who even approach that level tend to have problems at home (note that I'm not talking about people who simply like school; addiction is something more, a desperate need to be there).
So-called liberals -- who would otherwise staunchly support freedom of speach and diversity of creed -- have become enamoured with the possibility of mandating their beliefs by means of this tool. They have become just as fascist as the religious right -- both sides wrestling over control of this power over the populace.
When schools become used as a political tool, it is a Bad Thing. But I'd like to see your evidence that school has become a propaganda tool. Oh, that's right, you don't provide any. And thus, no reason for anyone to believe you.
It is left-wing secular homeschooling which has been the fastest-growing form of homeschooling for the last decade. For a reason.
Indeed it has. Mainly because it's a hell of a lot safer than our schools at the moment. But that's a problem with the schools, not the system.
The state-run state-mandated system of schooling must be destroyed before it destroys us.
State-run, perhaps. But to destroy the idea of state-mandated schooling in whatever form? That will destroy us more surely than the current system will. I suppose it merits pointing out that the nations which are starting to catch up to our lead and even pull ahead all run mandatory schooling programs, most even more restrictive and "fascist" than the ones you find in the U.S.
Almost perfect score. You got the non-anime question right. I'm very impressed to see someone remembered Wildfire; no one else I've ever talked to seems to know what the hell I'm talking about.
As for PAWC, yes, it really is an anime (two-episode OAV, subbed by Tomodachi). If you've seen Marmalade Boy then take that and add judo. That gives you PWAC.
...unfortunately, if it goes through, it probably won't be handled very well.
ISP's cannot control what is on their servers, of course. Data simply moves around too fast for that, and their servers rely on too many external sources.
AOL, though, is different. The AOL system is totally senf-contained. In short, AOL can control what's on their internal servers (Web servers are another matter). This makes them unique among online providers. And should they be liable for their content? Perhaps. They should certainly be liable for their users, whom they actually can teach such things as Net etiquette but refuse to do so (again, another case where AOL's self-contained system makes this possible).
The problem with the ruling is, courts aren't quite that smart yet. They won't get that AOL is unique among online providers. They'll think that everyone can control their servers like AOL can. And this is the problem, because that's simply not true.
So in the end, I'm afraid I've got to favor letting AOL off the hook. Simply because if AOL loses, the precedent will be used where it doesn't apply by people who don't know any better.
Who here remembers the following series? I'm not saying all of these were good (not all are even American), but I figured they were obscure enough to present a good challenge. Bonus points if you can point to someone or some site that has the episodes...
The Lost Cities of Gold
Spartacus
Wildfire
M.A.S.K.
Princess Army Wedding Combat
Code Name: Sailor V
Wait Till Your Father Gets Home
OMAKE! One of the animated series I mentioned here never actually existed. Tell me which one that was...
Boku no Marie is a great little series, but it ends with the single most cruel cliffhanger I've ever seen... and then there's no more! I liked the series, but I have a lot of trouble recommending any series which left the entire anime club screaming for blood because there was no more after they showed 1-3 one day.
Utena - One of The Greatest Series of All Time. I used to be the self-appointed High Priest of Utena-Sama at the anime club here, but then someone else got tapes of the ending before I did. So I've been demoted to Chu-chu no Miko.
Evangelion - The Greatest Series of All Time. Particularly good for pissing off the Christian Right (assuming you can get them to watch, which will be a feat in and of itself).
Escaflowne - Haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to this weekend (honest; girlfriend's coming ans she insists I see this thing). Heard lots of good stuff about it though, especially the music.
Rayearth - I didn't much care for most of the series, but the ending to Season 1 has quite frankly the coolest plot twist I've seen in a long time.
Kenshin - Awesome series. Good action, great characters, greater story.
Oh! My Goddess - Sweet story. Saccharine, almost. If you want a really good laugh, check out SD Mini Goddess sometime (a continuation where the Goddesses go chibi-cute and befriend a talking rat which isn't cute in the least).
And now, for the ones I would add to your list...
Kareshi Kanojo no Jijou - also called "His and Her Circumstances," or "KareKano." This can be summed up in three words: Anno does shoujo. For those of you who've seen Evangelion, this description should be causing your brain to bluescreen (you shoulda seen what happened when I unloaded it on a bunch of friends). But he pulls it off so well it's unbelieveable.
Marmalade Boy - Very long, very good. But if you don't like sappy stuff, avoid this series like the plague, 'cause it lays the warm fuzzies on thick.
Flame of Recca - The series said to have everything but mechs. One of my favorite action series. And its opening sequence is awesome to boot. Just avoid the Shinsen Gumi translation; they screwed this one up bad (of course, I'm still mad at them over the superfluous hyphens they stuck in Kenshin at random points).
Ranma 1/2 - The most ubiquitous anime out there. Love it or hate it, you've got to at least see some of it. Action, comedy, hyperdimensional 2-ton mallets, and relationships which skip the love-triangle and go straight for the love-polyhedra... oh, and plenty of fanservice for the ecchi out there. Not as much as some (cough... Bakuretsu Hunters... cough...) but more than enough for most of us.
Bubblegum Crisis - The classic mecha. Short series. At least see Episodes 5 and 6 if nothing else.
Vampire Princess Miyu - Take Sailor Moon. Vampire Princess Miyu is the opposite of that. In other words, absolutely amazing (then again, I suppose SM would be too, were it not for those $#%*#!s Usagi and Chibi-Usa...)
Princess Army Wedding Combat - I'm not going to spoil this one for you. Suffice it to say that anything with a title like that is worth watching once.
Kodomo no Omocha - also called "Kodocha" or "Child's Toy." I think the slogan of the fansubbers puts it best: "Cheaper than crack, and lots more fun." The second-season opening is one of the most surreal anime experiences you'll ever have. Trust me on this.
Fairy Princess Ren - Called Elf Princess Ren in the US, this is basically a spoof on just about everything. And from what I hear, one of the few good dubs out there.
The Slayers - Some of the best music out there. I think this series was meant to be a spoof on other anime. If so, it pulls it off brilliantly. I just hope it really was intended as a spoof.
Those are my favorites. I generally don't care for mahou shoujo (Utena, Miyu, and Rayearth being the major exceptions). I'm more for the straight shoujo, and shounen to a lesser extent.
Now, the major question: put Pikachu, Chu-chu, Mokona, and Ryo-Ohki in the ring together. Who wins?
...you should see what they had planned for Sailor Moon sometime. Yes, you heard me right. Back in '93, Saban and DIC were in a bidding war for the U.S. rights to SM. Each made a trailer.
Now don't get me wrong; what DIC did to SM is pretty awful. But after seeing what Saban had planned for the series, I can forgive DIC for everything they did, simply because they saved the series from Saban's Evil Clutches.
By the way, I actually got the opportunity to see the first few episodes of Zyuranger (the series which would become the first season of Power Rangers. Loath as I am to say it, Saban actually improved that series a bit. Not much, mind you, but a bit.
This still seems like an abuse of the patent system to me. Trapping mice instead of patenting the mousetrap. It's wrong to sue Amazon over something like that (mainly because this shouldn't have been patentable in the first place).
But dammit, I can't help feeling a kind of perverse glee at seeing Amazon getting a taste of their own medicine.
Infected blood from an outside source. Same shit different pile.
Actually, that isn't too likely to be the problem; the mother's and baby's blood only mix as the child is being born, and even then it isn't enough to pose too much of a threat (indeed, many AIDS babies are actually born without the virus and later get it from their mother's breastmilk).
I don't know if amnion carries the virus or not; not all fluids do. Saliva, for example, doesn't carry the virus, at least not in large enough quantities to pose any risk whatsoever unless you were to drink a gallon of the stuff (I think I'll pass). Last I checked only four bodily fluids actually carried the virus in significant quantities: blood, mucus, semen, and vaginal secretions. Other fluids don't seem to carry the virus, or carry it in such minute amounts that there's little to no real risk.
There are also reported cases of babies born with HIV whose bodies actually fight and kill the virus, but Doctors aren't quite sure why yet. Read about that years ago.
There was one case, and that one was later found to be just a mistake; the test was a false-negative.
Also, you talk about the only way to get AIDS without having yourself to blame being through a blood transfusion. That's not strictly true. Some AIDS-infected people actually use their disease as a weapon, infecting many people without them even knowing it. One famous example was a Florida dentist who secretly infected 25 people. There are also HIV-infected rapists; surely such a case is one where it's not the victim's fault that they were infected. And while I know of no cases of this next one, there's also the possibility of infecting someone unwillingly with a needle (we're not talking needle-sharing here; we're talking forced injection).
As for blood transfusions, the screening is so good now that it basically takes a freak accident for HIV-infected blood to get into the supply. So under normal circumstances, AIDS is quite preventable. But it isn't always; don't forget that.
This said, I do think it's a shame that AIDS research gets 20 times the money that cancer research gets. Not so much because of the preventability of AIDS as the fact that cancer still kills many more people every year than AIDS does, and it's been killing for a far longer time There's evidence of known cancer cases in ancient Egypt, whereas the first confirmed AIDS cases were in the late 70's/early 80's, and even the oldest hypothetical case is from the 50's. Don't get me wrong; both diseases are terrible things and need research. But someone in Washington needs to get their priorities straight, or at least recognize that cancer is still a massive threat.
But I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. One last tidbit to leave you with. For a long time, the CIA had a certain bit of spy technology with an interesting side-effect: it could be used to detect breast cancer far earlier than any technology of the time could. But before they released it to the public (which was only recent; sometime in the last five years), they had to be convinced that women's health was "an issue of national security." Guess it goes to show you where Washington's priorities lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has NOT attacked this company yet. And I don't think they will. Why? Because this is quite clearly not an iMac ripoff.
People here seem to have the misconception that Apple's just suing people who make their cases out of translucent plastic. This isn't right, and it wouldn't be right of Apple to do it. No, Apple goes after companies that blatantly rip off the iMac's design. And it does have a right to do this. Look at FuturePower's own ripoff, the ePower. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't just leave the Apple logo on the cases; it is the only difference. It is clearly meant to confuse the consumer.
Translucent plastic certainly isn't new. But it's not the issue, either. The iMac has a design that is clearly non-generic, and computer companies have done little but rip it off. I applaud AMD for making a "cool" case that doesn't rip off the iMac; this would be why Apple won't sue them. It's an original design, and even though most of the color schemes are quite awful (at least the iMac doesn't clash with itself, even though it might clash with everything else) it's a good and original idea.
I hadn't heard about this. However, there's a rather large problem with using it to track descent. Only men have Y-chromosomes (even individuals with Kleinfelter syndrome, in which case they have two X's and a Y, come out male).
So while you could use the Y-chromosome technique to track patrilinear descent of men, the technique is rather useless for women. And even if it could be used to track women, it has all the same problems that mitochondrial tracking does (namely, since it's basically identical from generation to generation, you still can't get specific with it).
There is one possible interesting use for this, though: it could be used to determine how many men were in this tribe with the seven women, and furthermore it could be used to track which men and which women mated. Just think of the fun the tabloids could have with that one: "Prehistoric sex scandal! OOG seen with mysterious "eighth woman!"
However, it won't be that useful to geneaologists in the long run. The reason: a sad fact of European society (and most others, actually, dating back for most of recorded history): the family name and identity was generally handed down in a patrilineal manner, while mitochondria can only trace matrilineal ancestry. I guess it's sorta understandable, though; back when those rules were made the people didn't know about mitochondrial DNA (or, for that matter, any other kind of DNA).
Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA tracing is far less specific, since barring mutations mitochondrial DNA is identical from generation to generation. In other words, you're not going to get accurate family lineage tracing this way. You can get into the general ballpark (tracing back to one of seven women 150,000 years ago, for example) but you can't be very exact.
I guess it would have important symbolic value, however, particularly among warring nations. It proves that, in a way, we're all brothers (and sisters too, of course). Now if only we could get a few certain groups in the world, who shall remain nameless, to get that through their skulls...
One: The real OOG actually posts good, insightful comments. He delivers them in a singularly annoying way because it's his way of protesting moderation. But it actually works wuite well (take it from the buy who swapped personalities with him on April Fool's; it's actually fun). But this one really was just a troll, not like OOG at all. (And yes, I am an OOG fan).
Two: OOG uses spaces in his name, not underscores. That one's actually probably more definitive evidence that this was an OOG-poser.
You do know that Imperial Japan had conquered a large portion of East Asia long before the US became involved, right? You do know of the Rape of Nanking, and the serial war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese army throughout Korea and the Philipines?
You're correct. However, that was a separate war. Japan later joined up with the Axis, and in a sense joined the two wars together in doing so. I suppose you could say that the combinations of the two wars (the one in Asia and the one in Europe) did make it a true World War, and then in one sense Japan could have started it (it then depends on who approached whom about Japan's alliance with the Axis).
However, Hitler and Nazi Germany are generally credited with starting what would later become World War II in any case. Japan had its own wars, and did not join the Axis until later.
First, Japan didn't start World War II as we know it. You know that it wouldn't have happened without Europe.
Of course not. Though Japan gave the US a convenient reason to get into the war, it was not responsible for starting the war itself.
Second, what is a Samurai-like technique? Do the companies go around wearing masks throwing throwing-stars at eachother?
Nope. But the techniques you described weren't used by samurai anyway. Shuriken (throwing stars, you called them) were more typically the tools of the shinobi (who had another name that I dare not mention simply because it would get a certain Slashdot troll very excited).
How does "the country" use techniques to root out competition.
Actually, it's possible by using protectionist tariffs, something the US has also done in the past (Hawley-Smoot, anyone?) And Japan is known to do this. However, the trend has been reversing in recent years, albeit slowly.
Your post is way too full of B.S. to make any sense whatsoever.
That's why it's called a troll.
Will the book include all of the posts? I ask this because not all of the posts are in the Slashdot archive. For example, two posts in the original Hellmouth piece which were modded to -1, and everything in reply to them , are not in the archive. This is bad, since some of the best posts were in reply to those (some had even been modded to 5), and are now gone. I only realized this recently, when I had to do a speech for a Persuasion class and was looking through those archives for research (yes, the speech was against geek profiling).
Frankly, that's enough that I can now say I have a grievance with the moderation system. And as an ardent believer in the system otherwise that's no small feat. But post archives should be complete archives, even if that means including the trolls. Otherwise, too many "good" posts (as defined even by moderation) are cut out.
And to the trolls reading this: don't think this means I'm joining your immature ranks anytime soon. I have better things to do then meet in the big UCTAM treehouse for milk and cookies. But I do agree with you on one small and easily-fixed aspect of the moderation system now.
While I do agree that under normal circumstances something like this would be tacky, there are some good reasons for it in this case.
1) It's not even being published yet; this is only pre-ordering. Similar, true, but this is likely to be forgotten, whereas an actual ship date would not. Pretty shrewd move on Katz's part, actually.
2) Consider: it is the anniversary. The very hysteria the book seeks to fight will likely run high today, and probably will continue for a while. We need a countering force to that.
3) Is it not possible that this is nothing but coincidence? Or even if it's not, that it might not have been Katz's decision? Don't blame him so quickly for a decision which could very well have not been his to make.
I've seen arrogance in my lifetime. But this guy just about takes the cake. Let's see...
... is an implicit belief [that books] are not going to be replaced, and should not be replaced."
... that you are going to get everything you want electronically."
... is the absolute platform of essentiality for our democracy." Furthermore, in public libraries "there is an inherent adversity to censorship."
"So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing," said Billington.
First, the Internet is not television. Must as reactionaries and luddites would love to believe it, it's simply not true. Also, even if this is true, it's nothing more than a problem. What do you do with a problem? You fix it. The only way to counter "bad" stuff is with "good" stuff, and if all the stuff he's talked about is bad, then what could be better than to ass whole libraries to the Net?
"We have so much special format material that nobody has seen that it is more important to get those out."
Point for Billington's side. If you're going to get your stuff, better to start with the rarer materials. But that doesn't mean to ignore the more common ones.
"Secondly, behind this
Agreed. But online access to books certainly does not replace books. All it does is make the book's contents more widely available.
"There is a difference between turning pages and scrolling down," he said. "There is something about a book that should inspire a certain presumption of reverence."
Interesting idea. But a book itself should not be revered. It is the ideas therein that are worthy of reverence. Books have become an important symbol for this reverence, yes. But symbols come and go. Before books ever existed, literature was still revered; I'm willing to bet similar arguments to Billington's were raised when someone first had the idea to print Homer's Iliad. But certainly the literature is still revered, even when its physical form changes.
"We should be very hesitant
"You don't want to be one of those mindless futurists," said Billington, "who sit in front of a lonely screen."
As opposed to... what? Read on...
"It is isolating. It is a lonely thing." In contrast, "libraries are places, a community thing."
Oh, really? I don't see particularly much community-oriented activity taking place at most libraries. I don't see that as the purpose of a library at all. To me, a library is an almost sacred place, a "temple of knowledge" if you will. I've been to many libraries over the course of my life, and I've never felt any less lonely than when reading in front of a computer screen.
"It is dangerous to promote the illusion that you can get anything you want by sitting in front of a computer screen." He described this as "arrogance" and "hubris". He added that while electronic books may succeed commercially, they are "seductive."
I see a more than a little elitism here. Enough that I could well call that statement "arrogance" and "hubris."
He also stated that the Reformation was largely fought with the printing press, and that "media revolutions provoke intense debate."
True. And the Internet is to our age what the printing press was to theirs. A new medium, used to spread knowledge more than ever before. But there's an interesting problem here. The Reformation was a fight against a corrupt religion. Clearly, we are embroiled in a fight that has many interesting parallels to the Reformation. But just what is it that we fight against? I'm not certain. But I think I can guess, and it frightens people like Billington.
However, he elaborated that "there should be no question that the tradition of free public libraries
Again, point for Billington's side. Two, actually. The tradition of free public libraries is necessary for a democracy, yes. But how would that be diminished by digitization? In addition to the simple fact that a library can easily adapt to change, there's the fact that not everything that has ever been printed will eventually be online. Consider, for example, the decades of old newspapers now on microfiche. I'd call the chances of these ever being digitized slim to none. There's also a need to keep hard copies of things, both for research purposes and archives; libraries fit this bill well (indeed, this is precisely what they have been doing as long as they have been in existence).
And yes, in public libraries there does seem to be an adversity to censorship. Look all around you at the filtering-software battles carried out by the Reactionary Religious Right, The Lunatic Liberal Left, and Positively Pottering Parents. You'll be very hard-pressed to find a library that actually wants to use filtering software; more often than not they're fighting against the measures which would force them to use censorware.
He said that at the Library of Congress, the focus is to provide "an example of the good." In contrast, if the government gets into "defining the bad, you get onto the slippery slope of defining the bad."
Um... what the hell was that? I think he meant to say that if the government gets into defining the good, it gets onto the slippery slope of defining the bad. However, providing an example of the good is defining the good to some degree (it's a damn weak definition, but it is one). And because good and bad can only be defined in terms of each other, once you define the good you do define the bad.
I do find it interesting, though, that Billington never mentioned copyright in this article. Very strange.
And now, for my own views on the subject (sorry this post is taking so long). First, people here are stating that digitizing books will create unequal access to these works. I disagree; digitization will create more equal access to the Library of Congress' collection. Consider: I come from Virginia. I can go to the Library of Congress and look at the works there, more or less whenever I want (unless, of course, the Library is closed). So can anyone else in the area. Equal access, at least in one region.
But I'm currently at college in Rochester. I cannot go to the Library, and therefore I am cut off from accessing its collection. For no better reason than that I live in a different region. Were the Library's works online, I could at least access the contents of the collection.
No, the digitization of the Library's works won't create equal access. But we're already faced with unequal access. Digitization is a step in the right direction, because physical location will no longer be a barrier to accessing the content (you still can't access the physical works if you can't get to the Library, of course, but access to the content is better than no access at all).
Also, the idea that online access will ever totally replace books is simply absurd. Tell you what, here's a challenge. Go to Project Gutenberg. Pick up their copy of Les Miserables, and without printing it read it all in one pull (stopping only to eat, sleep, and such). I can pretty much guarantee that even if you do succeed, you'll be needing a case of Excedrin and a new pair of eyeballs. You can't simply curl up with a good, long Website the way you can with a book. And for that reason alone, books are here to stay, to say nothing of the other advantages books have over online content.
The two media can coexist. The Net itself cannot replace print media completely. It's not a true replacement for most of the media out there. The reason for this is that the Internet is a distribution medium, like television and radio. It is not a storage medium, like books or CD's, and it's not a very good delivery medium (like movies and books). So books aren't going anywhere; the Librarian of Congress' job is in no danger. But we all have to get rid of the arrogance pervading both the old and new media if we're going to make any progress.
First, I'll assume that you're talking about "free speech" as commonly defined in the United States.
Is speech always as free as the GPL?
No. But it should be. Freedom which is not guaranteed isn't freedom at all. The removal of a guarantee on any right reduces it to a privilege, and privileges can be revoked. This is what the GPL does; it guarantees that the code it covers stays free.
Is speech always as restricted as GPL software?
Yes. A French revolutionary put it best: "The right to swing my fist ends at the next man's nose." I have free speech, but that doesn't give me the right to slander others, (which would interfere with their rights). The GPL gives me free code, but doesn't give me the right to remove the freedom on that code (which would similarly interfere with my users' rights).
Never forget: the only program which is "yours" is the one you have written. You may make relatively small modifications to another's program, but that doesn't make it your program; it still belongs to the person who wrote it. And since this is so, you must respect the wishes of the person who actually wrote the program that you only modified.
The spammers cry free speech, and they do have a point. They are allowed their say. This is a sad fact of the Constitution, but it's one we must put up with if we're to continue enjoying the benefits of our own free speech without the fear that those same rights could someday be taken away.
However, don't forget that we also have a right to free speech. The First Amendment isn't just for corporations (much as they'd love to think it were... cough... filters...) So while they have the right to approach us and say their piece, we have the right to then tell them to go away and never bother us again. And thanks to the nation's anti-harassment laws, they then have to agree because we've made it clear.
So in the end, I would propose this. All commercial e-mail, solicited or not, must include a genuine e-mail address to which someone can then reply and opt out. If a user takes this option and ever gets an e-mail from that company again without permission, then the offending e-mail is considered harassment.
I know this won't be popular here, because of the "everybody gets one shot" inherent in it. I admit, I don't like it either. I'd probably feel a rather perverse glee if every telemarketer on the planet were to spontaneously combust right now. But I have my rights, and they have theirs, and we both have to respect each other's, and that's simply the way it's got to be. And yeah, I take a bit of annoying crap from them because of it (with the assurance that I can stop any company from harassing me at any time). It will still cut down on the spam.
On a related note, I also think the US needs a privacy amendment to the Constitution. I do think this is needed to stop the involuntary datamining and tracking done by marketers. It's outright silly that we're the last industrialized nation to not treat privacy as a right, but those are the business lobbies for you. I'd recommend a wording something like this:
1. All United States citizens and residents are recognized to have a right to privacy concerning themselves, their property, and their personal information.
2. Neither Congress nor the States shall make any law permitting the infringement of the rights defined above, except by consent of the person whose rights would be infringed, or when a proper warrant has been issued by a court of law.
3. All laws enacted by Congress which would permit such nonconsensual infringement of the rights defined above are hereby repealed.
My point here is that this, too, would help to cut down on unwanted spam, by making sure that ValueClick's little scheme, and those like it, are illegal unless you agree to be tracked. If you don't want to be tracked, then you simply say so, and you cannot be touched.
No, the system isn't perfect. No system is. The best you can do is create a system in which everyone's rights are respected. These proposals are an attempt at bringing us closer to that goal.
Sorry, one line of GPL'd code is certainly not enough of BeOS to warrant open sourcing the entire product.
...because 1) I don't believe in the GPL...
...and 2) I don't want anyone else to have my mods.
I didn't say they should have to Open-Source the entire product. The offending code is in a single shared library (librrot.so, if I'm not mistaken). So if they remove the offending code, or Open-Source the lib, there's no problem, right?
By the way, far more than one line of code is at stake here. This is a significant chunk of code (specifically, Bruce Perens' ElectricFence) that's being ripped off.
Any court in the land would back Be on this.
No court in the land ever has. It should be noted that UCITA, as fundamentally wrong as the law may be, actually would place the law on the side of the GPL here.
Hell, I violate the GPL all the time (modify GPL code and don't distribute my modifications)...
So long as you distribute the app in source or object form, this is perfectly acceptable by the terms of the GPL. In other words, if you're not distributing the app you modded at all, you're not violating the GPL at all. To put it as you dod, "so nyah.."
Sucks to be you. Even if you don't believe in something, you still have a legal and moral obligation to respect it. That's the way most modern societies work.
Then don't mod code that says you have to distribute your mods in source form. Or are you too lazy to write a decent program yourself, so you leech off of other people's work without respecting their wishes as to how their work should be treated? Show us your work (if indeed you do have the gall to distribute in binary-only form) and let's see what you've got.
So nyah.
Does your mommy know you're posting such naughty, nasty stuff? Or do you just have the mind of a six-year-old? Your lack of maturity indicates one or the other.
So what punishment would you recommend? drawn and quartered?
No, simply that they should have to either comply with the license or remove the offending code. If that means they have to Open-Source the lib, so be it. If it means they choose to rewrite the whole lib rather than Open-Source it, that's fine too. But they should comply with the license.
It's Be's responsibility to make sure they're in compliance with the licenses regarding any software they decide to use which they didn't write. The GPL is no different. If this means their only options are to Open-Source the offending code or completely rewrite it, then so be it. If they wanted to keep the whole OS proprietary, they should have written it all themselves and not relied on Open-Source software to do some of their work for them. They shouldn't be let off the hook just because they're a corporation, as some would advocate.
Oh, you're right? I'd all but forgotten about the series (which is particularly sad since the opening theme still gets stuck in my head every once in a while). Bit unless I remember right it was Ulysses 31, not 2000.
Er, you mean that democracies only function to your spec if there is "some capacity for thought in its citizens". Sure, I'd like a smart, issue oriented electorate, too. But fact is, in a world in which power is disposed of by popular vote, it's obviously in a candidate's best interest (as far as getting elected goes) to keep the populace ignorent and uncritical -- if he can somehow manage it. School boards in conjunction with mandatory schooling provide precisely that power.
...and Christianity (as practiced widely) teaches that Christians are better than unbelievers...
On a state level, this is theoretically possible. Not on a national level, however (schools are run by the states, not the federal government). Even then, you only say it can happen. Let's see examples of it really happenning.
Oh, that's right, you don't provide any.
Actually, I think I just did. Kindly remove your foot from your throat.
No need; you didn't present the evidence until someone pointed out that you weren't doing it. My statement was still valid for the time.
And what else is the bid to have Oklahoma schools teach creationism but an attempt at state sponsored propaganda?
One: For crying out loud, you don't even have the state right. It's Kansas, not Oklahoma.
Two: Seems you've been brainwashed more than you claim the students have. Nowhere in any state does any school curriculum mandate the teaching of creationism. What happened in Kansas is that evolution is no longer mandatory learning. Creation is not mandatory there either. Nothing is. In other words, except perhaps at parochial schools (which, incidentally, are not ) not a single thing is going to change.
The people who have seized the reins there have an agenda for how they'd like people to think.
Here, again, I must disagree, but my view is actually more extreme than yours for once. It's not that they have an agenda on how they want people to think. They simply don't want people to think for themselves at all. It's the perverted brand of pseudo-Christianity that you see in the religious right nowadays that's the problem there.
Don't kid yourself that it's purely a love of Christianity which moves those people.
The hell of it is, it probably is purely a love of Christianity that moves most of them. You forget, the brand of Christianity practiced by the religious right scorns individual thought. Most of the people are just plain duped. Matter of fact, once the original leaders all finally keel over, they'll all be dupes of dead men.
They know that if everyone grows up thinking Christianity is more valid than other religions (which don't get their origin myths put in science text books) and, heck, just as valid as science...
One: that's illegal. Try as they might, they can't do that in a state-run school (parochial schools, perhaps).
Two: You speak of creationism being just as valid as science with a very disparaging tone. My guess is that you too have had a bit of indoctrination going on. Mainly the fact that the two answer totally different questions, and in fact both could well be valid or invalid (evolution asks how it happened, whereas creation asks why. My point is this: we're never going to know which one is truly what happened until someone can figure out how to build a time machine. The only truly fair way to do it is something like this. "How did life originate? We're not certain. These are the major theories, and the pros and cons of each. There are many other theories also." Present the students with all the theories and let them decide for themselves. After all, isn't independent thought what you wanted? Let's see you back it up.
If you could call that perverse twisting of the religion Christianity, yes. But that part of it's bullshit, made up by psychos out to... well, I don't claim to know what was going through their heads (probably a mixture of greed and arrogance).
By the way, a little tip which is really fun when going up against the religious right: read the Bible. Seriously. Reading (even skimming) through it once will give you a better working knowledge of what it says than at least 90% of the religious right. This is particularly fun because you learn just how much crap has been spoon-fed to them by their own corrupt religion (example: you know that Hell place they're always saying you're headed for? The Bible never mentions it, or anything like it, ever. Not even once). You can use this to take the Bible they're trying to cram down your throat and cram it right back.
Christianity becomes a virtuous trait in a candidate -- as has already happened (the Boston Globe had a nice article on it if you hadn't figured it out for yourself). Promulgating Christianity in schools is a good way to make sure eventually only Christians are elected to office.
But not the only way. It should interest you to know that all of the past U.S. Presidents have practiced some form of Christianity. I believe only two (maybe three; I'm not certain) were Catholic, and the first of those came as recently as the 1960's. And all this even after evolution became mandatory.
But, hey, this is other people. You went to (or are going through) ~12 years of schooling in the US, right?
Correct.
Think for yourself. Look back on your own experience and ask "Hey, did I learn a lot?
Nope. Not till I hit college at any rate.
How does it compare to what I learned on my own?
Extremely little. However I'm not exactly a usual case; I was reading encyclopedias when I was three. I read Tolkien at six.
How does it compare to what I learned from other people?"
If you're speaking about in-school experience, I learned more from other people than I cared to.
Ask yourself "Did I like being in school? Did it engage my intellect and introduce me to new things?
No and no. With some exceptions. It depended more on the teacher than anything else. There are damn good teachers out there, even in the public schools.
Or did I sit either bored or terrified in most of my classes wishing I could be somewhere else, doing somewhere else?"
Could be somewhere else: hell yes. I really didn't like my schools, but not because of anything wrong with the schools themselves. It was the people there.
Doing something else: not really. Maybe taking a higher-level class, but that's it.
What they did to you was wrong. They had no right. It could have been different. It could have been better. Having to spend your childhood in a state-run or state-authorized institution being told the state's version of reality was wrong.
Now you sound like you're the one doing the indoctrinating. While I agree that it could have been different and/or better, there's a few things I see in your argument that don't seem right. "The state's version of reality"? You're being a big harsh. Two plus two equals four, no matter where you go (Mathematics). The word "guarantee" means a promise (English). Butterflies go through four stages of life: egg, larva, pupa, and adult (Biology). E = mc^2 (Physics). Potassium reacts violently with water (Chemistry). Well over 50% of the United States' annual budget goes to Social Security (Economics). These things are all true, no matter which way you slice them. You can say 2+2=5, but that's still not right.
What you seem to have odds with is history. And here, you certainly do have a point. I remember as a fourth grader in Maryland studying the state's history; when we got to the point of the Civil War the textbooks did acknowledge that Maryland was a slave state, but tried to gloss over it (the main argument being that since Maryland's major cash crop was wheat instead of tobacco, the slaves weren't as bad off there as in other places). It should also be noted that this book was custom-printed, and not in widespread use. Interesting, the things you remember from elementary school.
That will destroy us more surely than the current system will.
What evidence do you have for that? Or is that just "what everyone knows"?
The exact opposite, actually: what people don't know. The sad fact is, to survive in this world you need a good, broad education. The public schools currently don't provide this, but the answer is to improve the schools, not destroy them. It should be noted that as recently as two generations ago we were leading the world in every aspect of education. These things you speak of are recent phenomena, and I con't think they can be attributed to the school system (at least not entirely).
Can you think of any forces in your life which would benefit by your believing that uncritically?
By believeing what uncritically? Or are you using "that" as a means of demonstrating that I am thinking very uncritically? Either you never got it through your head that voice inflection doesn't travel over Unix, or you needed to pay more attention in English class ^_^
I suppose it merits pointing out that the nations which are starting to catch up to our lead and even pull ahead all run mandatory schooling programs, most even more restrictive and "fascist" than the ones you find in the U.S.
Oh, don't worry. In three generations (~90years) they'll be in exactly the same boat as we are now.
You're not giving any evidence again, but this time you're not even giving a reason for the evidence to support. Why will it happen there?
The so-called "education" system of the US is a State-run propaganda organ mated to a state subsidized day-care program. It has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself". Schools exist to promulgate conformity as practice and as virtue.
And you think privatized education would be any different? Businesses would do just the same thing. Worse, actually; a democracy has to preserve at least some capacity for thought in its citizens (elections and all). Businesses don't even have to do that; it's more profitable to squash even those last vestiges of independence.
The admission that large percentages of our population would be in severe financial crisis if the state did not pay for the daily supervision of their children is more an indictment of our economy than an argument for that system's virtue.
Correct. Now, how do you propose to fix the economy such that this is not so?
If it is the state which is educating your children, you have already abdicated your responsibility.
Please explain. Far better to have a child taught by a trained professional than by someone who, in the end, may well not know much more than the student.
The system of mandatory schooling in the US is despicably corrupt. It must end.
Again, please explain. While I have seen more than my share of corruption in individual school administrations, I don't see where the corruption is in the system itself.
But having a propaganda organ to indoctinate the entirety of society is the One Ring of our culture -- it it utterly addictive and utterly corrupting.
You know, you've been using the word "corrupt" and derivations thereof quite a lot. Without giving a single shred of evidence as to where the corruption lies, no less. I do like the Tolkien reference, however.
One last note on this: I have yet to see a kid who is truly addicted to school. The few who even approach that level tend to have problems at home (note that I'm not talking about people who simply like school; addiction is something more, a desperate need to be there).
So-called liberals -- who would otherwise staunchly support freedom of speach and diversity of creed -- have become enamoured with the possibility of mandating their beliefs by means of this tool. They have become just as fascist as the religious right -- both sides wrestling over control of this power over the populace.
When schools become used as a political tool, it is a Bad Thing. But I'd like to see your evidence that school has become a propaganda tool. Oh, that's right, you don't provide any. And thus, no reason for anyone to believe you.
It is left-wing secular homeschooling which has been the fastest-growing form of homeschooling for the last decade. For a reason.
Indeed it has. Mainly because it's a hell of a lot safer than our schools at the moment. But that's a problem with the schools, not the system.
The state-run state-mandated system of schooling must be destroyed before it destroys us.
State-run, perhaps. But to destroy the idea of state-mandated schooling in whatever form? That will destroy us more surely than the current system will. I suppose it merits pointing out that the nations which are starting to catch up to our lead and even pull ahead all run mandatory schooling programs, most even more restrictive and "fascist" than the ones you find in the U.S.
Almost perfect score. You got the non-anime question right. I'm very impressed to see someone remembered Wildfire; no one else I've ever talked to seems to know what the hell I'm talking about.
As for PAWC, yes, it really is an anime (two-episode OAV, subbed by Tomodachi). If you've seen Marmalade Boy then take that and add judo. That gives you PWAC.
...unfortunately, if it goes through, it probably won't be handled very well.
ISP's cannot control what is on their servers, of course. Data simply moves around too fast for that, and their servers rely on too many external sources.
AOL, though, is different. The AOL system is totally senf-contained. In short, AOL can control what's on their internal servers (Web servers are another matter). This makes them unique among online providers. And should they be liable for their content? Perhaps. They should certainly be liable for their users, whom they actually can teach such things as Net etiquette but refuse to do so (again, another case where AOL's self-contained system makes this possible).
The problem with the ruling is, courts aren't quite that smart yet. They won't get that AOL is unique among online providers. They'll think that everyone can control their servers like AOL can. And this is the problem, because that's simply not true.
So in the end, I'm afraid I've got to favor letting AOL off the hook. Simply because if AOL loses, the precedent will be used where it doesn't apply by people who don't know any better.
OMAKE! One of the animated series I mentioned here never actually existed. Tell me which one that was...
Boku no Marie is a great little series, but it ends with the single most cruel cliffhanger I've ever seen... and then there's no more! I liked the series, but I have a lot of trouble recommending any series which left the entire anime club screaming for blood because there was no more after they showed 1-3 one day.
...but first, a few comments on your choices.
Utena - One of The Greatest Series of All Time. I used to be the self-appointed High Priest of Utena-Sama at the anime club here, but then someone else got tapes of the ending before I did. So I've been demoted to Chu-chu no Miko.
Evangelion - The Greatest Series of All Time. Particularly good for pissing off the Christian Right (assuming you can get them to watch, which will be a feat in and of itself).
Escaflowne - Haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to this weekend (honest; girlfriend's coming ans she insists I see this thing). Heard lots of good stuff about it though, especially the music.
Rayearth - I didn't much care for most of the series, but the ending to Season 1 has quite frankly the coolest plot twist I've seen in a long time.
Kenshin - Awesome series. Good action, great characters, greater story.
Oh! My Goddess - Sweet story. Saccharine, almost. If you want a really good laugh, check out SD Mini Goddess sometime (a continuation where the Goddesses go chibi-cute and befriend a talking rat which isn't cute in the least).
And now, for the ones I would add to your list...
Kareshi Kanojo no Jijou - also called "His and Her Circumstances," or "KareKano." This can be summed up in three words: Anno does shoujo. For those of you who've seen Evangelion, this description should be causing your brain to bluescreen (you shoulda seen what happened when I unloaded it on a bunch of friends). But he pulls it off so well it's unbelieveable.
Marmalade Boy - Very long, very good. But if you don't like sappy stuff, avoid this series like the plague, 'cause it lays the warm fuzzies on thick.
Flame of Recca - The series said to have everything but mechs. One of my favorite action series. And its opening sequence is awesome to boot. Just avoid the Shinsen Gumi translation; they screwed this one up bad (of course, I'm still mad at them over the superfluous hyphens they stuck in Kenshin at random points).
Ranma 1/2 - The most ubiquitous anime out there. Love it or hate it, you've got to at least see some of it. Action, comedy, hyperdimensional 2-ton mallets, and relationships which skip the love-triangle and go straight for the love-polyhedra... oh, and plenty of fanservice for the ecchi out there. Not as much as some (cough... Bakuretsu Hunters... cough...) but more than enough for most of us.
Bubblegum Crisis - The classic mecha. Short series. At least see Episodes 5 and 6 if nothing else.
Vampire Princess Miyu - Take Sailor Moon. Vampire Princess Miyu is the opposite of that. In other words, absolutely amazing (then again, I suppose SM would be too, were it not for those $#%*#!s Usagi and Chibi-Usa...)
Princess Army Wedding Combat - I'm not going to spoil this one for you. Suffice it to say that anything with a title like that is worth watching once.
Kodomo no Omocha - also called "Kodocha" or "Child's Toy." I think the slogan of the fansubbers puts it best: "Cheaper than crack, and lots more fun." The second-season opening is one of the most surreal anime experiences you'll ever have. Trust me on this.
Fairy Princess Ren - Called Elf Princess Ren in the US, this is basically a spoof on just about everything. And from what I hear, one of the few good dubs out there.
The Slayers - Some of the best music out there. I think this series was meant to be a spoof on other anime. If so, it pulls it off brilliantly. I just hope it really was intended as a spoof.
Those are my favorites. I generally don't care for mahou shoujo (Utena, Miyu, and Rayearth being the major exceptions). I'm more for the straight shoujo, and shounen to a lesser extent.
Now, the major question: put Pikachu, Chu-chu, Mokona, and Ryo-Ohki in the ring together. Who wins?
...you should see what they had planned for Sailor Moon sometime. Yes, you heard me right. Back in '93, Saban and DIC were in a bidding war for the U.S. rights to SM. Each made a trailer.
Now don't get me wrong; what DIC did to SM is pretty awful. But after seeing what Saban had planned for the series, I can forgive DIC for everything they did, simply because they saved the series from Saban's Evil Clutches.
By the way, I actually got the opportunity to see the first few episodes of Zyuranger (the series which would become the first season of Power Rangers. Loath as I am to say it, Saban actually improved that series a bit. Not much, mind you, but a bit.
And, oh yes, "bastardizing" is a word.
This still seems like an abuse of the patent system to me. Trapping mice instead of patenting the mousetrap. It's wrong to sue Amazon over something like that (mainly because this shouldn't have been patentable in the first place).
But dammit, I can't help feeling a kind of perverse glee at seeing Amazon getting a taste of their own medicine.
Infected blood from an outside source. Same shit different pile.
Actually, that isn't too likely to be the problem; the mother's and baby's blood only mix as the child is being born, and even then it isn't enough to pose too much of a threat (indeed, many AIDS babies are actually born without the virus and later get it from their mother's breastmilk).
I don't know if amnion carries the virus or not; not all fluids do. Saliva, for example, doesn't carry the virus, at least not in large enough quantities to pose any risk whatsoever unless you were to drink a gallon of the stuff (I think I'll pass). Last I checked only four bodily fluids actually carried the virus in significant quantities: blood, mucus, semen, and vaginal secretions. Other fluids don't seem to carry the virus, or carry it in such minute amounts that there's little to no real risk.
There are also reported cases of babies born with HIV whose bodies actually fight and kill the virus, but Doctors aren't quite sure why yet. Read about that years ago.
There was one case, and that one was later found to be just a mistake; the test was a false-negative.
Also, you talk about the only way to get AIDS without having yourself to blame being through a blood transfusion. That's not strictly true. Some AIDS-infected people actually use their disease as a weapon, infecting many people without them even knowing it. One famous example was a Florida dentist who secretly infected 25 people. There are also HIV-infected rapists; surely such a case is one where it's not the victim's fault that they were infected. And while I know of no cases of this next one, there's also the possibility of infecting someone unwillingly with a needle (we're not talking needle-sharing here; we're talking forced injection).
As for blood transfusions, the screening is so good now that it basically takes a freak accident for HIV-infected blood to get into the supply. So under normal circumstances, AIDS is quite preventable. But it isn't always; don't forget that.
This said, I do think it's a shame that AIDS research gets 20 times the money that cancer research gets. Not so much because of the preventability of AIDS as the fact that cancer still kills many more people every year than AIDS does, and it's been killing for a far longer time There's evidence of known cancer cases in ancient Egypt, whereas the first confirmed AIDS cases were in the late 70's/early 80's, and even the oldest hypothetical case is from the 50's. Don't get me wrong; both diseases are terrible things and need research. But someone in Washington needs to get their priorities straight, or at least recognize that cancer is still a massive threat.
But I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. One last tidbit to leave you with. For a long time, the CIA had a certain bit of spy technology with an interesting side-effect: it could be used to detect breast cancer far earlier than any technology of the time could. But before they released it to the public (which was only recent; sometime in the last five years), they had to be convinced that women's health was "an issue of national security." Guess it goes to show you where Washington's priorities lie.