I do. cdmaOne doesn't provide basic functionality such as personal mobility (the ability to seperate your account information from the hardware you're using at the moment), a global number space, ISDN connectivity, and system-implemented network features, and the security is tough enough for my purposes - a casual snooper is going to have problems locating and fixing on a single conversation, a more highly placed snooper is likely to have access to the underlying network anyway.
UTMS, the next generation of GSM, includes all of the above features and provides a variety of air-interface technologies including CDMA, so the capacity issue isn't going to last very long. As far as I see, cdma2000 still lacks the above basic features, which I find absolutely increadible especially as GSM networks have been around now for much longer than IS-95 based stuff.
I was very relieved when AT&T started providing GSM in my area, after living here four years with only IS136 (D-AMPS/TDMA), cdmaOne, and NexTel networks available. Having used both IS136 and cdmaOne networks, I felt I was giving up a huge amount to use them, and coming back to GSM has been a joy. Just being able to have a PDA phone again (not really a great idea on a non-GSM network - if you can't leave your PDA at home without losing your connectivity, who wants such a thing?) has been fantastic.
On the other hand, I can bet BLAZEMONGER INC will be interested. I'm pretty sure BLAZEMONGER's lawyers are SO FAST they can hit a TRADEMARK SUITE when the PHBs are just THINKING of using the name... etc.
I can't see how ITC/Afga could argue that the DMCA should even apply here.
It applies because the fonts are digital content, and the DMCA covers all copyright violations concerning digital content.
Contrary to Slashdot-lore, only one small part of the DMCA has anything to do with access control circumvention systems. It's a general copyright law, it just happens to have a few evil parts bolted to it.
I think it's a little unfair to burden El Camino SS with the world wide responsibility for deciding which profits are evil. Can't we form a committee to do this kind of thing? I mean, there's only so far he can investigate.
Example: Suppose he finds out that Philip Morris is selling cigarettes to third world children, and instantly declares profits from that operation evil for obvious reasons... but it turns out, unbeknownst to Camino, that the cigarettes are actually nicotine free and have been designed to be nourishing and thirst quenching, using specially designed generic engineering techniques? Now, can Camino be expected to know that, especially if Philip Morris covers it up to avoid potential lawsuits about them continuing to sell the cancer sticks in the US when they have an actually healthy product to sell?
No! I say no! Thrice no! El Camino SS cannot be expected to know anything that isn't as it is taken at face value or as argued publically. It would be a full time job to do full research into what profits are evil and what profits are not.
As such, I propose two things:
It should be expected that some profits are evil. This is because human nature has shown on many occasions that people are perfectly willing to profit from human misery and suffering, from avoidable deaths and injury, from lies, deception, and 10-10-220 commercials.
A committee should be formed to research profits to allow people to know which are evil and which are not. This should, obviously, include El Camino SS, together with other establishment luminaries whose ethical compass has never been questioned, such as Richard Branson, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, John McCain, Janet Reno, Colin Powell, Linus Torvalds, and, of course, Ben and Jerry.
It should be assumed that profits may be evil even if the committee on ethical profits does not report on them. For example, a shopkeeper that advertises $1 pencils in his or her shop window, but tells would-be buyers that the shop has "just run out" and uses hard sell techniques to force buyers to buy more expensive pencils, would obviously generate evil profits, but it is doubtful such profits would be brought to the committee's attention so that it may rule on such things.
I believe this is a good plan. It is a plan that will work, that will not result in El Camino SS being overly burdened with the task of deciding which profits are evil and which are not, it will also ensure that people are aware that it is the method by which the profits are generated that determines their evilness, and not a person's declaration of evil, while providing useful feedback on which are, and which are not, to the rest of us.
Because he is arguing, correctly IMHO, that these are two completely different phenomemons: the inheriting of certain genetic traits from one generation to the nest, and the evolving of a new species from an existing one. Breeding dogs, you can change the breed, but it's still a dog. You can't breed dogs into sheep, or even wolves.
I think this is a misinterpretation of the argument. Indeed, if I wanted to be specious, I'd say the argument has mutated into something unrelated to the facts behind evolution.
No, a dog can't become a sheep. And a gorilla can't become an orangutang. The two are entirely different apes. However, an ape with the right attributes can "become" both, and this is what evolutionists are arguing. The two share a common parent ape, somewhere along the line, whose offspring evolved in different ways.
I find the whole "I can't turn water into wine, therefore evolution is false" argument a little disingenious. It's reasonable to suppose that, beyond "unevolving" - obtaining traits of grandparents, it's hard for two different species to evolve into each other. There's a tree structure here, an environment in which the genes are being successively altered to create workable in-betweens; those alterations are usually slight, and harmless, and not real improvements, but over time, more mutatations that are dramatic in nature are collected.
We harness the system to some extent when breeding animals, but we rarely touch more than simple colour/size/strength attributes, we rarely if ever breed to create other species, and it's doubtful we'd have the time to do this if we wanted to. This doesn't make breeding some non-facet of evolution. Nor does the fact that you can't evolve a dog into a sheep.
My understanding is that Hubbard told at least three different people on three seperate occasions the quote in question that "if you want to make a lot of money, start a religion."
It seems to have been a throw-away remark, or else something he was fairly obsessed with. (Talk about extremes!)
Huge in "Yurp" too. It's only the US where it hasn't really taken off (and I don't think there's a clear explanation of why, as they're a lot easier and quicker than burning CDs, etc.)
A billionaire is celebrating his birthday with his family, and announces there will be a twist to his celebration. "Normally, in any birthday, it is the guests who bring the person whose birthday it is presents. But this time around, to celebrate having a wonderful, wonderful, family, I ask my three sons what they want in all the world, and it will be theirs."
The three sons are baffled but delighted, and the eldest steps forward. "Father, all my life I have wanted my own fast car. Just something I can enjoy driving, out on the open road."
"It will be yours!" says the father, and a few mouse clicks and phone calls, and the son finds himself the confused but pleased and excited owner of the Ford Motor Company.
The middle child steps forward. "Father, I don't want to ask for much, but I like photography and would love a camera to play with. Could you possibl..."
The father cuts him off, and the child stands excitedly as he sees his father work the phones again and finally announce, "You are now the owner of Universal Studios! Do with it as you wish!"
Finally the youngest child stepped forward. "Well dad", he says, "What I want in the whole world is a Mickey Mouse outfit."
One key thing to bear in mind which is definitely true of the UK Mental Health Act, and is almost certainly true of the Baker Act too, is that psychiatrists have to sign the final order to have someone sectioned in this way. IIRC, Britain requires that two psychiatrists, in addition to the person who recommends the sectioning (usually the patient's psychiatrist), sign off on this, and as I understand it, usually they'll interview the individual before making their recommendation.
So it's not quite as open to abuse as it might at first appear.
When someone is displeased with the good fortune of others, we call this envy. What I'm curious about is why people are so envious.
I'm curious to know why you think I'm envious. Envious of whom? I've already said I'm happy to pay more taxes than those who are less well-off than I am. In what way is that envy?
The rich aren't the enemy--the government is the enemy.
The government isn't "the enemy", it's an institution that's answerable to us, and ought to be working for our benefit. The government provides many services that have to be available to all on a genuinely equal basis, regardless of gender, race, or income. I do not want those less fortunate than me to be without access to transport, be unable to get help from law enforcement or from the courts, be without adequate health cover, etc.
I don't necessarily want to pay more taxes than I am doing, I want government to be as efficient in what it does as possible. But I no more want to give tax cuts to the richest while leaving the poorest no better off than I want to put eskimos at the front of the line for being given back fridges.
I know this is very ideologically unsound in the Ayn Randian pseudo-libertarian world that is Slashdot, but frankly higher taxes for the wealthy in favour of the poorer don't bother me - stupid laws bother me, bureaucracy bothers me, progressive taxation I not only am not bothered by, I actively support.
I've already explained how you're misunderstanding it. He said there was an initiative in the house to create the Internet, and he was the person who took that initiative, ie he was responsible for moving the initiative through the various layers of bureaucracy needed to get bills passed, funds allocated, etc.
It's simple English comprehension of a clumsy sentence, a sentence he has admitted could have been better worded and that people who really do have the right to claim co-inventorship of the Internet, such as Vint Cerf, say doesn't mean what the wingnuts claim it means and is a justified boast for what it does mean.
He is sticking to what he said. He just didn't say what you've decided he said. And, be honest, if you really thought he said that he invented the Internet then wouldn't you actually say the words he said each time, rather than "Al Gore said he invented the Internet."?
I think it's basically that rich people have more disposable income, and so are less likely to miss an extra 1% of their income than, say, someone living on minimum wage out of a trailer with three screaming kids to support.
Cultural differences be damned. I'm happy to pay more taxes (both monetarily and as a percentage of income) than my collegues in the next cubicle who earn less than half my salary (and seem, from what I can see, to have to work a damn sight harder on tedious jobs I'd never in a million years want to do.)
You're not understanding the last seven words, not the last three. Gore was the one who took the initiative in the United States Congress.
It's all documented. It's clumsy wording (rather than devious, does anyone seriously think that Gore wanted people to believe that he was making an outrageous claim to have single-handedly created the Internet - the very fact that the claim appears to be ludicrous ought to be the very reason why people like yourself shouldn't be assuming that Gore actually meant the interpretation you're using.)
Interesting that an out of context quote like this can be used to ridicule a politician, but, say, making the same joke over and over again about 9/11, usually with the audience laughing along, is treated as a non-story. But nobody wants to criticise trifecta boy.
Legal standing be damned. The FSF can provide lawyers, money, and witnesses that will ensure XVID can fight back. And that's the kind of thing the FSF are good at and have done before, the VirtualDub case being the most famous.
So, yeah, the bully is in the playground, but the XVID has a big brother he can call on.
I am taking a practical view as well as a legalistic view. The issue with capitalism is that as long as ownership is private, it is capitalism. This means that issues like gun-control are irrelevent to what is ultimately an economic system. If nobody owns guns, but private individuals own the factories, the banks, housing, transportation, etc, then it's capitalism. More specifically, that private capital is used to fund and control these institutions.
If you're using a definition of capitalism that presumes that private ownership implies unlimited ownership, then that's a very different definition to what the world uses. Frankly, there could be only two people in a country who have capital, and are able to invest and own things, and they themselves - while having choices over what to invest in - may have no rights to freedom of speech, may suffer arrest and imprisonment for the merest notion they may oppose the government on any issue - and the regime would still be capitalist. The government doesn't own the bulk of enterprise, private capital does.
This is why it's important not to simply cheer for capital if you really, truely, support personal freedoms. Dictatorships have happened and will continue to do so in purely capitalist societies, such as the third reich. Cheer for freedom if you support freedom.
It supported full undiscriminated private ownership for all "German" citizens, and those people who were given that right were hardly free.
Fact is, private ownership means individual people have resources that allow them to live independently of goverment. If government tries to raise arms against it, the people have the resources to fight back.
No, it doesn't. Private ownership means nothing of the sort unless it is accompanied by private control. For a difference between the two without even having to examine the practices of the world's most evil capitalist regimes, pick up a copy of the DMCA.
Capitalism is about freedom, not greed. It's about pursuing self-interest, not indulging appetites.
Capitalism is about the use of capital to invest to produce more capital. That's all. It's regularly used as a synonym for free markets, but actually that's only because the most well known and largest free markets (or markets that are closest to being free) are capitalist.
I do wish people would stop promoting ideological bunk as fact when justifying their ownership of stocks and shares and their use of a savings account in a private bank. Capitalism isn't about freedom. Communism isn't about freedom. Freedom is about freedom.
(Oh and greed is another issue altogether. An investment is not necessarily any greedier than a salary. But there, I guess, we agree.)
The "key ingredient" in fascism is the belief that the State is the creator/grantor of all rights. One would have to be anti-Reason to take this view.
Actually that's BS, and sounds like the classic "Any type of totalitarianism can be lumped into one ideology" that seems so popular at the moment.
The key ingredient in fascism, the core around which the entire philosophy is based, is "racial superiority". From that, the rest of the system follows. Totalitarianism usually comes into it through that ideology's refusal to put freedoms at the core instead, and the implied group-right given to a type of people, for which something or someone needs to be available to take up that right.
Is it anti-Reason? While I'd agree it is, because the central concept of racial superiority is anathema to me, there are plenty on the right who have decided that it is reason to suppose that one "race" has superiority over others, usually using the "winner takes all" type philosophies popular amongst the right-wing family of ideologies. I don't doubt Rand would have opposed fascism. I think though it might be worth your while finding exactly who did support Hitler before assuming that he lacked libertarian-type support.
I do believe that the type of libertarianism most commonly espoused at the moment, one where issues to do with personal freedom are smothered by supposedly more important issues to do with economic freedoms and the right of an individual to infringe on the liberties of another through legal coertion, the control of supply, the use of inherited advantages and the acceptance of social blackmail, can lead to, or support, fascism and fascist regimes. And Rand, whether she supported Hitler or not, is a part of that type of libertarianism.
I could have sworn that Sam Adams was running a gang at the time that tarred and feathered anyone presumed to be sympathetic to the UK cause, or who was just ekeing out a living as, for instance, a tax collector.
Only the ones who speaker louder than other people in restaurants speak louder. That's why you notice them. You don't notice the others, probably the majority; they're too quiet.
allow the owners of theaters or restaurants to buy equipment that makes phones revert to vibrate mode.
Yeah, or devices that will turn mobile phones into gerbils if they ever ring, so the callee will be alerted by having a violent rodent crawling in their pockets.
That'll fox them! Sadly both your solution and mine suffer one minor, but fatal, identical flaw...
Re:MS comments in linuxworld...
on
LWCE Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
It's obviously a plug for Mono, which is an open source project subject to Microsoft's "guidance".
Actually, in some senses they're right about their influence in a lot of the open source projects related to GNU/Linux. KDE and Gnome have been heavily influenced by Microsoft's designs, even if they're not following the exact same APIs the principles behind the technologies tend to be "copy, and try to improve, but copy first", and there does seem to be an attitude amongst mainstream open source developers that if Windows does it, then that's the way it has to be done. Including really ugly hacks like using filename extentions to determine what application opens what file (why in Slashdot's name is file meta data still not a part of the Unix desktop?), or attempts to clone the registry as per gconf.
Whether I'd describe these as the "best" open source projects is another matter, however...
Slashdot Mirror
No, Orange is FreeBSD.
UTMS, the next generation of GSM, includes all of the above features and provides a variety of air-interface technologies including CDMA, so the capacity issue isn't going to last very long. As far as I see, cdma2000 still lacks the above basic features, which I find absolutely increadible especially as GSM networks have been around now for much longer than IS-95 based stuff.
I was very relieved when AT&T started providing GSM in my area, after living here four years with only IS136 (D-AMPS/TDMA), cdmaOne, and NexTel networks available. Having used both IS136 and cdmaOne networks, I felt I was giving up a huge amount to use them, and coming back to GSM has been a joy. Just being able to have a PDA phone again (not really a great idea on a non-GSM network - if you can't leave your PDA at home without losing your connectivity, who wants such a thing?) has been fantastic.
On the other hand, I can bet BLAZEMONGER INC will be interested. I'm pretty sure BLAZEMONGER's lawyers are SO FAST they can hit a TRADEMARK SUITE when the PHBs are just THINKING of using the name... etc.
Contrary to Slashdot-lore, only one small part of the DMCA has anything to do with access control circumvention systems. It's a general copyright law, it just happens to have a few evil parts bolted to it.
Example: Suppose he finds out that Philip Morris is selling cigarettes to third world children, and instantly declares profits from that operation evil for obvious reasons... but it turns out, unbeknownst to Camino, that the cigarettes are actually nicotine free and have been designed to be nourishing and thirst quenching, using specially designed generic engineering techniques? Now, can Camino be expected to know that, especially if Philip Morris covers it up to avoid potential lawsuits about them continuing to sell the cancer sticks in the US when they have an actually healthy product to sell?
No! I say no! Thrice no! El Camino SS cannot be expected to know anything that isn't as it is taken at face value or as argued publically. It would be a full time job to do full research into what profits are evil and what profits are not.
As such, I propose two things:
- It should be expected that some profits are evil. This is because human nature has shown on many occasions that people are perfectly willing to profit from human misery and suffering, from avoidable deaths and injury, from lies, deception, and 10-10-220 commercials.
- A committee should be formed to research profits to allow people to know which are evil and which are not. This should, obviously, include El Camino SS, together with other establishment luminaries whose ethical compass has never been questioned, such as Richard Branson, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, John McCain, Janet Reno, Colin Powell, Linus Torvalds, and, of course, Ben and Jerry.
- It should be assumed that profits may be evil even if the committee on ethical profits does not report on them. For example, a shopkeeper that advertises $1 pencils in his or her shop window, but tells would-be buyers that the shop has "just run out" and uses hard sell techniques to force buyers to buy more expensive pencils, would obviously generate evil profits, but it is doubtful such profits would be brought to the committee's attention so that it may rule on such things.
I believe this is a good plan. It is a plan that will work, that will not result in El Camino SS being overly burdened with the task of deciding which profits are evil and which are not, it will also ensure that people are aware that it is the method by which the profits are generated that determines their evilness, and not a person's declaration of evil, while providing useful feedback on which are, and which are not, to the rest of us.I commend it to the house.
No, a dog can't become a sheep. And a gorilla can't become an orangutang. The two are entirely different apes. However, an ape with the right attributes can "become" both, and this is what evolutionists are arguing. The two share a common parent ape, somewhere along the line, whose offspring evolved in different ways.
I find the whole "I can't turn water into wine, therefore evolution is false" argument a little disingenious. It's reasonable to suppose that, beyond "unevolving" - obtaining traits of grandparents, it's hard for two different species to evolve into each other. There's a tree structure here, an environment in which the genes are being successively altered to create workable in-betweens; those alterations are usually slight, and harmless, and not real improvements, but over time, more mutatations that are dramatic in nature are collected.
We harness the system to some extent when breeding animals, but we rarely touch more than simple colour/size/strength attributes, we rarely if ever breed to create other species, and it's doubtful we'd have the time to do this if we wanted to. This doesn't make breeding some non-facet of evolution. Nor does the fact that you can't evolve a dog into a sheep.
It seems to have been a throw-away remark, or else something he was fairly obsessed with. (Talk about extremes!)
No, I don't have a cite either.
Huge in "Yurp" too. It's only the US where it hasn't really taken off (and I don't think there's a clear explanation of why, as they're a lot easier and quicker than burning CDs, etc.)
The three sons are baffled but delighted, and the eldest steps forward. "Father, all my life I have wanted my own fast car. Just something I can enjoy driving, out on the open road."
"It will be yours!" says the father, and a few mouse clicks and phone calls, and the son finds himself the confused but pleased and excited owner of the Ford Motor Company.
The middle child steps forward. "Father, I don't want to ask for much, but I like photography and would love a camera to play with. Could you possibl..."
The father cuts him off, and the child stands excitedly as he sees his father work the phones again and finally announce, "You are now the owner of Universal Studios! Do with it as you wish!"
Finally the youngest child stepped forward. "Well dad", he says, "What I want in the whole world is a Mickey Mouse outfit."
So the father buys him SCO Group.
One key thing to bear in mind which is definitely true of the UK Mental Health Act, and is almost certainly true of the Baker Act too, is that psychiatrists have to sign the final order to have someone sectioned in this way. IIRC, Britain requires that two psychiatrists, in addition to the person who recommends the sectioning (usually the patient's psychiatrist), sign off on this, and as I understand it, usually they'll interview the individual before making their recommendation.
So it's not quite as open to abuse as it might at first appear.
I don't necessarily want to pay more taxes than I am doing, I want government to be as efficient in what it does as possible. But I no more want to give tax cuts to the richest while leaving the poorest no better off than I want to put eskimos at the front of the line for being given back fridges.
I know this is very ideologically unsound in the Ayn Randian pseudo-libertarian world that is Slashdot, but frankly higher taxes for the wealthy in favour of the poorer don't bother me - stupid laws bother me, bureaucracy bothers me, progressive taxation I not only am not bothered by, I actively support.
It's simple English comprehension of a clumsy sentence, a sentence he has admitted could have been better worded and that people who really do have the right to claim co-inventorship of the Internet, such as Vint Cerf, say doesn't mean what the wingnuts claim it means and is a justified boast for what it does mean.
He is sticking to what he said. He just didn't say what you've decided he said. And, be honest, if you really thought he said that he invented the Internet then wouldn't you actually say the words he said each time, rather than "Al Gore said he invented the Internet."?
Cultural differences be damned. I'm happy to pay more taxes (both monetarily and as a percentage of income) than my collegues in the next cubicle who earn less than half my salary (and seem, from what I can see, to have to work a damn sight harder on tedious jobs I'd never in a million years want to do.)
It's all documented. It's clumsy wording (rather than devious, does anyone seriously think that Gore wanted people to believe that he was making an outrageous claim to have single-handedly created the Internet - the very fact that the claim appears to be ludicrous ought to be the very reason why people like yourself shouldn't be assuming that Gore actually meant the interpretation you're using.)
Interesting that an out of context quote like this can be used to ridicule a politician, but, say, making the same joke over and over again about 9/11, usually with the audience laughing along, is treated as a non-story. But nobody wants to criticise trifecta boy.
So, yeah, the bully is in the playground, but the XVID has a big brother he can call on.
The median is a type of average. The other two best known averages are the mean (add up and divide total by count) and mode (most popular.)
If you're using a definition of capitalism that presumes that private ownership implies unlimited ownership, then that's a very different definition to what the world uses. Frankly, there could be only two people in a country who have capital, and are able to invest and own things, and they themselves - while having choices over what to invest in - may have no rights to freedom of speech, may suffer arrest and imprisonment for the merest notion they may oppose the government on any issue - and the regime would still be capitalist. The government doesn't own the bulk of enterprise, private capital does.
This is why it's important not to simply cheer for capital if you really, truely, support personal freedoms. Dictatorships have happened and will continue to do so in purely capitalist societies, such as the third reich. Cheer for freedom if you support freedom.
I do wish people would stop promoting ideological bunk as fact when justifying their ownership of stocks and shares and their use of a savings account in a private bank. Capitalism isn't about freedom. Communism isn't about freedom. Freedom is about freedom.
(Oh and greed is another issue altogether. An investment is not necessarily any greedier than a salary. But there, I guess, we agree.)
The key ingredient in fascism, the core around which the entire philosophy is based, is "racial superiority". From that, the rest of the system follows. Totalitarianism usually comes into it through that ideology's refusal to put freedoms at the core instead, and the implied group-right given to a type of people, for which something or someone needs to be available to take up that right.
Is it anti-Reason? While I'd agree it is, because the central concept of racial superiority is anathema to me, there are plenty on the right who have decided that it is reason to suppose that one "race" has superiority over others, usually using the "winner takes all" type philosophies popular amongst the right-wing family of ideologies. I don't doubt Rand would have opposed fascism. I think though it might be worth your while finding exactly who did support Hitler before assuming that he lacked libertarian-type support.
I do believe that the type of libertarianism most commonly espoused at the moment, one where issues to do with personal freedom are smothered by supposedly more important issues to do with economic freedoms and the right of an individual to infringe on the liberties of another through legal coertion, the control of supply, the use of inherited advantages and the acceptance of social blackmail, can lead to, or support, fascism and fascist regimes. And Rand, whether she supported Hitler or not, is a part of that type of libertarianism.
Civilians were brutalised? You bet.
Wheatgermenrichedsnackfoodist
Only the ones who speaker louder than other people in restaurants speak louder. That's why you notice them. You don't notice the others, probably the majority; they're too quiet.
That'll fox them! Sadly both your solution and mine suffer one minor, but fatal, identical flaw...
Actually, in some senses they're right about their influence in a lot of the open source projects related to GNU/Linux. KDE and Gnome have been heavily influenced by Microsoft's designs, even if they're not following the exact same APIs the principles behind the technologies tend to be "copy, and try to improve, but copy first", and there does seem to be an attitude amongst mainstream open source developers that if Windows does it, then that's the way it has to be done. Including really ugly hacks like using filename extentions to determine what application opens what file (why in Slashdot's name is file meta data still not a part of the Unix desktop?), or attempts to clone the registry as per gconf.
Whether I'd describe these as the "best" open source projects is another matter, however...