I predict that there will be zero interest from "environmentalists" on this or any other method of getting relief from the alledged negative effects of Global Warming.
Global warming is a propganda tool to gain consent for command and control over the economy by buerocrats. If "Global Warming", caused by excess carbon, were a genuine concern, then there would be equal concern for carbon generated by Chinese coal mine fires as there is for carbon generated by the U.S. economy. But there is zero concern from environmentalist for CO2 generated by Chinese coal mine fires -- this CO2 can not be used as a propganda tool and is hence ignored. (One hears zero about Chinese coal mine fires in the media.)
Methods of solving the "problem" of Global warming, undermine the use of "global warming" as a propganda tool and are therefore not welcomed.
Think about this, a few years ago when there was a shortage of electric energy in California, what did Diane Feinstein do? Did she show concern for CO2 emisions? No. She wanted the federal government to force out of state energy producers to sell electronic energy to Califorina at below market costs! No thought to how much fossil fuels were burnt in the process! This was caused by only a few percentage point shortage, and DiFi is said to be the most liberal Senators. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. economy were cut by the enormous percentages required by Kyoto! There would be riots in the streets!
Global warming is constantly used as a propaganda tool, but no one thinks about what would happen if it were taken seriously.
This whole incident shows that we need more diversity in DNS servers. We don't need the U.N., we don't need ICANN. We need the market. There is nothing to stop any private organization from running its own DNS systems. Competition should help solve the outrageous prices from ICANN. Because of the single organization choke point nature of the present DNS system, it attracts governmental attention as a potential censorship tool. That is why the U.N. is sniffing around. We need so many diverse DNS organizations that no one can control it!
Neither corporations or government should control the net! There is no reason that a diversity of private persons and institutions can not own and control the network. For example, there is no reason that private organizations can not run top level domain servers! Some are already doing so! If corporations or government attempt to control the net in ways detrimental to the people by using control of top level DNS servers, then private DNS servers are a way for the people to short circuit this control! "The net interprets censorship (control) as damage and routes around." The same with IP allocation under IPV6! If some "official" organization attempts to tax this essentially infinite resource, then private more reasonable IP allocation organization should spring into being! The private org should inform the "official organization" that they are requsitioning such and such block of IP addresses for free use! The official org would then have an interesting choice: acquiesce and not allocating any "official" IP addresses in this block. Or be responsible for conflicts. This is a choice between two things: Lose its position as a monopoly source of IP addresses, or loose the ability to claim that its IP addresses are without conflicts! Either way the official org looses power. The smartest thing for the official org to do is: Don't tax IP addresses in the first place or keep the tax completely nominal. In this way the official org may prevent the rebellion from starting in the first place!
My friend future events such as these will affect you in the future. Criswell. It's tough to find anything when you don't know what your are looking for. Can you prove it did not happen? Criswell.
They are a presumptuous affectation of those who style themselves too sophisticated to make a strong primal statement using color. Children, who's tastes are uncorrupted, prefer colored Christmas lights.
Religion is a red herring. The Christmas star was said to be a single star in the sky, not a thousand stars in the shrubbery. The Christmas tree is a pagan custom from Germany, and there are no evergreens in the mid-East!
The problem of white Christmas Lights originated when the producers of movies and television discovered that colored lights are difficult and expensive to photograph. (Lights are the brightest thing in the picture and tend to be overexposed. When colored lights are overexposed they turn into a washed out white. When white lights are overexposed they just look white.) This caused white lights to be used in movies and television because of expense considerations.
Then the "people" especially the people who wanted to style themselves sophisticated, began to decorate their houses with white lights! They were slavishly following what they saw in movies and television unknowing that those media were motivated by expense considerations!
Well, sophisticates, I have this to tell you: Your white lights are ugly and you are a bunch of low taste idiots!
Would it be possible to use the mathematical technique of zero knowledge proof to create a voting machines that would allow the following: (1)Each voter could individually verify that his vote was used (as he voted) in the count. (2)Anyone could verify that the numbers add up correctly. (2a) But no one except the individual voter could know the individual votes. If this could be done mathematicly and implemented in voting machine software, it would make backup paper trails unnecessary to prevent voter fraud! I believe the zero knowledge proof allows a proof to be checked without knowing the individual statements of the proof! What is election vote count checking but a particular kind of proof checking! It would seem the technique might apply!
This gives one more reason why the people of Texas should at all costs keep Texas off of the national grid. Not only would such a interconnect expose Texas to greater federal regulation by putting power activities in Texas in interstate commerce, the interconnect would inevitably be used to drain power from Texas driving up the cost of power there only to subsidize the pointy headed elitist parasites of the Northeast. In addition to these existing reasons it now seems it would expose Texas to blackouts to boot!
Executive Editor A. Russell Jones is an idiot. He has not understood the above simple equation.
Even supposing that "standardization" were a good thing, what power on earth could possibly enforce it?
Any free software project by definition can be forked. The right to create alternatives is the right of free speech. Code=Speech. The Internet gives computer users the power to download and install any such alternatives.
The fact that many window managers are included in common distributions is proof that different people prefer different distributions.
The fact that Mr. Jones has not understood this, is proof that he is not competent enough to impose his ideas on anyone!
The beauty of free software is that people like Mr. Jones can not get the power to implement their half-baked "bright ideas" and totalitarian visions.
When will ordinary consumers begin take advantage of offshore sources? When will it become practical for ordinary people to go offshore? Banking? for financial privacy? Insurance? to get around government restriction on exclusions on aids, alcoholism, mental health that are essentially a tax on low risk groups to support high risks groups? Other examples?
I have a plan to protect cities from tornadoes! Simply ring the city with fake cardboard trailer parks. Construct them in a ring pattern so that if the twister forms outside the city the fake trailer park is always closer than the city. In this way, the pattern lures the twister around the city missing populated areas!
People are making a big deal about the fact that the explaination document is copyrighted. copyright does not protect ideas only the particular expression of an idea. In otherwords if someone were to release a paraphrase of the explaination document, it might violate DCMA, but it would not violate copyright.
The same kind of job that can be done from Korea, India, or any other low wage country.
If you get a job that is easy for telecommuting you should expect competition from low wage countries. It is just as easy for a corp. to arrange telecommunication from there as it is from Silicon valley.
Any Job that can be done remotely over the internet competes with the whole world. Including the 3rd world with low typical wages. Many of these people are as intelligent and skilled as Americans. (Imagine that.) Written English is quickly becoming a world requirement.
All jobs that can be done remotely will quickly become loosers for Americans. The American cost of living will not diminish very quickly.
The one thing that low wage people not in U.S. can not do is speak in the U.S. Go to Toastmasters and polish your personal communication skills.
I supect the motives of those making Global warming a big issue. What do they propose?
Do they ask that a way be found to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? No. Maybe we are already doomed by the CO2 already produced? If a way to remove CO2 could be found, Global warming would no
longer be a justification for taking over the economy.
Do they propose that a way be found to put out certain Chinese underground fires, that by some account kick out as much CO2 as the entire US economy? No.
They propose that the CO2 production of the developed world be cut by xx percent. xx is between 10% and 30%. Does that mean that we will go to hell xx percent slower? Excuse me, less than xx percent slower, because the CO2 production from the undeveloped world will continue to grow.
xx percent is enough to make the gatekeeper for the last xx percent into a vary powerful institution. Be the gatekepper national or UN officials.
Historicly, there has been much more human suffering in the cold periods than the warm periods.
Remember when Carl Sagan predicted disaster when the Kuwait oil well fires were started? Where is the disaster? Science has been politicized.
I wonder if global warming is not a stalking horse for governmental control of the world economy.
Is GPL a contract or some kind of wierd unilateral grant of some rights? My untutored mind naively thought it was not a contract because there is no 2 way exchange ov value and no agreement. I have since heard legal people take both sides of this question. I think that UCITA will not apply directly to the GPL if it were not a contract, because UCITA seems to mostly regulate how contracts work. Thus I think that the above question turns on whether GPL is a contract. This is an important question to me because I have written and will write letters oppsoing UCITA to Texas state legislators. And I need to know whether to include Stallman's arguement.
P.S. In a private comunication Stallman, the author of the GPL said he thought the GPL was not a contract, but agreed with the unilateral grant of some rights theory. But he is not a lawyer either.
We should create an alert describing in stark detail the problems
to end users of the CPRM into ATA system in stark (but true) detail.
Headline could read something like:
Proposed NCTIS copy control "standard" to sabotage your hard drive!
The alert should contain the mail and email addresses, phone and fax numbers
of all hard drive manufactures.
It should suggest writing them telling them that the "standard" is objected
to and that drives implementing it will not be purchased!
Perhaps it is time for another "modem tax" alert?
on
Copy Protection Galore
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps an alert should be prepared that describes the negative effects of this CPRM in the ATA standard proposed by CTIS.
The alert could describe in a stark way the negative effects of the proposal on end users. It could include the email addresses, fax numbers, and phone numbers of decision makers at the various hard drive manufactures. It could suggest that these people be contacted telling them that drives implementeding the proposal for hard drive sabotage are objected to, and will not be purchased!
What do other people think?
Slashdot Mirror
I predict that there will be zero interest from "environmentalists" on this or any other method of getting relief from the alledged negative effects of Global Warming.
Global warming is a propganda tool to gain consent for command and control over the economy by buerocrats. If "Global Warming", caused by excess carbon, were a genuine concern, then there would be equal concern for carbon generated by Chinese coal mine fires as there is for carbon generated by the U.S. economy. But there is zero concern from environmentalist for CO2 generated by Chinese coal mine fires -- this CO2 can not be used as a propganda tool and is hence ignored. (One hears zero about Chinese coal mine fires in the media.)
Methods of solving the "problem" of Global warming, undermine the use of "global warming" as a propganda tool and are therefore not welcomed.
Think about this, a few years ago when there was a shortage of electric energy in California, what did Diane Feinstein do? Did she show concern for CO2 emisions? No. She wanted the federal government to force out of state energy producers to sell electronic energy to Califorina at below market costs! No thought to how much fossil fuels were burnt in the process!
This was caused by only a few percentage point shortage, and DiFi is said to be the most liberal Senators. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. economy were cut by the enormous percentages required by Kyoto! There would be riots in the streets!
Global warming is constantly used as a propaganda tool, but no one thinks about what would happen if it were taken seriously.
This whole incident shows that we need more diversity in DNS servers. We don't need the U.N., we don't need ICANN. We need the market. There is nothing to stop any private organization from running its own DNS systems. Competition should help solve the outrageous prices from ICANN. Because of the single organization choke point nature of the present DNS system, it attracts governmental attention as a potential censorship tool. That is why the U.N. is sniffing around. We need so many diverse DNS organizations that no one can control it!
OK just out of curiosity, which way do I go to get to the narrow end of the horn?
Neither corporations or government should control the net! There is no reason that a diversity of private persons and institutions can not own and control the network. For example, there is no reason that private organizations can not run top level domain servers! Some are already doing so! If corporations or government attempt to control the net in ways detrimental to the people by using control of top level DNS servers, then private DNS servers are a way for the people to short circuit this control! "The net interprets censorship (control) as damage and routes around." The same with IP allocation under IPV6! If some "official" organization attempts to tax this essentially infinite resource, then private more reasonable IP allocation organization should spring into being! The private org should inform the "official organization" that they are requsitioning such and such block of IP addresses for free use! The official org would then have an interesting choice: acquiesce and not allocating any "official" IP addresses in this block. Or be responsible for conflicts. This is a choice between two things: Lose its position as a monopoly source of IP addresses, or loose the ability to claim that its IP addresses are without conflicts! Either way the official org looses power. The smartest thing for the official org to do is: Don't tax IP addresses in the first place or keep the tax completely nominal. In this way the official org may prevent the rebellion from starting in the first place!
My friend future events such as these will affect you in the future. Criswell.
It's tough to find anything when you don't know what your are looking for.
Can you prove it did not happen? Criswell.
They are a presumptuous affectation of those who style themselves too sophisticated to make a strong primal statement using color. Children, who's tastes are uncorrupted, prefer colored Christmas lights.
Religion is a red herring. The Christmas star was said to be a single star in the sky, not a thousand stars in the shrubbery. The Christmas tree is a pagan custom from Germany, and there are no evergreens in the mid-East!
The problem of white Christmas Lights originated when the producers of movies and television discovered that colored lights are difficult and expensive to photograph. (Lights are the brightest thing in the picture and tend to be overexposed. When colored lights are overexposed they turn into a washed out white. When white lights are overexposed they just look white.) This caused white lights to be used in movies and television because of expense considerations.
Then the "people" especially the people who wanted to style themselves sophisticated, began to decorate their houses with white lights! They were slavishly following what they saw in movies and television unknowing that those media were motivated by expense considerations!
Well, sophisticates, I have this to tell you: Your white lights are ugly and you are a bunch of low taste idiots!
Would it be possible to use the mathematical technique of
zero knowledge proof to create a voting machines that would allow the following:
(1)Each voter could individually verify that his vote was used (as he voted) in the count.
(2)Anyone could verify that the numbers add up correctly.
(2a) But no one except the individual voter could know the individual votes.
If this could be done mathematicly and implemented in voting machine software, it would make backup paper trails unnecessary to prevent voter fraud!
I believe the zero knowledge proof allows a proof to be checked without knowing the individual statements of the proof! What is election vote count checking but a particular kind of proof checking! It would seem the technique might apply!
This gives one more reason why the people of Texas should at all costs keep Texas off of the national grid. Not only would such a interconnect expose Texas to greater federal regulation by putting power activities in Texas in interstate commerce, the interconnect would inevitably be used to drain power from Texas driving up the cost of power there only to subsidize the pointy headed elitist parasites of the Northeast. In addition to these existing reasons it now seems it would expose Texas to blackouts to boot!
Linux = GPL , GPL = Freedom, Freedom=choice
Executive Editor A. Russell Jones is an idiot. He has not understood the above simple equation.
Even supposing that "standardization" were a good thing, what power on earth could possibly enforce it?
Any free software project by definition can be forked. The right to create alternatives is the right of free speech. Code=Speech. The Internet gives computer users the power to download and install any such alternatives.
The fact that many window managers are included in common distributions is proof that different people prefer different distributions.
The fact that Mr. Jones has not understood this, is proof that he is not competent enough to impose his ideas on anyone!
The beauty of free software is that people like Mr. Jones can not get the power to implement their half-baked "bright ideas" and totalitarian visions.
Free software is the power of organized anarchy!
In order to celebrate, somebody create a hosts file for the Internet, then everybody download it!
When will ordinary consumers begin take advantage of offshore sources? When will it become practical for ordinary people to go offshore?
Banking? for financial privacy?
Insurance? to get around government restriction on exclusions on aids, alcoholism, mental health that are essentially a tax on low risk groups to support high risks groups?
Other examples?
Iron is lighter than Uranium.
I have a plan to protect cities from tornadoes! Simply ring the city with fake cardboard trailer parks. Construct them in a ring pattern so that if the twister forms outside the city the fake trailer park is always closer than the city. In this way, the pattern lures the twister around the city missing populated areas!
People are making a big deal about the fact that the explaination document is copyrighted. copyright does not protect ideas only the particular expression of an idea. In otherwords if someone were to release a paraphrase of the explaination document, it might violate DCMA, but it would not violate copyright.
The same kind of job that can be done from Korea, India, or any other low wage country.
If you get a job that is easy for telecommuting you should expect competition from low wage countries. It is just as easy for a corp. to arrange telecommunication from there as it is from Silicon valley.
Join Toastmasters.
Any Job that can be done remotely over the internet competes with the whole world. Including the 3rd world with low typical wages. Many of these people are as intelligent and skilled as Americans. (Imagine that.) Written English is quickly becoming a world requirement.
All jobs that can be done remotely will quickly become loosers for Americans. The American cost of living will not diminish very quickly.
The one thing that low wage people not in U.S. can not do is speak in the U.S. Go to Toastmasters and polish your personal communication skills.
Everyone knows you can't make a warp drive work until you have mastered the structural integerity field!
I supect the motives of those making Global warming a big issue. What do they propose? Do they ask that a way be found to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? No. Maybe we are already doomed by the CO2 already produced? If a way to remove CO2 could be found, Global warming would no longer be a justification for taking over the economy. Do they propose that a way be found to put out certain Chinese underground fires, that by some account kick out as much CO2 as the entire US economy? No. They propose that the CO2 production of the developed world be cut by xx percent. xx is between 10% and 30%. Does that mean that we will go to hell xx percent slower? Excuse me, less than xx percent slower, because the CO2 production from the undeveloped world will continue to grow. xx percent is enough to make the gatekeeper for the last xx percent into a vary powerful institution. Be the gatekepper national or UN officials. Historicly, there has been much more human suffering in the cold periods than the warm periods. Remember when Carl Sagan predicted disaster when the Kuwait oil well fires were started? Where is the disaster? Science has been politicized. I wonder if global warming is not a stalking horse for governmental control of the world economy.
Is GPL a contract or some kind of unilateral grant of some rights.
Is GPL a contract or some kind of wierd unilateral grant of some rights? My untutored mind naively thought it was not a contract because there is no 2 way exchange ov value and no agreement. I have since heard legal people take both sides of this question. I think that UCITA will not apply directly to the GPL if it were not a contract, because UCITA seems to mostly regulate how contracts work. Thus I think that the above question turns on whether GPL is a contract. This is an important question to me because I have written and will write letters oppsoing UCITA to Texas state legislators. And I need to know whether to include Stallman's arguement. P.S. In a private comunication Stallman, the author of the GPL said he thought the GPL was not a contract, but agreed with the unilateral grant of some rights theory. But he is not a lawyer either.
Headline could read something like:
Proposed NCTIS copy control "standard" to sabotage your hard drive!
The alert should contain the mail and email addresses, phone and fax numbers of all hard drive manufactures.
It should suggest writing them telling them that the "standard" is objected to and that drives implementing it will not be purchased!
Perhaps an alert should be prepared that describes the negative effects of this CPRM in the ATA standard proposed by CTIS. The alert could describe in a stark way the negative effects of the proposal on end users. It could include the email addresses, fax numbers, and phone numbers of decision makers at the various hard drive manufactures. It could suggest that these people be contacted telling them that drives implementeding the proposal for hard drive sabotage are objected to, and will not be purchased! What do other people think?