The original kernel was stolen from the back of a "Star Bix" breakfast cereal box. One day, when time-travel is implemented, Linus will go back in time and sue Star Bix (and Andy Tanenbaum) for patent infringement.
with the ghost of Jar Jar and Qui Qon Jin inserted into the original trilogy Jedi ghost sequences for continuity purposes.
Nah, Jar-Jar and Qui-Gon didn't die anywhere near Luke Skywalker. If Amidala/Padme/Whatever had been preggo at the time, Mace Windu and the other Jedi who died on Neo-Geo (or whatever) might have been in Luke-Death-Range, though.
THANK YOU! Someone understands what I am getting at.
The only way to stop digital copying and sharing is to OUTLAW COMPUTERS. Because digital copying and sharing is what computers do. An appropriate analogy would be trying to outlaw language because it could be used to slander someone. Well, you know, if people want to say bad things about you behind your back, they are going to do so, as long as people are allowed to talk. It doesn't make slander morally right, but the possibility of it is going to exist and have to be lived with, because we have language, and the expression of ideas (slanderous or no) is WHAT LANGUAGE IS FOR.
Just the same old refrain
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 1
We need to protect our precious property! (But it's already illegal to copy and distribute)
But we need to protect our precious property! (But you're asking to put regulations in effect that stifle innovation)
But we need to protect our precious property! (But you're disabling all manner of legitmate and fair use)
But we need to protect our precious property! (But what you propose causes immeasurable collateral damage that has nothing to do with your industry)
But we need to protect our precious property! (But these laws will criminalize millions of hobbyists who respect and obey copyright law)
But we need to protect our precious property! (But the measures you propose will do nothing to stop the large-scale bootlegging that is your actual problem)
But we need to protect our precious property!
...and so forth. There is no new content here, and that is going to be the arguement from the studios and publishers from now until the end of time.
Re:The silver lining in the falling sky...
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The repeal of Prohibition, passed February 20, 1933, ratified December 5, 1933
The silver lining in the falling sky...
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Let's say the EFF's worst nightmare scenario occurs, and legislation eventually gets passed making all sorts of things, from DRM-free hard drives to writing simple Internet clients, to "unprotected" ADCs in every possible consumer device, illegal. Eventually the people are going to realize that we've stumbled into Regulations Hell, and the people will demand a repeal of all of these stupid laws. "Load a program, go to jail" laws will not be popular, and when ordinary people start getting busted for doing utterly benign things, there will be a backlash.
The simple fact of the matter is that the existance of the Internet has made unlimited digital sharing a reality. The genie's out, people love getting free stuff, and nothing short of a police state is going to stop it. The content providers are either going to have to find a business model to take advantage of this, or learn to live with it. It's that simple.
You should be able to call your telephone provider and say you do not want to be able to make long distance calls from your house.
See, that's the irritating thing. Before making our first LD call, we had no LD carrier. But SBC says now that we HAVE to have a provider. I don't know if it's some regulation, or they're just BSing us.
As it is, our package offsets the cost, so the LD service from SBC is free anyway.
We're already on the national do-not-call list. Why should we need to be on AT&T's list? So they can harass us more efficiently next time we change our address and phone number?
American Telephone & Telegraph should be tried, convicted, drawn and quartered for their constant criminal harassment. The following happened to me:
I signed up with SBC for DSL. My wife and I both have cell phones, so we don't use the land line for long distance. Ever.
We made the mistake of using our land line one time to make a five minute long-distance call.
Since then, every month we got a $9 charge from AT&T for being subscribed to their "service." I called AT&T to cancel our "service" with them, and they said we had to take it up with SBC.
SBC said the only way to discontinue with AT&T was to sign up with someone else. So we signed up with SBC, on their cheapest ($3/mo) plan. We eventually switched to a combined local/LD package that offset the cost.
AT&T, since then, calls nightly, wanting to make sure that we really, really, really wanted to switch from them, and weren't "duped" into signing up with someone else. I tell them every time that WE DON'T WANT THEIR FARKING SERVICE, and hang up on them. Next night same thing.
My wife now answers the phone in German every time AT&T calls.
Re:Why not?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First off, I agree that this whole situation we have gotten ourselves into was a huge mistake. Any Civilization fan will tell you that Despotism is preferable to Anarchy. And I agree that Iraq was not the ideal front to fight the "War on Terror."
That said, there are some serious flaws in your thinking:
On the first point, you are forgetting that Saddam only has to play nice with the inspectors for so long. As soon as the international community gets tired of babysitting him, Saddam will kick the inspectors out of the country and go back to Business As Usual. Sure, as a short-term solution, containment is a good policy, but the Administration is trying to forsee long-term ramifications.
On the second point, it's not just that Iraq violated some letter of some international agreement. They attempted to take over a neighboring country (and before that, tried to take over another country with the help of the U.S.), and we had every reason to believe that, left to his own devices, he'd do so again. The idea is that the mere presence of Saddam was in impeding factor to the economic and political growth and development of the entire region. Saddam can't be kept in check without constant babysitting and crippling embargoes. Iraq suffers. The rest of the Arab/Persian world has to deal with a skewed balance-of-power in the region. They suffer. It was perceived as an unsustainable arrangement.
Let's not even get into Israel... suffice it to say that when the "international community" won't allow a people to defend themselves against butchers who send teenagers to blow up civilians on buses, that people has every right to thumb their noses at them.
On the third point (and I'm not saying I agree with it this thinking, but...) the idea is that 9/11 proves that there is a means in place to attack US cities and kill vast numbers of Americans. Organized, global groups like Al Quaeda are, in and of themselves, a powerful weapon, and a great delivery system for anyone who wants to attack the U.S. Al Quaeda PLUS rouge governments developing WMDs constitute a clear and present danger to the U.S. and to the world. Personally there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam would have "made a deal with the Devil" to attack America if he thought he could get away with it.
Your speculation about "fundamentalists Christians" buying guns and fertilizer, and cooperating with Islamist terror groups betrays vast misunderstanding of the nature of the threat. You need to understand a few things:
1. Islam teaches that all the world must be converted, by force if necessary, and anyone who refuses to convert must be killed. This is not an extremist position. This is orthodox Islam.
2. Mainstream media in the Muslim world regularly gives air-time to religious leaders and professors who state that suicide bombing is justified, and that America and Israel are the enemies of the faith, and must die. This hatred is primarily a result of their doctrine. The U.S. and Israel could bend over backwards to satisfy every demand of the Arab people, and they would still be infidels that must die.
3. "Fundamentalist Christians" do not kill people for the advancement of the faith. Yes, you have the odd-ball who kills an abortion doctor. Yes, people wishing to overthrow the government are sometimes right-wing Christians. But this has more to do with them being right-wing than being Christian - really, any religion can be used as an excuse for abominable political beliefs. The case of Islamist terror is very different. The terror and hatred is a direct result of their faith, rather than their faith being used as an excuse to justify their hatred and terror.
Now, all that said, I think this Iraq invasion was a stupid idea vis-a-vis the war on terror. But then, I don't know a thing about conducting a global war against rogue criminals. Our war isn't against governments. It's against criminals. But obviously, "law enforcement" as we know it isn't going to do a damned
Re:Why not?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't get it, it's too weird!
Sometimes I scratch my head, trying to make sense of Team Bush's foriegn policy. There are some points to consider:
There are security concerns other than Islamist extremists that might justify the war. Saddam was a security concern on his own.
There are valid legal reasons justifying the war. Technically, Saddam was in violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
Just because Saddam is against extremists in his own country doesn't mean he wouldn't use them against the US, given the chance.
It's not a simple matter of Team Bush having an "Iraq fixation," or greedy corporations wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil. Nor is it a simple matter of "defending the US when we're under attack." The Administration had valid national security concerns that were the reason for this war, but the geopolitics of the whole thing is so complex that most people don't understand them.
Re:And the political flamefest begins in
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
What, are you trying to turn this into Fark?"
It would be an improvement.
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
It's called "Cash for Work" projects. The NGOs (non-governmental organizations) do them, and so do the private contractors. The work gets done on the cheap and the people involved have a good-paying job.
So, in a lot of cases, the Iraqis ARE doing the rebuilding work.
And the political flamefest begins in
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
3...
2...
1...
Re:Why not?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Believe it or not, Saddam actually wouldn't allow people to have beards. His thugs would forcibly shave anyone who had one. This was to combat Islamist extremism, which he always found to be a threat.
The man war brutal and evil, but keeping him in power probably would have helped us in the War on Terror.
The BALCO (heh) letter states that Flex Wheeler has two different mutations that make him an extreme responder, one of which is a myostatin mutation.
What's different about the Berlin kid is he has the myostatin mutation on both chromosomes. His mother and father both had the mutation, and both passed it on.
I just hope that this isn't going to cause the child health problems. If one copy of the gene can produce Flex Wheeler, and allow a man to carry 330-pound curbstones by hand, two copies could be disastrous. He could end up completely immobilized by his own overgrown muscle tissue.
In my mind, Google's free service has provided the world value somewhere in the order of trillions of dollars. Information gathering that once required a trip to the library and several hours searching through card catalogs and books, can now be done in mere seconds. I don't think they owe anyone anything.
I never quite understood why JMS in particular has this phobia about story ideas. Is he more paranoid than most, or is it the fact that he likes to interact with the fans more than your typical TV writer?
In contrast, at one time Trek used to solicit scripts from fans (e.g., TNG ep. "Yesterday's Enterprise" was written by a fanboy).
Alternatively, you could throw in a pop-up box that tricks the user into loading Bonzi Buddy, then count how many angry emails you get from users with Bonzi infest^W installations.
This is a very permanent solution, as after this you no longer have to worry about monitoring traffic to your website.
Slashdot Mirror
The original kernel was stolen from the back of a "Star Bix" breakfast cereal box. One day, when time-travel is implemented, Linus will go back in time and sue Star Bix (and Andy Tanenbaum) for patent infringement.
Nah, Jar-Jar and Qui-Gon didn't die anywhere near Luke Skywalker. If Amidala/Padme/Whatever had been preggo at the time, Mace Windu and the other Jedi who died on Neo-Geo (or whatever) might have been in Luke-Death-Range, though.
They'll do anything to keep Nader off the ballot in a swing state. :-)
THANK YOU! Someone understands what I am getting at.
The only way to stop digital copying and sharing is to OUTLAW COMPUTERS. Because digital copying and sharing is what computers do. An appropriate analogy would be trying to outlaw language because it could be used to slander someone. Well, you know, if people want to say bad things about you behind your back, they are going to do so, as long as people are allowed to talk. It doesn't make slander morally right, but the possibility of it is going to exist and have to be lived with, because we have language, and the expression of ideas (slanderous or no) is WHAT LANGUAGE IS FOR.
(But it's already illegal to copy and distribute)
But we need to protect our precious property!
(But you're asking to put regulations in effect that stifle innovation)
But we need to protect our precious property!
(But you're disabling all manner of legitmate and fair use)
But we need to protect our precious property!
(But what you propose causes immeasurable collateral damage that has nothing to do with your industry)
But we need to protect our precious property!
(But these laws will criminalize millions of hobbyists who respect and obey copyright law)
But we need to protect our precious property!
(But the measures you propose will do nothing to stop the large-scale bootlegging that is your actual problem)
But we need to protect our precious property!
...and so forth. There is no new content here, and that is going to be the arguement from the studios and publishers from now until the end of time.
The repeal of Prohibition, passed February 20, 1933, ratified December 5, 1933
Let's say the EFF's worst nightmare scenario occurs, and legislation eventually gets passed making all sorts of things, from DRM-free hard drives to writing simple Internet clients, to "unprotected" ADCs in every possible consumer device, illegal. Eventually the people are going to realize that we've stumbled into Regulations Hell, and the people will demand a repeal of all of these stupid laws. "Load a program, go to jail" laws will not be popular, and when ordinary people start getting busted for doing utterly benign things, there will be a backlash.
The simple fact of the matter is that the existance of the Internet has made unlimited digital sharing a reality. The genie's out, people love getting free stuff, and nothing short of a police state is going to stop it. The content providers are either going to have to find a business model to take advantage of this, or learn to live with it. It's that simple.
See, that's the irritating thing. Before making our first LD call, we had no LD carrier. But SBC says now that we HAVE to have a provider. I don't know if it's some regulation, or they're just BSing us.
As it is, our package offsets the cost, so the LD service from SBC is free anyway.
is $76.11. I'll happily take a check or money order, or a federal income tax credit.
Thanks much.
We're already on the national do-not-call list. Why should we need to be on AT&T's list? So they can harass us more efficiently next time we change our address and phone number?
American Telephone & Telegraph should be tried, convicted, drawn and quartered for their constant criminal harassment. The following happened to me:
I signed up with SBC for DSL. My wife and I both have cell phones, so we don't use the land line for long distance. Ever.
We made the mistake of using our land line one time to make a five minute long-distance call.
Since then, every month we got a $9 charge from AT&T for being subscribed to their "service." I called AT&T to cancel our "service" with them, and they said we had to take it up with SBC.
SBC said the only way to discontinue with AT&T was to sign up with someone else. So we signed up with SBC, on their cheapest ($3/mo) plan. We eventually switched to a combined local/LD package that offset the cost.
AT&T, since then, calls nightly, wanting to make sure that we really, really, really wanted to switch from them, and weren't "duped" into signing up with someone else. I tell them every time that WE DON'T WANT THEIR FARKING SERVICE, and hang up on them. Next night same thing.
My wife now answers the phone in German every time AT&T calls.
First off, I agree that this whole situation we have gotten ourselves into was a huge mistake. Any Civilization fan will tell you that Despotism is preferable to Anarchy. And I agree that Iraq was not the ideal front to fight the "War on Terror."
That said, there are some serious flaws in your thinking:
On the first point, you are forgetting that Saddam only has to play nice with the inspectors for so long. As soon as the international community gets tired of babysitting him, Saddam will kick the inspectors out of the country and go back to Business As Usual. Sure, as a short-term solution, containment is a good policy, but the Administration is trying to forsee long-term ramifications.
On the second point, it's not just that Iraq violated some letter of some international agreement. They attempted to take over a neighboring country (and before that, tried to take over another country with the help of the U.S.), and we had every reason to believe that, left to his own devices, he'd do so again. The idea is that the mere presence of Saddam was in impeding factor to the economic and political growth and development of the entire region. Saddam can't be kept in check without constant babysitting and crippling embargoes. Iraq suffers. The rest of the Arab/Persian world has to deal with a skewed balance-of-power in the region. They suffer. It was perceived as an unsustainable arrangement.
Let's not even get into Israel... suffice it to say that when the "international community" won't allow a people to defend themselves against butchers who send teenagers to blow up civilians on buses, that people has every right to thumb their noses at them.
On the third point (and I'm not saying I agree with it this thinking, but...) the idea is that 9/11 proves that there is a means in place to attack US cities and kill vast numbers of Americans. Organized, global groups like Al Quaeda are, in and of themselves, a powerful weapon, and a great delivery system for anyone who wants to attack the U.S. Al Quaeda PLUS rouge governments developing WMDs constitute a clear and present danger to the U.S. and to the world. Personally there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam would have "made a deal with the Devil" to attack America if he thought he could get away with it.
Your speculation about "fundamentalists Christians" buying guns and fertilizer, and cooperating with Islamist terror groups betrays vast misunderstanding of the nature of the threat. You need to understand a few things:
1. Islam teaches that all the world must be converted, by force if necessary, and anyone who refuses to convert must be killed. This is not an extremist position. This is orthodox Islam.
2. Mainstream media in the Muslim world regularly gives air-time to religious leaders and professors who state that suicide bombing is justified, and that America and Israel are the enemies of the faith, and must die. This hatred is primarily a result of their doctrine. The U.S. and Israel could bend over backwards to satisfy every demand of the Arab people, and they would still be infidels that must die.
3. "Fundamentalist Christians" do not kill people for the advancement of the faith. Yes, you have the odd-ball who kills an abortion doctor. Yes, people wishing to overthrow the government are sometimes right-wing Christians. But this has more to do with them being right-wing than being Christian - really, any religion can be used as an excuse for abominable political beliefs. The case of Islamist terror is very different. The terror and hatred is a direct result of their faith, rather than their faith being used as an excuse to justify their hatred and terror.
Now, all that said, I think this Iraq invasion was a stupid idea vis-a-vis the war on terror. But then, I don't know a thing about conducting a global war against rogue criminals. Our war isn't against governments. It's against criminals. But obviously, "law enforcement" as we know it isn't going to do a damned
Sometimes I scratch my head, trying to make sense of Team Bush's foriegn policy. There are some points to consider:
It's not a simple matter of Team Bush having an "Iraq fixation," or greedy corporations wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil. Nor is it a simple matter of "defending the US when we're under attack." The Administration had valid national security concerns that were the reason for this war, but the geopolitics of the whole thing is so complex that most people don't understand them.
It would be an improvement.
It's called "Cash for Work" projects. The NGOs (non-governmental organizations) do them, and so do the private contractors. The work gets done on the cheap and the people involved have a good-paying job.
So, in a lot of cases, the Iraqis ARE doing the rebuilding work.
3...
2...
1...
Believe it or not, Saddam actually wouldn't allow people to have beards. His thugs would forcibly shave anyone who had one. This was to combat Islamist extremism, which he always found to be a threat.
The man war brutal and evil, but keeping him in power probably would have helped us in the War on Terror.
What's different about the Berlin kid is he has the myostatin mutation on both chromosomes. His mother and father both had the mutation, and both passed it on.
I just hope that this isn't going to cause the child health problems. If one copy of the gene can produce Flex Wheeler, and allow a man to carry 330-pound curbstones by hand, two copies could be disastrous. He could end up completely immobilized by his own overgrown muscle tissue.
WinXP by default starts 36 services. I doubt any one user needs more than 10 of those.
http://www.winnetmag.com/Windows/Article/Article ID/40722/Windows_40722.html
Sorry, we drove the last nail into that coffin in 1995.
Is that you?
It amazes me sometimes, their level of altruism.
In contrast, at one time Trek used to solicit scripts from fans (e.g., TNG ep. "Yesterday's Enterprise" was written by a fanboy).
Hey, why don't we all come up with a bunch of story ideas for the new series, and post them here so that JMZ can read them!
Alternatively, you could throw in a pop-up box that tricks the user into loading Bonzi Buddy, then count how many angry emails you get from users with Bonzi infest^W installations.
This is a very permanent solution, as after this you no longer have to worry about monitoring traffic to your website.