"They could try to nail it under the DMCA like the MPAA did to DeCSS, except that the software isn't decrypting, it's encrypting. In fact, if RIAA tried, they might be liable under the DMCA for breaking sleepyfellow's encryption."
The bad thing is that we allowed this. We are the government. We govern ourselves, or rather, we vote for who will say how things will be. It is our fault for choosing people who later turn around, rid us of all God-given rights, freedom, and dignity, and give us a royal shafting.
In many countries, people are dictated upon and ruled without choice. Here, for now at least, or until they "amend" the constitution to screw you, you have the chance to make a difference with your vote. Don't take it for granted. If companies spend billions in lobbying efforts, common sense only tells you that there is a war going on, so you better start doing something to protect and for the sake of your society, future generations, and your own self. Vote for only those that respect and care for the individual, because in the end, all that matters is the individual. Government was made by the people, for the people. If a person does not respect your liberty and rights, throw him out immediately.
And how does the paper represent a "circumvention device"? DeCSS fits that definition, for sure - download the software, and you can rip DVD's. (Disclaimer: I'm not at all agreeing that that should be illegal - I'm just saying that DeCSS is a real circumvention device.)
I beg to differ from your statement that DeCSS is a circumvention device. Just like CSS is the specification for an encryption method, DeCSS is also, in my humble opinion, just a specification. It is a specification which, I agree, can be used to implement a device that can play encrypted DVDs, but it is not, in itself, a circumvention device. DeCSS is just something that tells one how to do something, and in my opinion is protected by Free Speech. The specification can be in any form, speech included, but does not do ANYTHING until you actually implement it.
P.S.:
But just watch. The next thing you know is that they will lobby to rid us of even our freedom of speech. We cannot afford to just sit and let that happen.
They have no right to force you to take action to protect yourself.
They have no right to imply your consent.
"Opt-out" is just another rogue method that companies are trying to use to deprive you of your rights and relieve themselves of the burden of having to seek your consent.
That's all there is to it.
Such wicked policies must not be tolerated. It may sound harmless, but for the sake of making a point, what if your bank said that you explicitly had to express your willingness to keep your money and that if you did not do so, the money defaulted to being theirs? What if some company implied your consent to some ridiculous business "agreement", or worse, euthanasia? What if you didn't even know about such an "agreement", or what if it was burdensome to opt out. Why should this burden be placed on you in the first place??? Why should you be assumed to be in an "agreement" you never agreed to? Why should you have to do anything to protect your rights?
I'll tell you why: It's because these companies don't want to have to bother to seek your consent. It's too much trouble, and besides, it gives you the opportunity to say no.
For a society to be just, the rights of all persons must be respected by default. Nothing less is acceptable.
"If you don't want to use the property *I* created on *my* terms, don't use it at all."
Exactly. That's why I've made the move to Free Software.
I believe in your right to use whatever license you desire for things you create, but don't expect me to be foolish enough to give up basic and essential liberties in the products I use.
When you think about it though, who really and actually *creates* anything. We all take from things around us and, as the article points out, ideas and concepts we got from others. No one (except God I guess) creates anything 100%. But I do believe in the right of a "creator" to a fair reward. But I do also believe that community-based approaches (i.e. Free Software) to the solution of problems, while not as profitable to the individual, is a more excellent way for the greater good of the society.
"It means," Litman writes, "that all appearance of works in computers -- at home, on networks, at work, in the library -- needs to be effected in conformance with, and with attention to, copyright rules. That's new. Until now, copyright has regulated multiplication and distribution of works, but it hasn't regulated consumption."
It does now.
If you buy a book, or even borrow one, you can read it as many times as you like. You can lend it or rent it to a friend, sell it or give it away. You can't legally make copies of it, but you can use it as many times as you want. But if every time a work appears in RAM, you are making an "actionable copy," then for the first time copyright owners have been given almost total control over the consumption of their works. Each time you open Microsoft Word to edit a document, you could eventually need Microsoft's permission. Each time you use your computer's CD-ROM drive to listen to a CD you bought, you need a license from the record company. Every time you view a Web page with a picture of Mickey Mouse, you need permission from Disney."
No problem. Gone are the days when we had no alternatives. All these things will only encourage us to abandon copyrighted and proprietary material in favour of Free Software and Publicly-Specified Intellectual Property.
We often get used to having internet services for free, or for rather low prices, and somewhat justifiably so. In a technological- and internet-facilitated age, it costs almost nothing and is easier than ever to offer services and transfer information. Of course there is a one-time cost of setting up infrastructure and developing content, but once that is done, it costs next to nothing to distribute on a global stage. And this has been the case, what with search engines, e-mail, all manner of advanced software, and even information that would formerly have to be paid for are all offered on the internet for free. The internet has facilitated in the bringing of all manner of information to all ends of the earth, and done so at stunningly low costs.
Sad to say, but even spammers know this. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for traditional advertising, they just buy a cheap box that spews out spam to millions of e-mail addresses.
First of all, if it is an international governing body, they need not pay any heed whatsoever to the U.S. constitution.
Secondly, even if it is unenforceable, who can tell them that it must not be done, for that matter, if there is no system of checks and balances in place, and they are the law makers, law enforcers, and only law in town (actually, the world.)
However, I'm not so sure it's unenforceable. They don't have to look at absolutely everything (afterall, cops don't have to catch every single speed demon to give be able to give you a ticket), but when they find something they don't like, they can come after you. They may not know whence it originated, but - and here's the catch - they have made it the responsibility of the company to know who and what is on their networks. When an issue arises, they go after the company, who then gives them your name. Nothing new. Even federal taxes, which at first may seem unenforceable, work similarly. Don't check them yourself. Have them rat on each other.
> Tremble, weep, gnash your teeth, folks, we now have a police state. Hitler won, after all.
Very saddening indeed, but true. Considering this involves the whole world, there will be no recourse. If this international governing body decides to take away freedom of speech, no matter where you run, that freedom is gone. If the law says you have no rights, run where you may, you have no rights. If it does away with personal privacy, consider that history. If it says "All your income are belong to us", well,...
Fundamentally, this would be nothing new. Throughout history, the God-given rights of humans have been violated. Just ask the Jews in Germany, or the blacks in the United States. The only thing that will be new - and the very thing that makes this of utmost importance - is that it would be on a scale more grand and more pervassive than ever; that it will cover all humans, all territories.
In light of this very sobering point, we must fight for our basic and essential rights and freedoms. In failing to do so, we only place both ourselves and future generations at risk and do a disservice of magnanimous proportions to all humanity. I have a strong feeling that there will be an international governing body (not just the US-run UN, but one that monitors the everyday activities of netizens) someday. When that happens, we must ensure that the basic and fundamental rights and dignity of every human being are respected and protected.
Do not be complacent, and do not be fooled into thinking otherwise. We are in a war, and the entire future of humanity rests on the outcome.
So that's what they really think, huh? Well I have news for them: No consumer will choose to eat shit over cake.
I'm just glad we have other alternatives. The more they engage in cunning or predatory tactics, the more we are encouraged to move to the alternatives, or at the very least, Free Software.
I think the article is partly true in the sense that perfect or not, society is run largely depending on the opinions, reasoning, and desires of the masses and/or those in power. In this world, truth and the law are frequently twisted to adhere to the desires or determinations of those in power.
However, I also think that the author would be very mistaken to believe that this life is the end of the story, or that there is no Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient Being that gave the first word to put forth the world, but will also judge the world and have the final word in all matters. We have been given charge of all the world for a little while, but the "laws" of this world, this life, and indeed all the world are transient. They mean very little in the scope of eternity, and are fleeting before a Supreme Eternal Being.
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one drop to fall out of the Law."
Whatever natural law you "break" was never a law. It was simply an indication of a more complete law that is never violated.
My point is that, scientifically speaking, whenever things work, you are only sure they work in that situation. The fact that it works in one situation does not necessarily imply that it would work in a different situation. If a law is defined for a situation that is defined and a different situation is proposed, unless there is a higher Law that says that this new situation must comply with the defined law, there is no guarantee of compliance. This is when it may seem that a true law is broken, but really is not. If the "law" is proven wrong for the situation it is supposed to apply in, then it really wasn't a law in the first place.
To me however, it seems that there is only one Law, one Reality, one Truth that is never compromised. Anything at all that takes place, unexpectedly or not, is simply allowably under this great Law.
Yep, I know exactly what you're talking about. I had the same exact service. It was too expensive to begin with ($55/month). Besides, I had seen enough commercials. When they "upgraded" the menu in order to give me more advertisements, I decided I had had enough.
I got rid of their "service".
I can get all the information I need from the (non-commercialized) internet. And I can do much more meaningful things with the money I saved.
With these forced "upgrades", you are basically at the mercy of the supplier and whatever he wants to do with you.
Just another reason why Free Software is indispensable.
I am only grateful that we have a choice. Companies know this very well: that in Free Software, we have a choice; That with choices, we cannot be controlled by them; That the Free Software development model is the most powerful intelluctual property development model ever seen in human history. It is beyond the control of any single entity. It is definitely beyond their control. Instead of embracing it as the reality, they will do everything in their power to destroy the growth and proliferation of the Free software development model.
In the end, they will fail.
The cat is out of the bag. It is impossible to contain the intellectual power of all the minds on the internet.
When I think of Free Software, I do not think of the corporate pursuit of profit, but a most efficient and effective community-based approach to providing solutions for the greater good of the community.
This is not some type of greedy attempt to eat ones cake and have it too. Why should one be forced into choosing to have either liberty or safety, but not both. Who has the right to deprive anyone of either?
All people, their potential foolishness notwithstanding, have the right to liberty and safety.
Thanks for the salute. Rest assured that it is reciprocal.
In response to whether or not the quotes have anything to do with genetic alteration in the hope of preventing aging, I say "Of course! It has everything to do with it!" I shall attempt to explain.
The point I was trying to make was not that God is vicious (as the other respondent tried to assert) but that (and I know you've heard this too many times) man has sinned, is flawed, and that as a result of this willful separation from God his Creator, both man and his world are imperfect. I do not believe the world was ever intended to exist fully separated from or in any way opposed to the designs or intentions of its creator. And the evidence and result of this separation can be seen: There is violence everywhere; There are so many broken homes; We have become very selfish, proud, and individualistic, instead of thinking first of our communities, our world, and future generations; There is also sexual immorality everywhere, and its tendency to lead to people using others (especially women) for selfish, indignifying and demeaning ends - instead of seeing each other as brothers and sisters, many view women as sexual objects to be manipulated and used.
These things will never lead to happiness, and neither will they lead to eternal life (even if they did, who would want to live in a decaying and hopeless society? Long life does not guarantee happiness.) Neither is materialism the answer: We've all heard the saying "Of what profit is it for a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own life?". I think that in these, we chase the wrong things.
But back to the point. I do not think we shall ever live forever. For scientific proof, you need only take one look at the Law of Entropy. The universe was created in its highest order. Any process only increases the disorder in it. And we see the effects of this everywhere: Air pollution, water pollution, mounting piles of non-biodegradable garbage, nuclear waste, diminishing natural resources,... The list goes on and on. Your room gets messy because of this law; Cars rust because of this law; Even aging and the decaying of organic material are consequences of this law.
If you take a look at life itself, it seems to be an "unnaturally" ordered, dynamic and unstable state of "equilibrium". It takes energy to maintain this state of order and higher energy, and it cannot last forever. As we have seen, and as scientists have known as a law for a very long time, the universe tends toward disorder. Eventually, we shall die and proceed onto the more equilibrial state of death.
We are not perfect and neither is our world. (There is some value to this as it teaches us not to put our faith in any transient thing such as the universe or anything in it. These things will come to pass away. The only Person worth placing one's eternal faith in is God, the Infinite and Eternal Creator.) My point is that instead of undertaking the futile task of attempting to live forever, we should focus more and spend our precious and limited time, energy, and resources on making the world a better place.
Go to BSD, go to Linux, if you still don't like it, worst case write your own - actually, that's even better as it contributes to the efforts of the community. Who cares what you choose?! That's the virtue and beauty of Free Software - you have freedom, you have powerful software, and you have choice. Just be very grateful that you also have the source code and don't have to write your own from scratch.
... it could potentially open the discovery of a true fountain of youth....
You will surely die.
- Genesis 2:17
For you are dust, and to dust you will return.
- Genesis 3:19.
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, that whoever who believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
- John 3:16.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
- Romans 3:23.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
- Romans 6:25.
Will.NET be an open platform (as in Open Specification, Open Source)? How so, how not?
There are many software (and even hardware) developers out there who would like to develope for a promising platform, but will only be discouraged by proprietary or undisclosed specifications.
The BBC have a news story about how the RIAA isn't too happy with Napster's current filtering system. They now want a system implemented whereby Napster can only distribute songs on the list of approved titles: 'The RIAA has asked the court to order Napster to use a "filter in" method, which would allow songs that Napster is authorised to distribute to be placed on its system, rather than blocking the swapping of copyrighted music placed on its service.
I wish there was a way to reconcile our having the freedom to share our music with the need for artists to be paid for what they do. The recording industry has made a ridiculously unfair amount of money from society in the past (and hence the difficulty for us to feel sorry for them), but I really do feel for the up-and-coming artists who only get pennies (if any) from all their hard work as a result of an industry that capitalizes on them.
In other words, I wish there was a way for us to donate directly to musicians in appreciation of, and as compensation for, their creative genius and all the hard work they put into entertaining us. Any suggestions???
Slashdot Mirror
"They could try to nail it under the DMCA like the MPAA did to DeCSS, except that the software isn't decrypting, it's encrypting. In fact, if RIAA tried, they might be liable under the DMCA for breaking sleepyfellow's encryption."
Haaa-ha!!!
The bad thing is that we allowed this. We are the government. We govern ourselves, or rather, we vote for who will say how things will be. It is our fault for choosing people who later turn around, rid us of all God-given rights, freedom, and dignity, and give us a royal shafting.
In many countries, people are dictated upon and ruled without choice. Here, for now at least, or until they "amend" the constitution to screw you, you have the chance to make a difference with your vote. Don't take it for granted. If companies spend billions in lobbying efforts, common sense only tells you that there is a war going on, so you better start doing something to protect and for the sake of your society, future generations, and your own self. Vote for only those that respect and care for the individual, because in the end, all that matters is the individual. Government was made by the people, for the people. If a person does not respect your liberty and rights, throw him out immediately.
Enough said. A word is enough for the wise.
And how does the paper represent a "circumvention device"? DeCSS fits that definition, for sure - download the software, and you can rip DVD's. (Disclaimer: I'm not at all agreeing that that should be illegal - I'm just saying that DeCSS is a real circumvention device.)
I beg to differ from your statement that DeCSS is a circumvention device. Just like CSS is the specification for an encryption method, DeCSS is also, in my humble opinion, just a specification. It is a specification which, I agree, can be used to implement a device that can play encrypted DVDs, but it is not, in itself, a circumvention device. DeCSS is just something that tells one how to do something, and in my opinion is protected by Free Speech. The specification can be in any form, speech included, but does not do ANYTHING until you actually implement it.
P.S.:
But just watch. The next thing you know is that they will lobby to rid us of even our freedom of speech. We cannot afford to just sit and let that happen.
They have no right to force you to take action to protect yourself.
They have no right to imply your consent.
"Opt-out" is just another rogue method that companies are trying to use to deprive you of your rights and relieve themselves of the burden of having to seek your consent.
That's all there is to it.
Such wicked policies must not be tolerated. It may sound harmless, but for the sake of making a point, what if your bank said that you explicitly had to express your willingness to keep your money and that if you did not do so, the money defaulted to being theirs? What if some company implied your consent to some ridiculous business "agreement", or worse, euthanasia? What if you didn't even know about such an "agreement", or what if it was burdensome to opt out. Why should this burden be placed on you in the first place??? Why should you be assumed to be in an "agreement" you never agreed to? Why should you have to do anything to protect your rights?
I'll tell you why: It's because these companies don't want to have to bother to seek your consent. It's too much trouble, and besides, it gives you the opportunity to say no.
For a society to be just, the rights of all persons must be respected by default. Nothing less is acceptable.
I think it is wrong to violate an agreement you make in the purchase of something.
I think it is foolish to agree to terms that take away our freedom to share what we purchase (especially when there is NO harm in doing so).
In other words, I think we should only agree to terms, and purchase from those, that honour the rights and freedoms we cherish.
"If you don't want to use the property *I* created on *my* terms, don't use it at all."
Exactly. That's why I've made the move to Free Software.
I believe in your right to use whatever license you desire for things you create, but don't expect me to be foolish enough to give up basic and essential liberties in the products I use.
When you think about it though, who really and actually *creates* anything. We all take from things around us and, as the article points out, ideas and concepts we got from others. No one (except God I guess) creates anything 100%. But I do believe in the right of a "creator" to a fair reward. But I do also believe that community-based approaches (i.e. Free Software) to the solution of problems, while not as profitable to the individual, is a more excellent way for the greater good of the society.
"It means," Litman writes, "that all appearance of works in computers -- at home, on networks, at work, in the library -- needs to be effected in conformance with, and with attention to, copyright rules. That's new. Until now, copyright has regulated multiplication and distribution of works, but it hasn't regulated consumption."
It does now.
If you buy a book, or even borrow one, you can read it as many times as you like. You can lend it or rent it to a friend, sell it or give it away. You can't legally make copies of it, but you can use it as many times as you want. But if every time a work appears in RAM, you are making an "actionable copy," then for the first time copyright owners have been given almost total control over the consumption of their works. Each time you open Microsoft Word to edit a document, you could eventually need Microsoft's permission. Each time you use your computer's CD-ROM drive to listen to a CD you bought, you need a license from the record company. Every time you view a Web page with a picture of Mickey Mouse, you need permission from Disney."
No problem. Gone are the days when we had no alternatives. All these things will only encourage us to abandon copyrighted and proprietary material in favour of Free Software and Publicly-Specified Intellectual Property.
We often get used to having internet services for free, or for rather low prices, and somewhat justifiably so. In a technological- and internet-facilitated age, it costs almost nothing and is easier than ever to offer services and transfer information. Of course there is a one-time cost of setting up infrastructure and developing content, but once that is done, it costs next to nothing to distribute on a global stage. And this has been the case, what with search engines, e-mail, all manner of advanced software, and even information that would formerly have to be paid for are all offered on the internet for free. The internet has facilitated in the bringing of all manner of information to all ends of the earth, and done so at stunningly low costs.
Sad to say, but even spammers know this. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for traditional advertising, they just buy a cheap box that spews out spam to millions of e-mail addresses.
First of all, if it is an international governing body, they need not pay any heed whatsoever to the U.S. constitution.
Secondly, even if it is unenforceable, who can tell them that it must not be done, for that matter, if there is no system of checks and balances in place, and they are the law makers, law enforcers, and only law in town (actually, the world.)
However, I'm not so sure it's unenforceable. They don't have to look at absolutely everything (afterall, cops don't have to catch every single speed demon to give be able to give you a ticket), but when they find something they don't like, they can come after you. They may not know whence it originated, but - and here's the catch - they have made it the responsibility of the company to know who and what is on their networks. When an issue arises, they go after the company, who then gives them your name. Nothing new. Even federal taxes, which at first may seem unenforceable, work similarly. Don't check them yourself. Have them rat on each other.
> Tremble, weep, gnash your teeth, folks, we now have a police state. Hitler won, after all.
...
Very saddening indeed, but true. Considering this involves the whole world, there will be no recourse. If this international governing body decides to take away freedom of speech, no matter where you run, that freedom is gone. If the law says you have no rights, run where you may, you have no rights. If it does away with personal privacy, consider that history. If it says "All your income are belong to us", well,
Fundamentally, this would be nothing new. Throughout history, the God-given rights of humans have been violated. Just ask the Jews in Germany, or the blacks in the United States. The only thing that will be new - and the very thing that makes this of utmost importance - is that it would be on a scale more grand and more pervassive than ever; that it will cover all humans, all territories.
In light of this very sobering point, we must fight for our basic and essential rights and freedoms. In failing to do so, we only place both ourselves and future generations at risk and do a disservice of magnanimous proportions to all humanity. I have a strong feeling that there will be an international governing body (not just the US-run UN, but one that monitors the everyday activities of netizens) someday. When that happens, we must ensure that the basic and fundamental rights and dignity of every human being are respected and protected.
Do not be complacent, and do not be fooled into thinking otherwise. We are in a war, and the entire future of humanity rests on the outcome.
So that's what they really think, huh? Well I have news for them: No consumer will choose to eat shit over cake.
I'm just glad we have other alternatives. The more they engage in cunning or predatory tactics, the more we are encouraged to move to the alternatives, or at the very least, Free Software.
I think the article is partly true in the sense that perfect or not, society is run largely depending on the opinions, reasoning, and desires of the masses and/or those in power. In this world, truth and the law are frequently twisted to adhere to the desires or determinations of those in power.
However, I also think that the author would be very mistaken to believe that this life is the end of the story, or that there is no Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient Being that gave the first word to put forth the world, but will also judge the world and have the final word in all matters. We have been given charge of all the world for a little while, but the "laws" of this world, this life, and indeed all the world are transient. They mean very little in the scope of eternity, and are fleeting before a Supreme Eternal Being.
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one drop to fall out of the Law."
Whatever natural law you "break" was never a law. It was simply an indication of a more complete law that is never violated.
My point is that, scientifically speaking, whenever things work, you are only sure they work in that situation. The fact that it works in one situation does not necessarily imply that it would work in a different situation. If a law is defined for a situation that is defined and a different situation is proposed, unless there is a higher Law that says that this new situation must comply with the defined law, there is no guarantee of compliance. This is when it may seem that a true law is broken, but really is not. If the "law" is proven wrong for the situation it is supposed to apply in, then it really wasn't a law in the first place.
To me however, it seems that there is only one Law, one Reality, one Truth that is never compromised. Anything at all that takes place, unexpectedly or not, is simply allowably under this great Law.
You bet your arse.
You thought Uncle Sam shafted you. Just wait until the Borg gets here.
Yep, I know exactly what you're talking about. I had the same exact service. It was too expensive to begin with ($55/month). Besides, I had seen enough commercials. When they "upgraded" the menu in order to give me more advertisements, I decided I had had enough.
I got rid of their "service".
I can get all the information I need from the (non-commercialized) internet. And I can do much more meaningful things with the money I saved.
With these forced "upgrades", you are basically at the mercy of the supplier and whatever he wants to do with you.
Just another reason why Free Software is indispensable.
I am only grateful that we have a choice. Companies know this very well: that in Free Software, we have a choice; That with choices, we cannot be controlled by them; That the Free Software development model is the most powerful intelluctual property development model ever seen in human history. It is beyond the control of any single entity. It is definitely beyond their control. Instead of embracing it as the reality, they will do everything in their power to destroy the growth and proliferation of the Free software development model.
In the end, they will fail.
The cat is out of the bag. It is impossible to contain the intellectual power of all the minds on the internet.
We are in a war. Play your part.
When I think of Free Software, I do not think of the corporate pursuit of profit, but a most efficient and effective community-based approach to providing solutions for the greater good of the community.
Fallacy?!
This is not some type of greedy attempt to eat ones cake and have it too. Why should one be forced into choosing to have either liberty or safety, but not both. Who has the right to deprive anyone of either?
All people, their potential foolishness notwithstanding, have the right to liberty and safety.
Thanks for the salute. Rest assured that it is reciprocal.
... The list goes on and on. Your room gets messy because of this law; Cars rust because of this law; Even aging and the decaying of organic material are consequences of this law.
In response to whether or not the quotes have anything to do with genetic alteration in the hope of preventing aging, I say "Of course! It has everything to do with it!" I shall attempt to explain.
The point I was trying to make was not that God is vicious (as the other respondent tried to assert) but that (and I know you've heard this too many times) man has sinned, is flawed, and that as a result of this willful separation from God his Creator, both man and his world are imperfect. I do not believe the world was ever intended to exist fully separated from or in any way opposed to the designs or intentions of its creator. And the evidence and result of this separation can be seen: There is violence everywhere; There are so many broken homes; We have become very selfish, proud, and individualistic, instead of thinking first of our communities, our world, and future generations; There is also sexual immorality everywhere, and its tendency to lead to people using others (especially women) for selfish, indignifying and demeaning ends - instead of seeing each other as brothers and sisters, many view women as sexual objects to be manipulated and used.
These things will never lead to happiness, and neither will they lead to eternal life (even if they did, who would want to live in a decaying and hopeless society? Long life does not guarantee happiness.) Neither is materialism the answer: We've all heard the saying "Of what profit is it for a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own life?". I think that in these, we chase the wrong things.
But back to the point. I do not think we shall ever live forever. For scientific proof, you need only take one look at the Law of Entropy. The universe was created in its highest order. Any process only increases the disorder in it. And we see the effects of this everywhere: Air pollution, water pollution, mounting piles of non-biodegradable garbage, nuclear waste, diminishing natural resources,
If you take a look at life itself, it seems to be an "unnaturally" ordered, dynamic and unstable state of "equilibrium". It takes energy to maintain this state of order and higher energy, and it cannot last forever. As we have seen, and as scientists have known as a law for a very long time, the universe tends toward disorder. Eventually, we shall die and proceed onto the more equilibrial state of death.
We are not perfect and neither is our world. (There is some value to this as it teaches us not to put our faith in any transient thing such as the universe or anything in it. These things will come to pass away. The only Person worth placing one's eternal faith in is God, the Infinite and Eternal Creator.) My point is that instead of undertaking the futile task of attempting to live forever, we should focus more and spend our precious and limited time, energy, and resources on making the world a better place.
I'll stick with the BSD's thank you
Go to BSD, go to Linux, if you still don't like it, worst case write your own - actually, that's even better as it contributes to the efforts of the community. Who cares what you choose?! That's the virtue and beauty of Free Software - you have freedom, you have powerful software, and you have choice. Just be very grateful that you also have the source code and don't have to write your own from scratch.
... it could potentially open the discovery of a true fountain of youth ....
You will surely die.
- Genesis 2:17
For you are dust, and to dust you will return.
- Genesis 3:19.
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, that whoever who believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
- John 3:16.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
- Romans 3:23.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
- Romans 6:25.
Will .NET be an open platform (as in Open Specification, Open Source)? How so, how not?
There are many software (and even hardware) developers out there who would like to develope for a promising platform, but will only be discouraged by proprietary or undisclosed specifications.
Also, what about Freedom of Speech???
What they propose is that we ask for permission to publish something. They decide whether or not it will be published.
I say to hell with them.
Even if they shut Napster down, their campaign to curb the flow of information in an internet age will only be futile. Mark my words.
The BBC have a news story about how the RIAA isn't too happy with Napster's current filtering system. They now want a system implemented whereby Napster can only distribute songs on the list of approved titles: 'The RIAA has asked the court to order Napster to use a "filter in" method, which would allow songs that Napster is authorised to distribute to be placed on its system, rather than blocking the swapping of copyrighted music placed on its service.
Sounds to me like guilty until proven innocent.
Tell them to go to hell.
I wish there was a way to reconcile our having the freedom to share our music with the need for artists to be paid for what they do. The recording industry has made a ridiculously unfair amount of money from society in the past (and hence the difficulty for us to feel sorry for them), but I really do feel for the up-and-coming artists who only get pennies (if any) from all their hard work as a result of an industry that capitalizes on them.
In other words, I wish there was a way for us to donate directly to musicians in appreciation of, and as compensation for, their creative genius and all the hard work they put into entertaining us. Any suggestions???