Shrug, I was in school getting a PhD in math and my hobby was making a MUD. I decided at some point to code from scratch when the code I was using wouldn't do what I wanted and then started over, and my own program I wrote myself was about 90kloc over 3 years in my spare time...but it works fine. I realized at some point that I wasn't good enough to be a mathematician, but fortunately that game did get me my current job and I've also taken a couple of years of grad CS to actually learn more about how to program. So, I haven't been in industry very long but I have spent years learning how to solve math problems, and I'm a self-taught programmer. If that bothers you or makes you think I have nothing of value to contribute, please feel free to stop reading.
I think this is an issue of knowing that software is math and realizing that math is hard and you don't get the best result or proof in math the first time through. Sometimes if you want to generalize a result in math you need to go and use totally different techniques instead of trying to bolt things onto an existing proof. Solving math problems that nobody has solved before is much harder than just looking up a formula in a book and plugging in numbers.
That's why nobody will ever find a silver bullet for making software easier to make. The only easy math problems are ones you've solved before...so what happens is people learn to solve some problems that keep occuring in software and then build general frameworks for solving those problems and rearranging pieces of problems they've already solved before. They also figure out rules that people can follow to make it easier to track details of problems they're solving. That's why you have WYSIWIG GUI builders and automated testing tools and methods for naming things and such. Those tools and methods are designed to automate as much as possible finding solutions to problems you already know how to solve so you can spend less brainpower on those, and instead concentrate on the new things that haven't been solved before.
Naah. Software is math and the first proof of a theorem is generally ugly. So, it can pay to start over. I am not going to say in all cases it's better to do one or the other, but sometimes rewriting is the best option. An example from my own life: I wrote a MUD with some neat AI stuff (quests that actually impact the world in large numbers) in it and now I am working with a small startup to make an MMO and started over rewriting because the way I did it was bad the first time, but it was the best I knew how to do because that was all I understood about the problem. Now I have a more modular system and I understand how quickly certain things need to happen, and what needs to interact with what, which means I can split things up among databases and such . One thing to remember is that if you have a system that does X and you just want it to do X with a little bit more, then you don't rewrite. Even if you repeatedly have to do a little bit more. OTOH, if you have a system that does X and then you realize you need to do X and Y and Z...then maybe you need to rewrite depending on what you need the system to do.
(I am sleepy so I might have missed it...but did he mention that spread=sin^2 or no?)
From the definition on pg 6...if you look at the example, the sin of BAC is |BC|/|BA|, so if you square that value, you get the rule for the spread.
The example on page 8 uses this 4-5-7 triangle and calculates the spreads s1=384/1225, s2=24/25, s3=24/49
The law of sines states that the ratios sin(angle_i)/oppSideLength_i are all equal...so we have sin1/L1=sin2/L2=sin3/L3, and if we square these values, we get
(sin1/L1)^2=(sin2/L2)^2=(sin3/L3)^2
and if we assume that spread=sin^2, (and, of course Q=L^2 by definition...) then the formula turns in to
Spread1/Q1=Spread2/Q2=Spread3/Q3
which is the spread law defined on page 10.
Again on page 10 that example of the "triple spread" formula has S2(s) = 4s(1-s) which is interesting in that it's the logistic map, but recall the double angle formula from regular trig:
The example saying that spread(60)=3/4, spread(45)=1/2, spread(30)=1/4...it's well known that the identities for the sin's of those angles are sqrt(3)/2, sqrt(2)/2, 1/2 resp...so if you square those sin values, you get 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 which are the spreads.
It appears to be redefining trig in terms of the squares of the trig functions instead of the trig functions themselves. That might make it easier to do certain things and may make it easier to learn the material. But, I'm not sure...since this gets to the problem of "It's easy to calculate variance but standard deviation is the thing that's useful in the real world..." However, maybe there are times and places where it would be easier to convert to this stuff to make calculations easier before going back to Euclidean space.
as long as it's not just for hackers. If we up the penalties for any kind of dishonesty/fucktardism that costs society a lot of money, then execute the people who carry out those policies (such as the executives of large corporations), then I will go along with this. Just make sure that the dollar amount you cost society is the determining factor, not the reasons behind why you did it.
He is the lawyer who helped to write the GPL that nobody (even SCO) will test in court and made it so airtight legally. He's been doing things like this for the FSF for years. He's also working on the GPL3, and I think this represents him making the kinds of services he's been providing to the FSF available for all of FOSS. I don't think there's anything nefarious or strange going on here.
God would have to be an asshole to play a trick on us like that. Just ask them if they think God's an asshole, and if they say no, then tell them the world isn't 6000 years old. And if they insist, then start saying "Oh, so you think God's an asshole? Ok. If that's how you feel."
which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08,565,102 filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned.
Hmm...so the system needs to be reformed so that once a patent application is abandoned, the ideas in it are public domain. (Unless an independent person/group had started patenting similar things BEFORE the patent was ever released for public scrutiny.)
Do we Americans get to make snarky, condescending little comments about how Europe is turning into a totalitarian state like Europeans have been saying about the US since the DMCA?:)
And I was right when I said Europe would have SWpats since it's like on cops when the cop says the robbers have to keep getting lucky, and the cops only have to get lucky once.
I've figured out three simple rules about this wacky IntarW3b thing that help guide me when posting things online.
Everything you post will be there forever.
Everyone will eventually know who you are.
Anyone who cares will eventually read what you post.
Seriously, do people think that because there's a new and easy way of updating their websites (which is all that blogs are...simplified website management) that somehow they magically get a +5 Shield of I Can Say Whatever The Fuck I Want Without Repurcussions? Blogga, please.
Am I the only one who knew that the bad guy was "Emporer Palpatine" in the old trilogy? I remember there was a huge debate on TheForce.net after TPM came out where people were wondering is Palpy==Sidious or not.:P
Also, I like the new movies. If you go back and rewatch the old trilogy, you will note the stilted dialogue and corny comedy is all there. It's just that I saw it as a child so I didn't know better.
On the Daily Kos, he wrote this a couple of days ago wrt Republicans not backing faith-based charity enough:
I don't expect Religious Right voters to ever grasp how fully they are used by Republicans. The GOP is more interested in Wall Street than in their religious supporters. Hence, their priorities will be things like privatizing social security and capping tort awards against crooked corporations.
Gay marriage? Abortion? Those won't be important until mid 2006, when Republicans talk the talk to gain those votes. But when it comes time to walk the walk? Their priorities are elsewhere.
I know that's pessimistic, but I'm thinking about this in terms of those cop shows where the cop at the end of the show is cruising around and has some words of wisdom. They always say something like this:
Cop: You know, being a criminal doesn't pay. They have to get lucky every time, and all we have to do is get lucky once.
This is why the SWpat people will win eventually, because the !SWpat people have to get lucky every time in stopping this, and the SWpat people only have to get lucky once and sneak it through the system in some obfuscated form.
When dooku reaches out and tells Kenobi this information, I don't think he (Dooku) is confused at all. I think he's purposefully giving the truth (even though it implicates his master) because he knows it will breed doubt in Kenobi's mind, and mistrust.
Or...maybe he's giving Kenobi the truth so they can join forces and overthrow the emporer. (Like Vader's first offer to Luke upon revealing WhosYerDaddy.) I guess these No. 2 baddies are always plotting to become No. 1.
At least Democrats didn't start a massive bullshit investigation into GW Bush's past failed businesses because they were bitter about losing the election. And I really doubt that you never had anything bad to say about Clinton while he was in office if you really feel that way about him now. You're probably lying...and it's not pure projection. I love how you're willing to generalize "you on the left" while not allowing other people to do that to you by making assumptions that you're like many other examples I've seen on the right. Oh but wait, you're better than us aren't you? You play these little bullshit semantic games because you think you're smarter than everyone. Read my post before the last about how I feel about liars who think they're really clever by sweetening up and hiding the awful things they say and expecting other people to give them a pass or accept it because they don't use a few specific verboten words or phrases.
I don't know if your post was serious or not, but I believe it was, so I wrote this.
You know what? God isn't fooled by BS. People are fooled by BS and we BS each other all of the time because we can get away with it sometimes. Your statement that this is only about having people keep an open mind is a LIE. You know it's not true and what it's really about is that you want to impose your religious beliefs on others because you feel that certain scientific discoveries don't follow your religious beliefs. Please don't LIE about your real motivation which is to have your religious beliefs taught in school...and you know that "intelligent design" is in fact creationism with a shiny new coat of paint. There are, of course, liars who claim that ID and creationism aren't the same thing, but that doesn't make it so.
There have been observations of simple organisms mutating (you would call that microevolution) in short periods of time, so why can't we extrapolate to the possibility of large changes happening over longer periods of time? Why would things all of a sudden hit a wall and stop working? We certainly have DNA testing now that's getting easier and easier and we're moving into the age of genetic manipulation, so it's not clear to me why you think this is an unproven theory or idea. Genetics and evolution have been shown to be true, and those FACTS are being used to genetically engineer things that will hopefully make our lives better (but which could kill us all , too....:P). You hold out for a type of proof that you know can't be observed for a very long time, not because of any scientific basis. You know that science can accept different kinds of evidence to prove something, but you reject it because it contradicts your religious beliefs. How many years and how big of a mutation would it take for you to accept evolution? My guess is that you would keep saying things are only 'microevolution' and require some massive change that probably took millions of years to come fully to fruition. If you're willing to be honest, you probably won't ever be satisfied with any evidence that will appear, and so please stop lying about wanting observations, when you don't want them and won't ever be satisfied with them. Instead you want to keep searching for that narrow corridor for a counterexample, or an anomolous or unexplained event, or an incompletely explored space of possibility so you can cling to your religious beliefs.
Guess what? The old old testament (Jewish Torah) isn't literally true. It's metaphorical. The universe isn't 6000 years old, and Noah didn't take 2 of every creature onto a big boat. I feel a great deal of pity for people who think they're living in a tiny, young universe that just popped into existence rather than the vast, ancient universe that appears to be out there. It must be very lonely and scary thinking that the Earth is all we will ever have, and things are only going to get worse and worse until the chosen people are drawn up into heaven leaving the rest of the losers like me behind. Do you know why I know that the old old testament isn't literally true? It's because God isn't an asshole.
Do you know what I call an entity that makes things appear a certain way (such as a vast, ancient universe), when it's really another way ( such as a tiny, young universe that popped into existence several thousand years ago), and then allows intellignet things within the univsrse to discover how it works and gives them the ability to see that the universe looks vast and ancient? I call such an entity is an asshole. If you take the old old testament literally and believe that the universe is this tiny thing that popped into existence a few thousand years ago while at the same time that we've been given the ability to explore and understand our universe and see that it certainly looks vast and ancient, then you believe God is an asshole who's playing a giant trick on us. Please don't talk to me about having faith that this is the way things are.
Let me relate this to the "15 line p2p app" article from yesterday. You can build simple apps to copy and distribute things easily, because that's what computers do:
Computers can send, receive, copy, modify, and display huge amounts of arbitrary data.
That's all computers can do. Anything you can describe computers doing comes down to a manipulation or moving around of data. Let's take a look at the rights granted by copyright law. (Actually, I think it's more correct to say these are the rights a copyright holder can take away from other people since intellectual property is about creating government regulations that take away rights from other people...but I do agree we need some ip to motivate people to create stuff.)
The right to prepare derivative works. (modifying)
The right to distribute copies of the work. (distribution)
The right to perform or display the work. (display) (These are listed as separate)
So why does this matter? Why did I list these rights? Recall above my definition of a computer is a machine that can send, receive, copy, modify, and display huge amounts of arbitrary data. That means computers are copyright breakers. That means that of course it's easy to write p2p apps and download music...it's what computers are designed to do: break copyright.
I don't think making computers into copyright breakers was intentional, but when the posts like yours go bleating on about how downloading is not teh st34l1ng, it makes it easier to justify it, and you're making a very good case for getting general purpose computers restricted or made illegal. You'll probably say that I'm nuts for thinking that this can happen, but the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case said that Congress can do just about anything it wants wrt copyright and other ip, so it might not be a bad idea to take this a bit more seriously and not give the big corporate interests even more reason to try to make computers illegal. Plz don't download illegally or try to make copyright infringement into a small thing, you're making it easier for them to justify taking away my computer.
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important.
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I pity the fool who attempts to learn something from Slashdot.
Your comment is funny when I read it using my internal "Mr. T" voice.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever you have a set of people who can creatively think outside the box
Personally, I like to build my own box and think inside of it just avoid you people. No offense.
we tell him about Derek Smart's new game and sit back and watch the fireworks...
My first chemical engineering professor (Dr. Edmond Ko) set me on fire.
Ok...so you made your money off the lawsuit settlement you got from the university. What about the rest of us?
Shrug, I was in school getting a PhD in math and my hobby was making a MUD. I decided at some point to code from scratch when the code I was using wouldn't do what I wanted and then started over, and my own program I wrote myself was about 90kloc over 3 years in my spare time...but it works fine. I realized at some point that I wasn't good enough to be a mathematician, but fortunately that game did get me my current job and I've also taken a couple of years of grad CS to actually learn more about how to program. So, I haven't been in industry very long but I have spent years learning how to solve math problems, and I'm a self-taught programmer. If that bothers you or makes you think I have nothing of value to contribute, please feel free to stop reading.
I think this is an issue of knowing that software is math and realizing that math is hard and you don't get the best result or proof in math the first time through. Sometimes if you want to generalize a result in math you need to go and use totally different techniques instead of trying to bolt things onto an existing proof. Solving math problems that nobody has solved before is much harder than just looking up a formula in a book and plugging in numbers.
That's why nobody will ever find a silver bullet for making software easier to make. The only easy math problems are ones you've solved before...so what happens is people learn to solve some problems that keep occuring in software and then build general frameworks for solving those problems and rearranging pieces of problems they've already solved before. They also figure out rules that people can follow to make it easier to track details of problems they're solving. That's why you have WYSIWIG GUI builders and automated testing tools and methods for naming things and such. Those tools and methods are designed to automate as much as possible finding solutions to problems you already know how to solve so you can spend less brainpower on those, and instead concentrate on the new things that haven't been solved before.
Things you should never do: rewrite.
Naah. Software is math and the first proof of a theorem is generally ugly. So, it can pay to start over. I am not going to say in all cases it's better to do one or the other, but sometimes rewriting is the best option. An example from my own life: I wrote a MUD with some neat AI stuff (quests that actually impact the world in large numbers) in it and now I am working with a small startup to make an MMO and started over rewriting because the way I did it was bad the first time, but it was the best I knew how to do because that was all I understood about the problem. Now I have a more modular system and I understand how quickly certain things need to happen, and what needs to interact with what, which means I can split things up among databases and such . One thing to remember is that if you have a system that does X and you just want it to do X with a little bit more, then you don't rewrite. Even if you repeatedly have to do a little bit more. OTOH, if you have a system that does X and then you realize you need to do X and Y and Z...then maybe you need to rewrite depending on what you need the system to do.
(I am sleepy so I might have missed it...but did he mention that spread=sin^2 or no?)
o s^2(a)=4sin^2(a)(1-sin^2(a))=4spread(a)(1-spread(a ))
From the definition on pg 6...if you look at the example, the sin of BAC is |BC|/|BA|, so if you square that value, you get the rule for the spread.
The example on page 8 uses this 4-5-7 triangle and calculates the spreads s1=384/1225, s2=24/25, s3=24/49
The law of sines states that the ratios sin(angle_i)/oppSideLength_i are all equal...so we have sin1/L1=sin2/L2=sin3/L3, and if we square these values, we get
(sin1/L1)^2=(sin2/L2)^2=(sin3/L3)^2
and if we assume that spread=sin^2, (and, of course Q=L^2 by definition...) then the formula turns in to
Spread1/Q1=Spread2/Q2=Spread3/Q3
which is the spread law defined on page 10.
Again on page 10 that example of the "triple spread" formula has S2(s) = 4s(1-s) which is interesting in that it's the logistic map, but recall the double angle formula from regular trig:
sin(2a)=2sin(a)cos(a).
If we set spread(a) = sin^2(a), then
spread(2a)=sin^2(2a)=(2sin(a)cos(a))^2=4sin^2(a)c
The example saying that spread(60)=3/4, spread(45)=1/2, spread(30)=1/4...it's well known that the identities for the sin's of those angles are sqrt(3)/2, sqrt(2)/2, 1/2 resp...so if you square those sin values, you get 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 which are the spreads.
It appears to be redefining trig in terms of the squares of the trig functions instead of the trig functions themselves. That might make it easier to do certain things and may make it easier to learn the material. But, I'm not sure...since this gets to the problem of "It's easy to calculate variance but standard deviation is the thing that's useful in the real world..." However, maybe there are times and places where it would be easier to convert to this stuff to make calculations easier before going back to Euclidean space.
as long as it's not just for hackers. If we up the penalties for any kind of dishonesty/fucktardism that costs society a lot of money, then execute the people who carry out those policies (such as the executives of large corporations), then I will go along with this. Just make sure that the dollar amount you cost society is the determining factor, not the reasons behind why you did it.
or *I* won't be watching it.
He is the lawyer who helped to write the GPL that nobody (even SCO) will test in court and made it so airtight legally. He's been doing things like this for the FSF for years. He's also working on the GPL3, and I think this represents him making the kinds of services he's been providing to the FSF available for all of FOSS. I don't think there's anything nefarious or strange going on here.
God would have to be an asshole to play a trick on us like that. Just ask them if they think God's an asshole, and if they say no, then tell them the world isn't 6000 years old. And if they insist, then start saying "Oh, so you think God's an asshole? Ok. If that's how you feel."
Fuck, we should patent it and sue them. :P
which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08,565,102 filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned.
Hmm...so the system needs to be reformed so that once a patent application is abandoned, the ideas in it are public domain. (Unless an independent person/group had started patenting similar things BEFORE the patent was ever released for public scrutiny.)
Do we Americans get to make snarky, condescending little comments about how Europe is turning into a totalitarian state like Europeans have been saying about the US since the DMCA? :)
And I was right when I said Europe would have SWpats since it's like on cops when the cop says the robbers have to keep getting lucky, and the cops only have to get lucky once.
Seriously, do people think that because there's a new and easy way of updating their websites (which is all that blogs are...simplified website management) that somehow they magically get a +5 Shield of I Can Say Whatever The Fuck I Want Without Repurcussions? Blogga, please.
Am I the only one who knew that the bad guy was "Emporer Palpatine" in the old trilogy? I remember there was a huge debate on TheForce.net after TPM came out where people were wondering is Palpy==Sidious or not. :P
Also, I like the new movies. If you go back and rewatch the old trilogy, you will note the stilted dialogue and corny comedy is all there. It's just that I saw it as a child so I didn't know better.
Even brighter than the flash of brilliance when Amazon came up with 1-click shopping and then patented it?
On the Daily Kos, he wrote this a couple of days ago wrt Republicans not backing faith-based charity enough:
I don't expect Religious Right voters to ever grasp how fully they are used by Republicans. The GOP is more interested in Wall Street than in their religious supporters. Hence, their priorities will be things like privatizing social security and capping tort awards against crooked corporations.
Gay marriage? Abortion? Those won't be important until mid 2006, when Republicans talk the talk to gain those votes. But when it comes time to walk the walk? Their priorities are elsewhere.
I heard an unconfirmed rumor that Duke Nukem Forever will be one of the XBox2 release games...
I know that's pessimistic, but I'm thinking about this in terms of those cop shows where the cop at the end of the show is cruising around and has some words of wisdom. They always say something like this:
Cop: You know, being a criminal doesn't pay. They have to get lucky every time, and all we have to do is get lucky once.
This is why the SWpat people will win eventually, because the !SWpat people have to get lucky every time in stopping this, and the SWpat people only have to get lucky once and sneak it through the system in some obfuscated form.
When dooku reaches out and tells Kenobi this information, I don't think he (Dooku) is confused at all. I think he's purposefully giving the truth (even though it implicates his master) because he knows it will breed doubt in Kenobi's mind, and mistrust.
Or...maybe he's giving Kenobi the truth so they can join forces and overthrow the emporer. (Like Vader's first offer to Luke upon revealing WhosYerDaddy.) I guess these No. 2 baddies are always plotting to become No. 1.
At least Democrats didn't start a massive bullshit investigation into GW Bush's past failed businesses because they were bitter about losing the election. And I really doubt that you never had anything bad to say about Clinton while he was in office if you really feel that way about him now. You're probably lying...and it's not pure projection. I love how you're willing to generalize "you on the left" while not allowing other people to do that to you by making assumptions that you're like many other examples I've seen on the right. Oh but wait, you're better than us aren't you? You play these little bullshit semantic games because you think you're smarter than everyone. Read my post before the last about how I feel about liars who think they're really clever by sweetening up and hiding the awful things they say and expecting other people to give them a pass or accept it because they don't use a few specific verboten words or phrases.
First of all, it's unamerican to not make fun of the President. That's what sets us apart from other nations.
Second, people who whinges about making fun of GW were probably saying nasty things about Clinton, Gore and Kerry, so
I don't know if your post was serious or not, but I believe it was, so I wrote this.
.... :P). You hold out for a type of proof that you know can't be observed for a very long time, not because of any scientific basis. You know that science can accept different kinds of evidence to prove something, but you reject it because it contradicts your religious beliefs. How many years and how big of a mutation would it take for you to accept evolution? My guess is that you would keep saying things are only 'microevolution' and require some massive change that probably took millions of years to come fully to fruition. If you're willing to be honest, you probably won't ever be satisfied with any evidence that will appear, and so please stop lying about wanting observations, when you don't want them and won't ever be satisfied with them. Instead you want to keep searching for that narrow corridor for a counterexample, or an anomolous or unexplained event, or an incompletely explored space of possibility so you can cling to your religious beliefs.
You know what? God isn't fooled by BS. People are fooled by BS and we BS each other all of the time because we can get away with it sometimes. Your statement that this is only about having people keep an open mind is a LIE. You know it's not true and what it's really about is that you want to impose your religious beliefs on others because you feel that certain scientific discoveries don't follow your religious beliefs. Please don't LIE about your real motivation which is to have your religious beliefs taught in school...and you know that "intelligent design" is in fact creationism with a shiny new coat of paint. There are, of course, liars who claim that ID and creationism aren't the same thing, but that doesn't make it so.
There have been observations of simple organisms mutating (you would call that microevolution) in short periods of time, so why can't we extrapolate to the possibility of large changes happening over longer periods of time? Why would things all of a sudden hit a wall and stop working? We certainly have DNA testing now that's getting easier and easier and we're moving into the age of genetic manipulation, so it's not clear to me why you think this is an unproven theory or idea. Genetics and evolution have been shown to be true, and those FACTS are being used to genetically engineer things that will hopefully make our lives better (but which could kill us all , too
Guess what? The old old testament (Jewish Torah) isn't literally true. It's metaphorical. The universe isn't 6000 years old, and Noah didn't take 2 of every creature onto a big boat. I feel a great deal of pity for people who think they're living in a tiny, young universe that just popped into existence rather than the vast, ancient universe that appears to be out there. It must be very lonely and scary thinking that the Earth is all we will ever have, and things are only going to get worse and worse until the chosen people are drawn up into heaven leaving the rest of the losers like me behind. Do you know why I know that the old old testament isn't literally true? It's because God isn't an asshole.
Do you know what I call an entity that makes things appear a certain way (such as a vast, ancient universe), when it's really another way ( such as a tiny, young universe that popped into existence several thousand years ago), and then allows intellignet things within the univsrse to discover how it works and gives them the ability to see that the universe looks vast and ancient? I call such an entity is an asshole. If you take the old old testament literally and believe that the universe is this tiny thing that popped into existence a few thousand years ago while at the same time that we've been given the ability to explore and understand our universe and see that it certainly looks vast and ancient, then you believe God is an asshole who's playing a giant trick on us. Please don't talk to me about having faith that this is the way things are.
Computers can send, receive, copy, modify, and display huge amounts of arbitrary data.
That's all computers can do. Anything you can describe computers doing comes down to a manipulation or moving around of data. Let's take a look at the rights granted by copyright law. (Actually, I think it's more correct to say these are the rights a copyright holder can take away from other people since intellectual property is about creating government regulations that take away rights from other people...but I do agree we need some ip to motivate people to create stuff.)
The rights as listed by bitlaw are:
So why does this matter? Why did I list these rights? Recall above my definition of a computer is a machine that can send, receive, copy, modify, and display huge amounts of arbitrary data. That means computers are copyright breakers. That means that of course it's easy to write p2p apps and download music...it's what computers are designed to do: break copyright.
I don't think making computers into copyright breakers was intentional, but when the posts like yours go bleating on about how downloading is not teh st34l1ng, it makes it easier to justify it, and you're making a very good case for getting general purpose computers restricted or made illegal. You'll probably say that I'm nuts for thinking that this can happen, but the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case said that Congress can do just about anything it wants wrt copyright and other ip, so it might not be a bad idea to take this a bit more seriously and not give the big corporate interests even more reason to try to make computers illegal. Plz don't download illegally or try to make copyright infringement into a small thing, you're making it easier for them to justify taking away my computer.
I pity the fool who attempts to learn something from Slashdot.
Your comment is funny when I read it using my internal "Mr. T" voice.