Amen to that. I really think this is quite ridiculous. While I understand RMS's views about free software, being an extremist will more often make a problem worse than better. The main thing is, KDE is a good desktop (Although I personally don't use it), it has been good for the Linux community on the whole, and now it's free & free. Why fight this? KDE has always been free (as in beer), so it linked to Qt, it's not the end of the world. I can even understand distors not using it for the afore mentioned reason, but to condemn it, is ridiculous. We're all on the same side here, let's not cut off our own arm.
Actually Aplpha and beta radiation are too slow and weak to penetrate the outer layers of dead skin on the body, they actually have to be ingested to do any harm, however, there isn't anything that will completely block gamma radiation. Just thought you'd like to know.
No, a cavitation weapon or submarine uses what is usually considered a problem to its advantage. Cavitation is when an airpocket (actually water vapor pocket) forms around something moving quickly through water. This causes problems with propulsion systems. However it has been specualted, (and used in limited ways) that a vehicle (or weapon) could create this pocket around the majority of its hull, greatly reducing friction fromwater, and ultimately allowing incredibly fast speeds underater.
Personally, I don't see how I higher court could up-hold this. The analogy that the MPAA president made about driving somone to commit a crime is way off, this is more like driving someone to the library, where they get a book on, let's say, circumventing alarm systems. Now if that person goes and uses that book for illegal purposes, is it the driver's fault? A DVD is copyable, although not in its native digital format, so their conclusion is way off. I have a professional video capture board, I can, and have, fed the outputs of my DVD player into the capture board, and produced a rather large movie file. Now that it is in a digital format, further copies will not degrade, so the only loss of quality I suffered was the initial copy (and that loss came from the fact that it was an analog signal output from the DVD and input on the capture card). Does that make my capture board illegal? What about any site that links to a site selling the capture board? What about my professional studio DVD rack with digital outputs, and my Video Workstation with digital inputs? Are they now illegal seeing as I could make a perfect digital copy?
Now, there may also be a way around this precedent. What if Site A links to a site containing the first line of code (@ Site B), and site B links to a site with the second (namely site C, and so on), and site C's page with the second line of code links to site D with a similar setup and the third line of code, and D links back to A who has the fourth and a link to B (again) who now shows the fifth, and so on. Would this "distributed" link also be illeagle, considering no one site is displaying or has the entire code? Just an idea....
I've come to the stunning conclusion that no federal or state agency with any investigative powers will ever be "trustable ". I don't trust the FBI scanning my e-mail any more than I would trust one of 'em to walk up in my house, grab a beer, and start looking through my computer while I'm out.
This happens in anything one does with intensity. I can't tell you how many times I've layed my keyboard down for weeks. It happens when I paint, or when I'm playing music too. SOmetimes it really is just time you need. Take time off and focus on anything and your head will start to sort out everything.
Here here, except one thing. Labels actually pay for you to play their music in stores. This has been going on for years, you get deals on what you buy if you agree to a certain amount of "in-store" time for whatever artists the distrib is promoting that month. Otherwise, I agree whole heartedly.
I run a small record label/studio. We have our own distribution channels, and we are involved iwth NARM (National Association for Recording Merchandisers), however we have no ties to the RIAA. The RIAA represents what used to be known as the big 7 (although some mergers have changed that), and represents the distribution channels more than the actual labels themselves (for all intents and purposes, WEA, aka Warner/Electra/Atlantic is not Warner Music). It's actually the distributer that rapes the artist the most, claiming they've invested the most into the process. Most of the money a label puts up for an album is recovered from the artists profits before the artist gts a dime. Almost every piece of equipment I own, from my 24 and 32 track 2" reel to reel units to my 32 track digital recordes, to my DATs, or even the SOFTWARE and hardware I use for mastering have some form of tariff on them. Almost a third of what I pay for a new reel is a tariff that gets paid to the RIAA. The RIAA is not the Recording Association of America, they are a puppet for what might as well be the evil empire of music. THey offer no help or protection to indies, and have always tried to leave the impression that they do. They will alway try to turn things into exorbanant amounts of money. I wouldn't be suprised, if much the same tactic are used for internet music. I doubt the RIAA wil accept anything less than what they feel is the equivalant value of a song on the street. And they'll viscously fight anyone who attempts to circumvent any copy protection they put in place.
Actually, I would think at these speeds, a dolphin, or whale, or any large mammal for that matter, as well as debris, pieces of shell, metal, etc. would be catastophic for the "Sub". Moving at that speed, a small piece of metal, relatively stationary compared to the "sub" would destroy the sub if it somehow was forced into the bubble, however, most surrounding creatures shouldn't effect it, seeing as the force on the outside of the bubble should literlly clear away anything in it's path.
People dress they way that makes them feel best...not the way that makes you feel best, so they should be persecuted? Anyone, ANYONE, has the right to appear as they want, without fear of being classified, harassed by law enforcement, or any thing of the like. If you judge based on how someone looks...you are a bigot...end of fucking story. (PS people carrying around chains could rightfully be construed as agressive because it is a weapon they are carrying, people who just look weird on the street shouldn't be held to the same stereotype).
Couldn't a company's re-education program be construed as unsolicited, and thusly fall under some states anti-apam laws? I'd really love to see one of these companies get a huge bite taken out of them for their so-called "reeducation".
I'm beginning to think there is no way we'll ever be able to trust buisness. They want to violate our privacy even more than the governemet. I also wonder if so-called re-education could fall under various laws regarding harassment. Afterall, you talk bad about Coke, they can't come to your house to "reeducate" you....
Actually, I was lucky, local shop needed me to come in and help out 5 times a week. Never thought I'd get so ahead in electronics, programming, and UNIX based OSs. College wasn't for me because I couldn't make the kinda money while going to school that I could make out of it. One of the best decisions I made at the time. Anyhow, simply put, as computers get easier and easier to use, and everyone is content with their MCSE and whatever Bill tells them , then it'll be the few, the proud, the geek, who has to come to the rescue when the shit goes down. The further everyone gets from the innerworkings, the more valuable those who still understand will become.
Re:Why shouldn't I be able to have designer kids?
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 2
But is it truly a right?
Look around. The world is made up up of the random human. each person brings different traits and qualities to the table, offers their own views. Where as I do believe that enviroment is a much larger factor in the development of skill and personality, I can't deny the overwhelming evidence that genetics plays an almost equally strong role. If everyone was smart, or everyone was "pretty", there wouldn't be ayhting left to hold these things in check. We need the other end of the spectrum to keep balance. We need disease. We need famine, and we need death. There's no avoiding this. OK, yes, you have a right to want a child free of genetic defects, that is true, however, there are many "defective people" who make this world what it is.
What do we do with trends? What happens when everyone wants their kid to be a sportstar, or a painter, or whatever the new big thing is. Tampering too far into the Genome may finally be our downfall. Ultimately, this science could be used for good, but most likely it will be used for evil. Do your future children a favor, let the beauty of the random world take it's course. That child has every right to discover, and desire what he or she feels most comfortable with, without mom and dad making that choice for him/her. Sure, you can choose your child to be predisposed to be good at math or art, but isn't that allowing parents to fulfill their dreams through their children? And what if what you choose doesn't fit the bill in the future. Have you really done that child a favor? If my parents had their choice when I was born, they surely would've never guessed that by now computers would be the dominant factor in todays world. I'd have ended up a god damned lawyer or something. I'm happy with the life I've found and created for myself WITHOUT someone pointing the way.
Actually, this was pretty much resolved in OS 8 I believe. When Apple finally added protected memory to the Mac OS, which was long over due. I remember when a bad font would crash a Mac.
HAH! The only thing ruining society is narrow minded individuals who believe in stealing individuals freedoms. I can't wait for the day when people finally realize that laws against pot are illeagle, and we have every right to do WHATEVER WE WANT as long as it doesn't have a negative effect, or any effect for that matter, on anyone else.
Instead of being critical about pot smokers, try opening your mind to the fact that the world needs all different kinds of people, and as long as they're not hurting anyone, there's nothing wrong with what they do. Pot heads can make just as many contributions to society as anyone else.
Troll Tech and KDE have the right to license any way they want, and just because they're not GPL doesn't make them against the community, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
"They say they want to create an open desktop that can be a Unix standard. But they want the standard part more than the open part. "
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, first off it IS open. And it's also free. It's merely a conflict of licenses. If I was a programmer for either of the above, I'd have taken great offense at your comments, but I'm not. Just because a company chooses a license other than GPL , which I like very much, but many programmers find it too restrictive on their rights, doesn't mean they're evil or out to collapse the GPL, the FSF, and the GNU project.
"they're just lying, cheating hypocrites"..."The KDE team members who think like this and the Troll people who keep avoiding making QT free aren't members of the community.
What?!?!?! QT IS free!!!! They're not members of the community because they don't use the GPL? The GPL isn't the only free software license, both programs are free, and KDE is almost all GPL, if I'm not mistaken, the only part of KDE that isn't GPL is the links to QT libs. Lay off if you don't understand what's going on.
I don't care what the RIAA says, I find it funny, actually, when they turn Napster's quote against them. RIAA caims that Napster was speaking of violating copyrights when the claimed you never have to worry about wading through pages of unknown artists again, and you could find what you were looking for on Napster, unfortunately, this implies that your favorite music is one of the bands that the RIAA's member labels represents. It's quite possible that the music you are looking for is freely available. It's just a matter of perspective, and I don't care what the RIAA thinks, this software merely looks for what it is told, which means that it can't be Napster's liability. The software is simply designed to search, they're not saying pirate music, and they can't help what people use it to search for. That's like saying you can sue a knife company for making the knife that killed someone, when in fact it was the user of the knife who misused it.
I have some doubts about that. I know plenty of people who would qualify as a "nerd", including myself, and we all find current web phones, and most other pocket devices, grossly limited, I'd take a Palm over just about anything that size any day of the week. For size, and function, you can't beat it, and as someone mentioned above, it does simple but useful tasks superbly. It doest require fumbling a keyboard and stylus, and it doesn't have the lock ups, or the load times, or the complexity of CE devices and the like. It's quick, light/small, reliable, has so much battery life, you literaly don't even have to worry about it, and has pretty good app support. Until someone really comes up with something better/more efficient, Long Live Palm!
I hate Microsoft almost completely, however, I do think there is one very unfair part of this ruling. It's sad to see the Justice department specifically seperate Internet Applications from the OS buisness. As if a browser or Internet app is really any different from any other type of app. Worse yet, a browser is an enhancement of an operating system, as a matter of fact, most people wouldn't consider a TCP/IP computer complete without a browser.Whether M$ was being shady when they packaged a browser with Winblows is irrelevant. Any good operating system should include a browser and it's M$'s right to create one if it so wishes, and package it with Windows. I mean, this is bull, that is insult to innovation, and the fact that the government put so much weight in the fact that M$ created a browser and included it with Windows is bad for everyone, this could be precedent limiting developers from packaging certain utilities with their software if a competitor claims it gives them a monopoly. If the top selling car manufacturer installs airbags in their car, an enhancement to the vehicle, does that give them a monopoly on airbags in cars simply because they sell the most?
Actually, The Playstation 2 is losing money with each sale. Profits come from the royalties from games, not from the consoles. Sega still lost money last quarter (though the least money in quite a while), despite the DreamCast's impressive opening here in the US.
Actually, if that's the case, then they'd make lot's more money if they just gave the console away with, say, a three or five game purchase.
I would like to see registars offer new top level domains, including some that could be protected (like.org should be reserved srticly for organizations), such as.per (as in personal, for individuals, and only individuals), or something to that effect. It would be nice if individuals and small buisnesses had a protected pool of top level domains to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen to that. I really think this is quite ridiculous. While I understand RMS's views about free software, being an extremist will more often make a problem worse than better. The main thing is, KDE is a good desktop (Although I personally don't use it), it has been good for the Linux community on the whole, and now it's free & free. Why fight this? KDE has always been free (as in beer), so it linked to Qt, it's not the end of the world. I can even understand distors not using it for the afore mentioned reason, but to condemn it, is ridiculous. We're all on the same side here, let's not cut off our own arm.
Actually Aplpha and beta radiation are too slow and weak to penetrate the outer layers of dead skin on the body, they actually have to be ingested to do any harm, however, there isn't anything that will completely block gamma radiation. Just thought you'd like to know.
No, a cavitation weapon or submarine uses what is usually considered a problem to its advantage. Cavitation is when an airpocket (actually water vapor pocket) forms around something moving quickly through water. This causes problems with propulsion systems. However it has been specualted, (and used in limited ways) that a vehicle (or weapon) could create this pocket around the majority of its hull, greatly reducing friction fromwater, and ultimately allowing incredibly fast speeds underater.
Personally, I don't see how I higher court could up-hold this. The analogy that the MPAA president made about driving somone to commit a crime is way off, this is more like driving someone to the library, where they get a book on, let's say, circumventing alarm systems. Now if that person goes and uses that book for illegal purposes, is it the driver's fault? A DVD is copyable, although not in its native digital format, so their conclusion is way off. I have a professional video capture board, I can, and have, fed the outputs of my DVD player into the capture board, and produced a rather large movie file. Now that it is in a digital format, further copies will not degrade, so the only loss of quality I suffered was the initial copy (and that loss came from the fact that it was an analog signal output from the DVD and input on the capture card). Does that make my capture board illegal? What about any site that links to a site selling the capture board? What about my professional studio DVD rack with digital outputs, and my Video Workstation with digital inputs? Are they now illegal seeing as I could make a perfect digital copy?
Now, there may also be a way around this precedent. What if Site A links to a site containing the first line of code (@ Site B), and site B links to a site with the second (namely site C, and so on), and site C's page with the second line of code links to site D with a similar setup and the third line of code, and D links back to A who has the fourth and a link to B (again) who now shows the fifth, and so on. Would this "distributed" link also be illeagle, considering no one site is displaying or has the entire code? Just an idea....
TheOneAndOnly
Actually, it's the big 5. I run a small label and I used to work for one of the largest east-coast Record Retailers.
Here here....
I've come to the stunning conclusion that no federal or state agency with any investigative powers will ever be "trustable ". I don't trust the FBI scanning my e-mail any more than I would trust one of 'em to walk up in my house, grab a beer, and start looking through my computer while I'm out.
This happens in anything one does with intensity. I can't tell you how many times I've layed my keyboard down for weeks. It happens when I paint, or when I'm playing music too. SOmetimes it really is just time you need. Take time off and focus on anything and your head will start to sort out everything.
Here here, except one thing. Labels actually pay for you to play their music in stores. This has been going on for years, you get deals on what you buy if you agree to a certain amount of "in-store" time for whatever artists the distrib is promoting that month. Otherwise, I agree whole heartedly.
I run a small record label/studio. We have our own distribution channels, and we are involved iwth NARM (National Association for Recording Merchandisers), however we have no ties to the RIAA. The RIAA represents what used to be known as the big 7 (although some mergers have changed that), and represents the distribution channels more than the actual labels themselves (for all intents and purposes, WEA, aka Warner/Electra/Atlantic is not Warner Music). It's actually the distributer that rapes the artist the most, claiming they've invested the most into the process. Most of the money a label puts up for an album is recovered from the artists profits before the artist gts a dime. Almost every piece of equipment I own, from my 24 and 32 track 2" reel to reel units to my 32 track digital recordes, to my DATs, or even the SOFTWARE and hardware I use for mastering have some form of tariff on them. Almost a third of what I pay for a new reel is a tariff that gets paid to the RIAA. The RIAA is not the Recording Association of America, they are a puppet for what might as well be the evil empire of music. THey offer no help or protection to indies, and have always tried to leave the impression that they do. They will alway try to turn things into exorbanant amounts of money. I wouldn't be suprised, if much the same tactic are used for internet music. I doubt the RIAA wil accept anything less than what they feel is the equivalant value of a song on the street. And they'll viscously fight anyone who attempts to circumvent any copy protection they put in place.
Actually, I would think at these speeds, a dolphin, or whale, or any large mammal for that matter, as well as debris, pieces of shell, metal, etc. would be catastophic for the "Sub". Moving at that speed, a small piece of metal, relatively stationary compared to the "sub" would destroy the sub if it somehow was forced into the bubble, however, most surrounding creatures shouldn't effect it, seeing as the force on the outside of the bubble should literlly clear away anything in it's path.
Deal with this troll....
People dress they way that makes them feel best...not the way that makes you feel best, so they should be persecuted? Anyone, ANYONE, has the right to appear as they want, without fear of being classified, harassed by law enforcement, or any thing of the like. If you judge based on how someone looks...you are a bigot...end of fucking story. (PS people carrying around chains could rightfully be construed as agressive because it is a weapon they are carrying, people who just look weird on the street shouldn't be held to the same stereotype).
Couldn't a company's re-education program be construed as unsolicited, and thusly fall under some states anti-apam laws? I'd really love to see one of these companies get a huge bite taken out of them for their so-called "reeducation".
I'm beginning to think there is no way we'll ever be able to trust buisness. They want to violate our privacy even more than the governemet. I also wonder if so-called re-education could fall under various laws regarding harassment. Afterall, you talk bad about Coke, they can't come to your house to "reeducate" you....
Actually, I was lucky, local shop needed me to come in and help out 5 times a week. Never thought I'd get so ahead in electronics, programming, and UNIX based OSs. College wasn't for me because I couldn't make the kinda money while going to school that I could make out of it. One of the best decisions I made at the time. Anyhow, simply put, as computers get easier and easier to use, and everyone is content with their MCSE and whatever Bill tells them , then it'll be the few, the proud, the geek, who has to come to the rescue when the shit goes down. The further everyone gets from the innerworkings, the more valuable those who still understand will become.
But is it truly a right?
Look around. The world is made up up of the random human. each person brings different traits and qualities to the table, offers their own views. Where as I do believe that enviroment is a much larger factor in the development of skill and personality, I can't deny the overwhelming evidence that genetics plays an almost equally strong role. If everyone was smart, or everyone was "pretty", there wouldn't be ayhting left to hold these things in check. We need the other end of the spectrum to keep balance. We need disease. We need famine, and we need death. There's no avoiding this. OK, yes, you have a right to want a child free of genetic defects, that is true, however, there are many "defective people" who make this world what it is.
What do we do with trends? What happens when everyone wants their kid to be a sportstar, or a painter, or whatever the new big thing is. Tampering too far into the Genome may finally be our downfall. Ultimately, this science could be used for good, but most likely it will be used for evil. Do your future children a favor, let the beauty of the random world take it's course. That child has every right to discover, and desire what he or she feels most comfortable with, without mom and dad making that choice for him/her. Sure, you can choose your child to be predisposed to be good at math or art, but isn't that allowing parents to fulfill their dreams through their children? And what if what you choose doesn't fit the bill in the future. Have you really done that child a favor? If my parents had their choice when I was born, they surely would've never guessed that by now computers would be the dominant factor in todays world. I'd have ended up a god damned lawyer or something. I'm happy with the life I've found and created for myself WITHOUT someone pointing the way.
Actually, this was pretty much resolved in OS 8 I believe. When Apple finally added protected memory to the Mac OS, which was long over due. I remember when a bad font would crash a Mac.
Unfortunately voting for Bush is just as bad, it's a shame that we have to vote for who we hate the least instead of who we like the most.
Bring back Bradley, Bring back Mc Cain
HAH! The only thing ruining society is narrow minded individuals who believe in stealing individuals freedoms. I can't wait for the day when people finally realize that laws against pot are illeagle, and we have every right to do WHATEVER WE WANT as long as it doesn't have a negative effect, or any effect for that matter, on anyone else.
Instead of being critical about pot smokers, try opening your mind to the fact that the world needs all different kinds of people, and as long as they're not hurting anyone, there's nothing wrong with what they do. Pot heads can make just as many contributions to society as anyone else.
By the way, I'm not even gonna start on your grammer and spelling.
"They say they want to create an open desktop that can be a Unix standard. But they want the standard part more than the open part. "
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, first off it IS open. And it's also free. It's merely a conflict of licenses. If I was a programmer for either of the above, I'd have taken great offense at your comments, but I'm not. Just because a company chooses a license other than GPL , which I like very much, but many programmers find it too restrictive on their rights, doesn't mean they're evil or out to collapse the GPL, the FSF, and the GNU project.
"they're just lying, cheating hypocrites" ..."The KDE team members who think like this and the Troll people who keep avoiding making QT free aren't members of the community.
What?!?!?! QT IS free!!!! They're not members of the community because they don't use the GPL? The GPL isn't the only free software license, both programs are free, and KDE is almost all GPL, if I'm not mistaken, the only part of KDE that isn't GPL is the links to QT libs. Lay off if you don't understand what's going on.
I don't care what the RIAA says, I find it funny, actually, when they turn Napster's quote against them. RIAA caims that Napster was speaking of violating copyrights when the claimed you never have to worry about wading through pages of unknown artists again, and you could find what you were looking for on Napster, unfortunately, this implies that your favorite music is one of the bands that the RIAA's member labels represents. It's quite possible that the music you are looking for is freely available. It's just a matter of perspective, and I don't care what the RIAA thinks, this software merely looks for what it is told, which means that it can't be Napster's liability. The software is simply designed to search, they're not saying pirate music, and they can't help what people use it to search for. That's like saying you can sue a knife company for making the knife that killed someone, when in fact it was the user of the knife who misused it.
This will probably end up being an expensive ping-pong match through the courts, with each court overturning the other. Just my delusional thoughts
I have some doubts about that. I know plenty of people who would qualify as a "nerd", including myself, and we all find current web phones, and most other pocket devices, grossly limited, I'd take a Palm over just about anything that size any day of the week. For size, and function, you can't beat it, and as someone mentioned above, it does simple but useful tasks superbly. It doest require fumbling a keyboard and stylus, and it doesn't have the lock ups, or the load times, or the complexity of CE devices and the like. It's quick, light/small, reliable, has so much battery life, you literaly don't even have to worry about it, and has pretty good app support. Until someone really comes up with something better/more efficient, Long Live Palm!
I hate Microsoft almost completely, however, I do think there is one very unfair part of this ruling. It's sad to see the Justice department specifically seperate Internet Applications from the OS buisness. As if a browser or Internet app is really any different from any other type of app. Worse yet, a browser is an enhancement of an operating system, as a matter of fact, most people wouldn't consider a TCP/IP computer complete without a browser.Whether M$ was being shady when they packaged a browser with Winblows is irrelevant. Any good operating system should include a browser and it's M$'s right to create one if it so wishes, and package it with Windows. I mean, this is bull, that is insult to innovation, and the fact that the government put so much weight in the fact that M$ created a browser and included it with Windows is bad for everyone, this could be precedent limiting developers from packaging certain utilities with their software if a competitor claims it gives them a monopoly. If the top selling car manufacturer installs airbags in their car, an enhancement to the vehicle, does that give them a monopoly on airbags in cars simply because they sell the most?
Just my nickle.....
Actually, The Playstation 2 is losing money with each sale. Profits come from the royalties from games, not from the consoles. Sega still lost money last quarter (though the least money in quite a while), despite the DreamCast's impressive opening here in the US.
Actually, if that's the case, then they'd make lot's more money if they just gave the console away with, say, a three or five game purchase.
TheOneAndOnly
I would like to see registars offer new top level domains, including some that could be protected (like .org should be reserved srticly for organizations), such as .per (as in personal, for individuals, and only individuals), or something to that effect. It would be nice if individuals and small buisnesses had a protected pool of top level domains to use.