Has anyone ever noticed that Amazon dotcom lists (A)nal (C)unt as just plain vanilla AC?
What would AC/DC mean then? (A)nal (C)unt or (D)anal (C)unt?
You thought I was going to say (D)ick (C)unt, huh? The reason I came up with Danal can be attributed to a cigarette brand. Have you guys ever seen the brand, Doral? I know it ryjmes with Coral, but I always pronounces it Oral plus a D. Hence, Danal, the only suppository cigarette.
Share the idea with a really drunk buddy, and he'll pee himself.
So now I have 50 karma, might as well turn troll...
Thank you for letting me know what I already know. I understand the issue, but it seems you don't understand that I don't really care about your "rights" to be entertained. Now listen little Billy, you'll always be able to watch TV and movies you want, we're just making sure that the other kids don't ruin free entertainment for everyone.
You see Billy, there's a lot of money to be made by pacifying the ignorant masses to keep them from killing each other and the rest of us who want to make this world a decent place to live without having to worry about migrant hoards of sodomizing hippies who smoke "dope" and play their anti-establishment MP3s on their computers running that communist operating system Linux.
If you want the media companies back in line, unplug your television and start talking to people about something other than SouthPark for a change.
It's funny, I'll be at work and I'll be talking part in a group conversation, you know, the kind where everybody's escalating who can be the wittiest! You know?
Then, I'll see a reference to a South Park episode that NOBODY will see, and I'll make a reference to it and everybody is silent as my poignant insight leaves them disoriented. Ha!
It's just that, I can find a way to reference South Park in ANY, and I mean ANY conversation!!!
There's an old addage from the newspaper business which is very applicable here: Only a fool would start a publicity fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
What do you think alternative media aims to do in the first place?
Seriously though, if you want to really cheese the media conglomerates, you have to fight them with the truth, smothered with an exquisite glaze of wit and sattire.
In this case, the topic being presented are by default, shrilly and droning, and you'd have to be pretty fucking entertaining and insightful to educate people on this shit.
Re:Repeat after me, "Steamboat Willie" will NEVER.
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
I see you're an optimist too...:)
I like your fee based copyright idea. I read in another post (was this you), where a guy suggested the following:
1. Copyrights are limited to 10 years 2. After that, they can be renewed for a fee, start at something like $10,000. 3. The fee doubles every year.
What if a company goes bust? Will the unprotected version of the content ever get released?
When a company goes bust, doesn't some organization or entity assume all the assets? Wouldn't that organization be responsible?
I guess it's possible that the unprotected version might be destroyed, and in that case I don't know what would happen. Should there be a provision that all copyrighted works be submitted to a government repository, or is this too far reaching?
but the big problem is that you are interfearing with a person's personal property rights. that is a big issue hear....why am I not allowed to make my own OS or write my own CD player/MP3 encoder?
Are you talking about the creation of circumvention devices part?
I wouldn't make tampering with your own software or hacking your own software illegal to break it, I would just make distributing a circumvention device illegel, (if that's the only purpose).
I hope you don't think I was in any way endorsing the SSSCA. I think the DMCA is MORE than enough, but rather than get rid of the DMCA, we need to fix it so that it applies to real DRM systems, but I only support that if corporations are required to decrypt thier works after the copyrights expire, which shouldn't be 95 years in the first place.
See?
Customs will get it...
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Just like they've been siezing copyright circumvention devices provisioned by the DMCA (See prior slashdot stories...)
My Copyright Plan
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
1. Circumvention devices are illegal, IF they have the exclusive purpose of being a circumvention device. (Providers can't use an amateur DRM system) 2. ALL copyrights expire after 20 years. (Not this 95-150 years BS when original copyrights were 14 years) 3. When a copyright expires, it must be released without DRM (Digital Rights Management) software.
Personally, I think this is a perfect balance. While I would deam circumvention devices illegal, I would also release TONS of MODERN works in the public domain. You're probably thinking, "Big deal, you're realing everything prior to 1980 into the public domain. I'll get to watch old movies."
We don't even have a dictionary in the public domain that is clear enough to scan in with OCR software. (I'm not sure of the current status.)
We have nothing, as far as modern works is concerned, in the public domain. Imagine the wealth of information published prior to 1980, now imagine it's all free. Now imagine you're free to plaigerize from all those works to create an uber-encyclopedia of data structures, gardening, renewable energy guide, home medical guide, medical diagnosis software, etc.
It would create a whole new landscape for a whole new type of aggrigate content. You would be free to mix the best of two books or entire volumes and magazines, and put it on a CD or DVD. The amount of knowledge that could be compiled would be insane.
You might as well give new works the ability to protect themselves for a limited amount of time.
It's time to educate the people with the free information they are entitled to. The US Constitution acknoweldges that information is inherantly free, because they had to make a provision for limited copyrights and patents.
The only reason they would make such a provision is because it was self-evident that information, specific works or vague abstractions, belong to the public and no individual.
In other words, copyrights and patents are privledges, not rights.
This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.
Thanks for your plug on capitalism... Didn't you read my post? Did you read the part where I said I'm not advocating any particular system. (Actually I like it when different systems co-exists) I'm a programmer, and I believe I should have the privledge to copyright my work for a limited of time to recoup my costs and even make a profit. After that limited time, I believe my work belongs to the public domain.
What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life?
For some people, charity is a way of life. Some people honestly dedicate ALL of thier time for the benefit of others while asking for little or nothing in return, while others ask for help with basic living expenses. (Most of the time, basic living arrangments are taking care of without asking...)
Other people try to contribute by building businesses. They want to solve problems and help people with an enterprise. By creating wealth, they employ and support families, education, and charities. This is how they make thier contribution.
Then there are some people who don't care and just want to help themselves (often they end up hurting themselves and others).
IMO, Free Software and Open Source software are charitable contributions, who's purpose is for the benefit of society. Personally, I view charities as sort of a voluntary socialism. I know the comparison doesn't entirely match up, but I'm more suggesting that the spirit of charity and socialism are the same.
While there may be SOME people who think all software should be Free or Open Source software, I disagree. I think each type compliments to other well and keeps the other in check. (Like checks and balances)
Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century.
How can you be sure? The fact the USSR and China had become super powers doesn't suggested communism failed. To suggest that communism actually built both of these superpowers and destroyed one of them it seems pretty counter-intuitive to your conclusion, especially if you consider the fact they were in a cold war with us. Don't you think the fact that communist societies were at war with capitalists societies played any role? There were many factors involved, so why are you singling out just one factor?
If you're so hard up on making me wrong, I might as well tell you that I think capitalism has proven itself to be effective. I'll also tell you that capitalism-socialist hydrids like Isreal and Sweden have proven themselves too, because I believe a good economy is built on freedom of ownership and equal opportunity (No special government favors for specific companies)
The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.
It's worse than that... There are many killer technologies and ideas which could dramatically change the landscape of society. Wonder why they aren't? Look to the patent system and the large industries who would be hurt by these killer technologies.
If you were a large company who's primary source of revenue was from selling an expensive technology, and you found a very inexpensive alternative that would ruin that revenue stream, wouldn't you patent to prevent some little guy from getting his hands on it to undercut your business?
The truth is: Large industries benefit from a flawed patent system more than small companies because they have the capital and cash to research, patent the research, and sue the crap out of you if you fsck with them. The problem isn't the corporations, it's the unlevel playing field.
"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?
The PC kludge-klone and the internet didn't have to deal with heavily entrenched monopolies.
The PC kludge-klone dealt with IBM, a very heavily entrenched monopoly that dealt in both hardware and software. (Remember thier anti-trust problems?) The Internet competed with AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. They weren't monopolies, but they were competition. The whole reason PC's and the Internet competed so well was because they were able to severely undercut thier competition, which is what Open Source aims to do and can do.
But in addition to undercutting, they also had to add value to make it worth people's while. People didn't migrate to PC's and then Internet because they were the moral thing, they did it because it was the better option, or it provided them with an opportunity.
Once a "standard du jour" has been established, it's very hard to get people to try something new. This is true even if the new thing is dramatically cheaper, dramatically easier AND has generally more useful features.
There have been many "standard du jours" which have been replaced with another layer, hence the term "standard du jour".
Lloyd: What's the Soup du Jour? Waitress: Soup of the Day... Lloyd: Mmm... That sounds good... I'll have that...
The truth is that when you do establish a standard, it stays around a long time, but not forever. New ideas based are usually implementing a layer on top of the standard, making the original standard less relevant to the end solution. (Standard du Jour) However, Technology is very stupid they it evolves. The logic and paradigms change very quickly like culture, and most paradigms are incomplete and flawed because most engineers aren't capable of designing coherant paradigms. Things get layered on top of another because nobody wants to get to the root of the problem. Eventually, there's an opportunity to get to the root and change the stupid standard. It usually takes a while to get to this point, but it does happen.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that the Open Source should focus more on giving people what they want and need, rather than trying to shove an economic paradigm, technology paradigm, and tools nobody knows what to do with...
The truth is: Most of us are pushing for the ideals. We just don't agree how to get there, so while one is talking morals (I'm not knocking morals), the other wants to hear results. If you're still not talking results, then people won't want to listen to you and you'll be labeled a crackpot, even though you were right.
The truth is: I'm trying to reform myself as a zealot by attacking zealotry with immense zeal.
...and I didn't see the irony...
Usually I try to subdue the zealotry by posting somewhat rhetorical questions rather than assertions, but not today... Oh no... I have to be a big guy today and say things like, "You shoulda listened to me in the first place boy!"
Fuck it! I can't run... I can't get out of the proverbial bear trap... You can club me like a baby seal now...
I wish someone would mod you up as Funny, only then would I be truely attacking zealtry.
First of all, for those of you who don't know about the REAL Payola Click... A little to the left... Now down... Right HERE!
Payola - The paying of cash or gifts in exchange for airplay.
It's illegal, and record companies do it EVERY DAY, EVERY SONG through a 3rd party otherwise known as "indies" (Independent Record Promoters)
While I'm at it, here's another link to a Salon article: The Salon Article (They have more)
Not only is it illegal and the record companies essentially pay the radio stations to play thier songs, now the record companies MUST pay the indies, or they will never hear thier songs. (As demonstrated with Pink Floyd when thier label decided to boycott the indies. The result: While Pink Floyd ranked in the sales charts, you couldn't hear them on the radio if you tried for a period of X months in the early 80's.)
Slashdot can be so sensational sometimes they deserve to be mocked, but it sucks when something as blatently corrupt as Payola is potentially minimized as a result.
My point is: All of our goals are for the same end:
* creating wealth
* increasing quality of life
We will probably disagree how to go about it. My outlook is that a number of different systems should be employed for different circumstances. The goal is to make great tools and to get them into the hands of people.
Hence, My original point: If the tools are great and the system works well, then people will take to it. Otherwise, you either need to makes some tweaks or complete overhauls.
Firstly, I don't want to turn this into a political debate, and I'm neither adovocating capitalism, communism, corporate anarchy, or socialism.
What I am suggesting is that all of these things, including the Free Software Movement, and Open Source movement's, and even Microsoft's goal is to create tools, wealth, and knowledge for the purpose of increasing our quality of life.
What RMS and ESR are greating wealth when they are writing software, because software is usually a tool and as we all know, tools have value.
Unlike physically tangible tools, these tools can be replicated and distributed it zero cost. It's a shame that food can't be replicated and distributed like this. This is what captivated me and I'm sure many other programmers about software. The fact that we have the ability to craft a tool for connecting people, storing and organizing our ideas to be shared is amazing. If one of us creates a truely novel and amazing tool, it can be distributed to millions at no cost. If that software saves people a significant amount of time or money, you just created an incalculable amount of wealth.
Of course, wealth is nothing if it doesn't increase they quality of life.
While I'm on a rant: We need to stop nit picking whether capitalism or socialism is better and worry about corporate anarchy instead.
The whole problem with ESR and RMS is they're preaching a religion when all we want are tools and options to get our jobs done. People don't liked to be preached too, they just want thier options. It doesn't matter if you're right and you have the insight of King Solomon, people still don't want to hear you preach.
Now, If you can explain the *REAL* benefits of a *SPECIFIC* Open Source tool, or *SPECIFICALLY* how the open source model may benefit those involved (Benefitting usually implies the bottom line somewhere), THEN you will get people listening to you.
Look at the evidence:
The IBM PC clone didn't need a spokesperson, it's value being a commodity tool available from hundred and thousands of manfacturers spoke for itself.
As did the birth of Internet's commercialization (Not the.COM bubble. (1993-1997)): Cheap communications medium offered by vast range of carriers (ISPs)
These products worked because: 1. They were cheap 2. They were valuable 3. They provided business opportunities for people to sell cheap and valuable products.
If you want Open Source to really take off, forget about a spokes person. Meet these three criteria, and Open Source will speak for itself.
Slow down there horsy... I'm trying to figure out how the hell you read so much into my questions, especially to call me sick. Are you a jealous woman or do you miss key words when you read someone's post?
To remove all doubt: My opinion is that I believe people should have the right to select whatever method of conception: natural (f%cking), or selecting eggs and sperm if they so choose, as long as it is for the benefit of the child and the child's quality of life.
you really want to bring your child into the world KNOWING that they're going to suffer debilitating mental illness halfway through his/her life? you are one sick person.
we can make an alzeimers victim as comfortable as possible, but they will still get sick. and probably have to live their life KNOWING how it will end up. once again you are sick.
or religious, in which case you believe that this isn't cruel, everyone should have an opportunity to suffer and everyone, regardless of fitness is created equal.
Should this logic apply to kids who have been diagnosed with cancer? (I was talking about screening after the child has exited the womb as was suggested in the original poster's scenerio)
Identifying the chances of schizophrenia and telling a kid they are going to be schizophrenic are two different things, but you stumbled on a good question. Kids are told when they are diagnosed with Cancer, if you could diagnose schizophrenia, which can be a hellish nightmare, *when* should you tell your kids? (HINT: It's not really an issue of IF, it's a question of when they are mature and adaptive enough to handle the hard truth)
I think all of us agree that the government shouldn't be force a manditory DNA screening for everybody, and to be honest I don't really see that happening in my lifetime. I would pray for the poor SOB politician who even decided to bring something like this to the floor.
However, I can see screening becoming more and more popular for those who choose not to procreate naturally (having sex) to gain the benefits of potentially avoiding a limiting precondition.
You wrote: What happens when the governments start screening every child that is born for any inherent form of "weakness"? Will those children never receive the chance to live? Will they be branded "inferior"? This has the potential to be an extremely bad thing.
As far as your scenerio is concerned:
* Why do you mention screening of children *after* fertilization when we're talking about screening eggs *before* conception even takes place?
* What value would it be to the government to screen children for weaknesses after the fact if you can't change it?
* Why do you conclude that screening before conception will result in manditory DNA screening?
* If a child is intentified to have a "weakness", how is this a potentially bad thing?
* Wouldn't discrimination laws apply to genetic predispositions?
* Wouldn't intentifying the weakness allow health professionals to make provisions for that child?
Hey, I'm just enumerating the options... I just thought that letting out bounty hunters would be the closest thing to the status quo than other alternatives like making file sharing illegal or the DMCA, which removes all fair use.
My conclusion: The author is trying to reach a broad number of readers, many who aren't familiar with.NET, the CLR, Java and how thier programming paradigms are almost virtually identical. (I've mentioned it before,.NET is a Java rip off)
As far as his claim is concerned, "Java and.NET being the only 3 choices in the future." I guess he figured that C is going to go way of assembler as virtual machines begin to outperform C code with super optimized JIT code.
In light of all this, the author has concluded that any modern language will be a Java clone only varying slightly in basic expression syntax.
Futher, he seems to suggest that Java and.NET are only capable of supporting the language paradigm that Java and.NET share.
THIS ISN'T TRUE...
People have already implemented a number of alternative languages for the Java platform including Lisp, Python, and god knows what else.... The same for.NET...
THIS DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO ISSUES
The big issue with JavaLisp, JavaPython, and JavaBasic is how to get them to interoperate. Microsoft provides the interoperation with.NET's CLR. I suspect that Sun is probably working on an Interoperation method somewhere...
If they went after the people sharing, half of the computer users in the US would be locked up.
Maybe that's what they should be doing to drug users too... You can't go wrong with fines and community service...
-OR-
3rd party Copyright bounty hunters could just take people to civil or small claims court. You might think twice about sharing copyrighted material on Morpheous if there was some guy waiting to get a $5000 judgement against you and split it with the copyright holder.
I had never read any of Jack Valenti's writings up to this point, and I must say he's quite poignant. Unlike many of my fellow slashdot posters, he makes sound and specific arguments which flows gracefully from assertion to conclusion.
If the premise is wrong then everything else is useless...
This is a big perfectionist's misconception...
1. First of all, let's avoid right and wrong, they're too subjective and vague. 2. Let's apply a universal purpose to our argument: Increase the quality of life 3. By doing 1 and 2, I can now replace right and wrong with effective and ineffective.
Now, Let's re-example your premise with our substitution:
If the premise doesn't effectively increase the quality of life then derivative ideas from that premise are also useless.
I don't know... Maybe you shouldn't get too specific, and maybe you should keep spinning your opinions with vague notions like good and bad rather than specific objectives and quantifying. Keep it up, and you'll may have a nice career in politics...
Oh yeah... Nice comparison of communism to slavery, you're the first person I've seen compare them without juxtaposing them...
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone ever noticed that Amazon dotcom lists (A)nal (C)unt as just plain vanilla AC?
What would AC/DC mean then? (A)nal (C)unt or (D)anal (C)unt?
You thought I was going to say (D)ick (C)unt, huh? The reason I came up with Danal can be attributed to a cigarette brand. Have you guys ever seen the brand, Doral? I know it ryjmes with Coral, but I always pronounces it Oral plus a D. Hence, Danal, the only suppository cigarette.
Share the idea with a really drunk buddy, and he'll pee himself.
So now I have 50 karma, might as well turn troll...
It's not funny, this is serious! I demand you mod this down immediately!!! It's not funny!!!
Dear Billy,
Thank you for letting me know what I already know. I understand the issue, but it seems you don't understand that I don't really care about your "rights" to be entertained. Now listen little Billy, you'll always be able to watch TV and movies you want, we're just making sure that the other kids don't ruin free entertainment for everyone.
You see Billy, there's a lot of money to be made by pacifying the ignorant masses to keep them from killing each other and the rest of us who want to make this world a decent place to live without having to worry about migrant hoards of sodomizing hippies who smoke "dope" and play their anti-establishment MP3s on their computers running that communist operating system Linux.
Earth and Justice to you, Fcuky!!!
Your Congressman,
If you want the media companies back in line, unplug your television and start talking to people about something other than SouthPark for a change.
It's funny, I'll be at work and I'll be talking part in a group conversation, you know, the kind where everybody's escalating who can be the wittiest! You know?
Then, I'll see a reference to a South Park episode that NOBODY will see, and I'll make a reference to it and everybody is silent as my poignant insight leaves them disoriented. Ha!
It's just that, I can find a way to reference South Park in ANY, and I mean ANY conversation!!!
There's an old addage from the newspaper business which is very applicable here: Only a fool would start a publicity fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
What do you think alternative media aims to do in the first place?
Seriously though, if you want to really cheese the media conglomerates, you have to fight them with the truth, smothered with an exquisite glaze of wit and sattire.
In this case, the topic being presented are by default, shrilly and droning, and you'd have to be pretty fucking entertaining and insightful to educate people on this shit.
I see you're an optimist too... :)
I like your fee based copyright idea. I read in another post (was this you), where a guy suggested the following:
1. Copyrights are limited to 10 years
2. After that, they can be renewed for a fee, start at something like $10,000.
3. The fee doubles every year.
11: $10,000
12: $20,000
13: $40,000
14: $80,000
15: $160,000
16: $320,000
17: $640,000
18: $1,280,000
19: $2,560,000
20: $5,120,000
21: $10,240,000
22: $20,480,000
23: $40,960,000
24: $81,920,000
25: $163,840,000
26: $327,680,000
27: $655,360,000
28: $1,310,720,000
29: $2,621,440,000
30: $5,242,880,000
What if a company goes bust? Will the unprotected version of the content ever get released?
When a company goes bust, doesn't some organization or entity assume all the assets? Wouldn't that organization be responsible?
I guess it's possible that the unprotected version might be destroyed, and in that case I don't know what would happen. Should there be a provision that all copyrighted works be submitted to a government repository, or is this too far reaching?
What do you think?
but the big problem is that you are interfearing with a person's personal property rights. that is a big issue hear....why am I not allowed to make my own OS or write my own CD player/MP3 encoder?
Are you talking about the creation of circumvention devices part?
I wouldn't make tampering with your own software or hacking your own software illegal to break it, I would just make distributing a circumvention device illegel, (if that's the only purpose).
I hope you don't think I was in any way endorsing the SSSCA. I think the DMCA is MORE than enough, but rather than get rid of the DMCA, we need to fix it so that it applies to real DRM systems, but I only support that if corporations are required to decrypt thier works after the copyrights expire, which shouldn't be 95 years in the first place.
See?
Just like they've been siezing copyright circumvention devices provisioned by the DMCA (See prior slashdot stories...)
1. Circumvention devices are illegal, IF they have the exclusive purpose of being a circumvention device. (Providers can't use an amateur DRM system)
2. ALL copyrights expire after 20 years. (Not this 95-150 years BS when original copyrights were 14 years)
3. When a copyright expires, it must be released without DRM (Digital Rights Management) software.
Personally, I think this is a perfect balance. While I would deam circumvention devices illegal, I would also release TONS of MODERN works in the public domain. You're probably thinking, "Big deal, you're realing everything prior to 1980 into the public domain. I'll get to watch old movies."
We don't even have a dictionary in the public domain that is clear enough to scan in with OCR software. (I'm not sure of the current status.)
We have nothing, as far as modern works is concerned, in the public domain. Imagine the wealth of information published prior to 1980, now imagine it's all free. Now imagine you're free to plaigerize from all those works to create an uber-encyclopedia of data structures, gardening, renewable energy guide, home medical guide, medical diagnosis software, etc.
It would create a whole new landscape for a whole new type of aggrigate content. You would be free to mix the best of two books or entire volumes and magazines, and put it on a CD or DVD. The amount of knowledge that could be compiled would be insane.
You might as well give new works the ability to protect themselves for a limited amount of time.
It's time to educate the people with the free information they are entitled to. The US Constitution acknoweldges that information is inherantly free, because they had to make a provision for limited copyrights and patents.
The only reason they would make such a provision is because it was self-evident that information, specific works or vague abstractions, belong to the public and no individual.
In other words, copyrights and patents are privledges, not rights.
This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.
Thanks for your plug on capitalism... Didn't you read my post? Did you read the part where I said I'm not advocating any particular system. (Actually I like it when different systems co-exists) I'm a programmer, and I believe I should have the privledge to copyright my work for a limited of time to recoup my costs and even make a profit. After that limited time, I believe my work belongs to the public domain.
What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life?
For some people, charity is a way of life. Some people honestly dedicate ALL of thier time for the benefit of others while asking for little or nothing in return, while others ask for help with basic living expenses. (Most of the time, basic living arrangments are taking care of without asking...)
Other people try to contribute by building businesses. They want to solve problems and help people with an enterprise. By creating wealth, they employ and support families, education, and charities. This is how they make thier contribution.
Then there are some people who don't care and just want to help themselves (often they end up hurting themselves and others).
IMO, Free Software and Open Source software are charitable contributions, who's purpose is for the benefit of society. Personally, I view charities as sort of a voluntary socialism. I know the comparison doesn't entirely match up, but I'm more suggesting that the spirit of charity and socialism are the same.
While there may be SOME people who think all software should be Free or Open Source software, I disagree. I think each type compliments to other well and keeps the other in check. (Like checks and balances)
Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century.
How can you be sure? The fact the USSR and China had become super powers doesn't suggested communism failed. To suggest that communism actually built both of these superpowers and destroyed one of them it seems pretty counter-intuitive to your conclusion, especially if you consider the fact they were in a cold war with us. Don't you think the fact that communist societies were at war with capitalists societies played any role? There were many factors involved, so why are you singling out just one factor?
If you're so hard up on making me wrong, I might as well tell you that I think capitalism has proven itself to be effective. I'll also tell you that capitalism-socialist hydrids like Isreal and Sweden have proven themselves too, because I believe a good economy is built on freedom of ownership and equal opportunity (No special government favors for specific companies)
The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.
It's worse than that... There are many killer technologies and ideas which could dramatically change the landscape of society. Wonder why they aren't? Look to the patent system and the large industries who would be hurt by these killer technologies.
If you were a large company who's primary source of revenue was from selling an expensive technology, and you found a very inexpensive alternative that would ruin that revenue stream, wouldn't you patent to prevent some little guy from getting his hands on it to undercut your business?
The truth is: Large industries benefit from a flawed patent system more than small companies because they have the capital and cash to research, patent the research, and sue the crap out of you if you fsck with them. The problem isn't the corporations, it's the unlevel playing field.
"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?
What do you think?
The PC kludge-klone and the internet didn't have to deal with heavily entrenched monopolies.
The PC kludge-klone dealt with IBM, a very heavily entrenched monopoly that dealt in both hardware and software. (Remember thier anti-trust problems?) The Internet competed with AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. They weren't monopolies, but they were competition. The whole reason PC's and the Internet competed so well was because they were able to severely undercut thier competition, which is what Open Source aims to do and can do.
But in addition to undercutting, they also had to add value to make it worth people's while. People didn't migrate to PC's and then Internet because they were the moral thing, they did it because it was the better option, or it provided them with an opportunity.
Once a "standard du jour" has been established, it's very hard to get people to try something new. This is true even if the new thing is dramatically cheaper, dramatically easier AND has generally more useful features.
There have been many "standard du jours" which have been replaced with another layer, hence the term "standard du jour".
Lloyd: What's the Soup du Jour?
Waitress: Soup of the Day...
Lloyd: Mmm... That sounds good... I'll have that...
The truth is that when you do establish a standard, it stays around a long time, but not forever. New ideas based are usually implementing a layer on top of the standard, making the original standard less relevant to the end solution. (Standard du Jour) However, Technology is very stupid they it evolves. The logic and paradigms change very quickly like culture, and most paradigms are incomplete and flawed because most engineers aren't capable of designing coherant paradigms. Things get layered on top of another because nobody wants to get to the root of the problem. Eventually, there's an opportunity to get to the root and change the stupid standard. It usually takes a while to get to this point, but it does happen.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that the Open Source should focus more on giving people what they want and need, rather than trying to shove an economic paradigm, technology paradigm, and tools nobody knows what to do with...
The truth is: Most of us are pushing for the ideals. We just don't agree how to get there, so while one is talking morals (I'm not knocking morals), the other wants to hear results. If you're still not talking results, then people won't want to listen to you and you'll be labeled a crackpot, even though you were right.
The truth is: I'm trying to reform myself as a zealot by attacking zealotry with immense zeal.
...and I didn't see the irony...
Usually I try to subdue the zealotry by posting somewhat rhetorical questions rather than assertions, but not today... Oh no... I have to be a big guy today and say things like, "You shoulda listened to me in the first place boy!"
Fuck it! I can't run... I can't get out of the proverbial bear trap... You can club me like a baby seal now...
I wish someone would mod you up as Funny, only then would I be truely attacking zealtry.
Good post...
First of all, for those of you who don't know about the REAL Payola Click... A little to the left... Now down... Right HERE!
Payola - The paying of cash or gifts in exchange for airplay.
It's illegal, and record companies do it EVERY DAY, EVERY SONG through a 3rd party otherwise known as "indies" (Independent Record Promoters)
While I'm at it, here's another link to a Salon article: The Salon Article (They have more)
Not only is it illegal and the record companies essentially pay the radio stations to play thier songs, now the record companies MUST pay the indies, or they will never hear thier songs. (As demonstrated with Pink Floyd when thier label decided to boycott the indies. The result: While Pink Floyd ranked in the sales charts, you couldn't hear them on the radio if you tried for a period of X months in the early 80's.)
Slashdot can be so sensational sometimes they deserve to be mocked, but it sucks when something as blatently corrupt as Payola is potentially minimized as a result.
My point is: All of our goals are for the same end:
* creating wealth
* increasing quality of life
We will probably disagree how to go about it. My outlook is that a number of different systems should be employed for different circumstances. The goal is to make great tools and to get them into the hands of people.
Hence, My original point: If the tools are great and the system works well, then people will take to it. Otherwise, you either need to makes some tweaks or complete overhauls.
AKA: The shut up or put up argument
Firstly, I don't want to turn this into a political debate, and I'm neither adovocating capitalism, communism, corporate anarchy, or socialism.
What I am suggesting is that all of these things, including the Free Software Movement, and Open Source movement's, and even Microsoft's goal is to create tools, wealth, and knowledge for the purpose of increasing our quality of life.
What RMS and ESR are greating wealth when they are writing software, because software is usually a tool and as we all know, tools have value.
Unlike physically tangible tools, these tools can be replicated and distributed it zero cost. It's a shame that food can't be replicated and distributed like this. This is what captivated me and I'm sure many other programmers about software. The fact that we have the ability to craft a tool for connecting people, storing and organizing our ideas to be shared is amazing. If one of us creates a truely novel and amazing tool, it can be distributed to millions at no cost. If that software saves people a significant amount of time or money, you just created an incalculable amount of wealth.
Of course, wealth is nothing if it doesn't increase they quality of life.
While I'm on a rant: We need to stop nit picking whether capitalism or socialism is better and worry about corporate anarchy instead.
The whole problem with ESR and RMS is they're preaching a religion when all we want are tools and options to get our jobs done. People don't liked to be preached too, they just want thier options. It doesn't matter if you're right and you have the insight of King Solomon, people still don't want to hear you preach.
.COM bubble. (1993-1997)): Cheap communications medium offered by vast range of carriers (ISPs)
Now, If you can explain the *REAL* benefits of a *SPECIFIC* Open Source tool, or *SPECIFICALLY* how the open source model may benefit those involved (Benefitting usually implies the bottom line somewhere), THEN you will get people listening to you.
Look at the evidence:
The IBM PC clone didn't need a spokesperson, it's value being a commodity tool available from hundred and thousands of manfacturers spoke for itself.
As did the birth of Internet's commercialization (Not the
These products worked because:
1. They were cheap
2. They were valuable
3. They provided business opportunities for people to sell cheap and valuable products.
If you want Open Source to really take off, forget about a spokes person. Meet these three criteria, and Open Source will speak for itself.
P2P's other fruits may include:
* Distributed storge like FreeNet
* Instant Messaging
* Anything else you can think of that may need to be decentralized.
The advantage of a P2P network is that no single entity controls it and everybody shares the costs.
Slow down there horsy... I'm trying to figure out how the hell you read so much into my questions, especially to call me sick. Are you a jealous woman or do you miss key words when you read someone's post?
To remove all doubt: My opinion is that I believe people should have the right to select whatever method of conception: natural (f%cking), or selecting eggs and sperm if they so choose, as long as it is for the benefit of the child and the child's quality of life.
you really want to bring your child into the world KNOWING that they're going to suffer debilitating mental illness halfway through his/her life? you are one sick person.
we can make an alzeimers victim as comfortable as possible, but they will still get sick. and probably have to live their life KNOWING how it will end up. once again you are sick.
or religious, in which case you believe that this isn't cruel, everyone should have an opportunity to suffer and everyone, regardless of fitness is created equal.
Should this logic apply to kids who have been diagnosed with cancer? (I was talking about screening after the child has exited the womb as was suggested in the original poster's scenerio)
Identifying the chances of schizophrenia and telling a kid they are going to be schizophrenic are two different things, but you stumbled on a good question. Kids are told when they are diagnosed with Cancer, if you could diagnose schizophrenia, which can be a hellish nightmare, *when* should you tell your kids? (HINT: It's not really an issue of IF, it's a question of when they are mature and adaptive enough to handle the hard truth)
I think all of us agree that the government shouldn't be force a manditory DNA screening for everybody, and to be honest I don't really see that happening in my lifetime. I would pray for the poor SOB politician who even decided to bring something like this to the floor.
However, I can see screening becoming more and more popular for those who choose not to procreate naturally (having sex) to gain the benefits of potentially avoiding a limiting precondition.
You wrote:
What happens when the governments start screening every child that is born for any inherent form of "weakness"? Will those children never receive the chance to live? Will they be branded "inferior"? This has the potential to be an extremely bad thing.
As far as your scenerio is concerned:
* Why do you mention screening of children *after* fertilization when we're talking about screening eggs *before* conception even takes place?
* What value would it be to the government to screen children for weaknesses after the fact if you can't change it?
* Why do you conclude that screening before conception will result in manditory DNA screening?
* If a child is intentified to have a "weakness", how is this a potentially bad thing?
* Wouldn't discrimination laws apply to genetic predispositions?
* Wouldn't intentifying the weakness allow health professionals to make provisions for that child?
Hey, I'm just enumerating the options... I just thought that letting out bounty hunters would be the closest thing to the status quo than other alternatives like making file sharing illegal or the DMCA, which removes all fair use.
What would you do with this copyright situation?
My conclusion: The author is trying to reach a broad number of readers, many who aren't familiar with .NET, the CLR, Java and how thier programming paradigms are almost virtually identical. (I've mentioned it before, .NET is a Java rip off)
.NET being the only 3 choices in the future." I guess he figured that C is going to go way of assembler as virtual machines begin to outperform C code with super optimized JIT code.
.NET are only capable of supporting the language paradigm that Java and .NET share.
.NET...
.NET's CLR. I suspect that Sun is probably working on an Interoperation method somewhere...
As far as his claim is concerned, "Java and
In light of all this, the author has concluded that any modern language will be a Java clone only varying slightly in basic expression syntax.
Futher, he seems to suggest that Java and
THIS ISN'T TRUE...
People have already implemented a number of alternative languages for the Java platform including Lisp, Python, and god knows what else.... The same for
THIS DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO ISSUES
The big issue with JavaLisp, JavaPython, and JavaBasic is how to get them to interoperate. Microsoft provides the interoperation with
In conclusion: He's wrong and he's right...
If they went after the people sharing, half of the computer users in the US would be locked up.
Maybe that's what they should be doing to drug users too... You can't go wrong with fines and community service...
-OR-
3rd party Copyright bounty hunters could just take people to civil or small claims court. You might think twice about sharing copyrighted material on Morpheous if there was some guy waiting to get a $5000 judgement against you and split it with the copyright holder.
He smart enough to know to let the expert witness answer those lines of questioning by playing dumb...
Too many people aren't smart enough to play dumb...
I had never read any of Jack Valenti's writings up to this point, and I must say he's quite poignant. Unlike many of my fellow slashdot posters, he makes sound and specific arguments which flows gracefully from assertion to conclusion.
I wish I could say the same for slashdot...
If the premise is wrong then everything else is useless...
This is a big perfectionist's misconception...
1. First of all, let's avoid right and wrong, they're too subjective and vague.
2. Let's apply a universal purpose to our argument: Increase the quality of life
3. By doing 1 and 2, I can now replace right and wrong with effective and ineffective.
Now, Let's re-example your premise with our substitution:
If the premise doesn't effectively increase the quality of life then derivative ideas from that premise are also useless.
I don't know... Maybe you shouldn't get too specific, and maybe you should keep spinning your opinions with vague notions like good and bad rather than specific objectives and quantifying. Keep it up, and you'll may have a nice career in politics...
Oh yeah... Nice comparison of communism to slavery, you're the first person I've seen compare them without juxtaposing them...