This brings up an interesting point. People hate Communism. Do you know why? Because Communism involves the State stepping in and telling you where you can live, how much money you can make, how much of X product you can purchase, what ideas you are allowed to express, what church you can go to, and so forth. The State takes away your rights.
Now we are faced with more and more right-wingers who want to regulate our lives to death to satisfy a few greedy entertainment executives. Load a "bad" program? Go to jail. Buy a VCR? Go to jail. Devise an algorithm to uncripple your own media? Go to jail. This is the world that faces us, if this agenda is successful.
Bill of Rights? We're talking about legislation specifically designed to take our rights away.
To be fair, SBC does not want P2P networks attacked. They know pretty well that the reason most people get DSL is to download music and movies. And that P2P makes this easy.
The non-entertainment-vested telcos and bandwidth providers would just as soon have this debate go away in favor of unfettered file swapping. They're not saying it publicly, but they're thinking it.
They don't need to bribe anyone, because most Congressmen, and more Americans in general, are blissfully ignorant of the issues involved. The presentation before Congress would go something like this:
Jack Valenti: We really want to provide more digital content, but we can't as long as digital devices exist that ignore copy protection. Consumers would win out big-time if they could download movies and music on-demand, for very little cost.
Bill Gates: We in the consumer electronics industry have devised a standard, called "trusted computing," that allows for strong encryption of digital content, and provides copy protection and other anti-piracy measures. We can now make home-delivery of digital content a reality for consumers. It wouldn't affect the use of any previous digital content, and un-protected material can be used just as well as protected. But in order to get all the new cool protected content, a computer would have to conform to the "Trusted Computing" standard.
Jack Valenti: Who would want a crippled computer? One that can't play all the cool new stuff? Obviously, the only people who possibly would even want such computers would be using them only for nefarious purposes. Therefore, the legislation we propose would outlaw the manufacture or sale of such devices. This will pave the way for a new future in which the artists, actors, directors, and everyone else can be assured that their work will be protected, and consumers can enjoy a new age of entertainment options.
Yes there is. It's in the DMCA:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998/ 12/07/story7.html
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99- 00/dmca-2k/macrovision.html
"On April 26, 2002, under section 1201k of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, no analog video recording devices may be manufactured that do not contain Automatic Gain Control circuitry."
Just because DRM is there doesn't mean software will be DRM-protected. And just because software vendors aren't DRMing their products doesn't mean TPTB won't impose DRM on all electronic components.
It's like Macrovision. About 90% of commercial VHS tapes are not Macrovisioned. But 100% of VCRs are Macrovision-compliant by law. Sure, you can purchase deMacrovision boxes for legal use, but most people aren't going to go through the trouble. The same thing will happen with computer hardware. All computer components manufactured for sale in the US will be "trusted." The enterprising and resourceful geek will get all of his components direct from Asia and either run Linux or a dusty old copy of XP/Longhorn, but for all practical purposes, DRM will be everywhere. It may not be taken advantage of by everyone, but it will be everywhere.
You do realize that once this is in place, the **AA will convince Congress that only pirates, criminals, and terrorists would possibly want a computer without a "trusted" BIOS, don't you? Non-trusted hardware will go the way of Macrovision-free VCRs and Broadcast-flag-free HDTV tuners. When all of the Linux users and OS hackers raise holy hell, the response will be:
Jack Valenti: "These people are just a fringe nitch. Why should we threaten our precious content just to cater to the whims of a few people?"
Bill Gates: "The 'Trusted Computing Consotium' has made available [closed, blackboxed, and encrypted] APIs to the 'trusted hardware' industry spec. Why can't Linux use them just like any other OS?"
Do you mean to tell me that that wherever people drive in the UK, their cars will be "tagged" with a unique identifier that will allow a car to be "traced" back to an owner?
We can't put up with this, people. Next thing you know, police will be able to take this "tag" number, run it though a "computer data base," and find out how many traffic violations you have committed! I, for one, fight tooth and nail to keep this from coming to pass.
Actually you get most of your energy from metabolizing fat when you're on Atkins, but never mind that.
Ok, so it's the fat metabolism that does it... (like I said, I'm not a nutritional scientist), but the point is, your body is thrown into a state of ketosis (http://atkins.com/helpatkins/newfaq/answers/Since StartingTheAtkinsProgramIHaveBadBreath.html) Ketosis is GREAT for weight-loss. You con your body into feeding off its own fat. But like I said, you don't want to be on this for the *long term*. A "low carb lifestyle" is NOT healthy.
Would you mind providing a reference for the "Ketoines cause organ damage"-claim, or would that spoil the fun?
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId= 342&fArticleId=255925
"Ketosis happens when the body needs glucose to fuel its processes, and can't get it from its usual source - carbohydrates. The body has a back-up mechanism that turns to stored fat or protein to produce the glucose, by going into a state called ketosis.
The problem with ketosis is that its by-products are toxic to the body in excess.
Ketogenic diets have been implicated in causing not only halitosis (bad breath), but also cancer, heart disease, kidney ailments and brittle bones.
I think a lot of that is covered in the "Find out what is reasonable for you" part. Some people, especially those more sensitive to blood sugar changes, need to eat more than three meals a day. The main point I'm trying to convey is that most of us geeks should lay off the chips and Dew at their desk job. I got into this habit. High-calorie snacking + sedentary job = bad. When my weight topped out near 210 (I was 155 in high school and 175 in college) I knew I needed to do something. I didn't want to starve myself, and I knew rapid weight loss was bad. Going through the day with no snacks was a big adjustment, but after a week or two, I got used to it. I'm losing weight at the rate of about 5 lbs per month. And getting stronger in the weight room at the same time. I'll be at my target weight by the end of the year, or sooner. AND, this is a lifestyle I can live with.
You would be amazed what you can get used to when you make it routine. Besides becoming accustomed to not snacking, I just can't eat the amounts of food I used to. There was a time when I could pack away a double whopper with cheese and a large fries, and still be ready for dessert. Now, that amount of food makes me feel kind of ill.
Of, course, I'm just one guy, and I know everyone's different, but most people can get good fitness results by small, permanent changes to their lifestyle.
Want to follow the Atkins Diet? Fine, but can you see yourself doing it for the rest of your life?
Staying on Atkins for any length of time longer than months is a Very Bad Idea. IANA nutritional scientist, but I know that when you get most of your energy form metabolizing protien, ketones build up in your bloodstream. These are very bad chemicals that do damage to organs. You want to get the bulk of your energy from complex carbohydrates. Here's the Mr. Neutron Plan for Pysical Fitness:
1. Get rid of refined simple sugars and starches. Eat reasonable amounts of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables instead.
2. Get rid of saturated fats - especially artificially hydrogenated oils, which are mucho bad for you.
3. Eat three reasonable meals a day. Find out what is reasonable for you. Eat meat, fish, and eggs (or soy if you're vegan) in decent amounts. You need these to keep muscle tissue.
4. Quit snacks. Period. Learn to live on your three meals a day, with the *occasional* treat.
5. Exercise. At least 30 minutes of strenuous exercise, three times a week. By strenuous, I mean you should have enough breath to carry on a conversation, but not enough to sing. If you know how, strength train three times a week. This is especially helpful for guys, as we tend to put on muscle mass easily. More muscle mass means a higher metobolic rate (even when sitting at a desk reading/.), meaning you'll burn fat faster.
Try this for several months to a year, and see if you can reach your desired shape. If you do this for a year, and can't get where you want to be, resign yourself to the shape you have. Remember that you have done some great things for your health, and that is more important than a number on a scale. At this point, you can add the snacks back in - even the occasional sugary or fatty treat - but keep this routine going as a lifestyle. It would be very hard not to be healthy if you are eating right and exercising.
While the boundary between legitimate email and "spam" is fuzzy, almost all of what we term "spam" is going to have something nefarious behind it. Why? Because legitimate business ALMOST NEVER sends completely unsolicited email as a promotional practice. They know better. So, the best way to get the spammers, rather than outlawing "unsolicited commercial email," is to wait for the spammer to screw up. Almost certainly, he will be doing one or all of the following:
1. Fraudulently misadvertizing or misrepresenting products (bait-and-switch) 2. Fraudulently using someone else's idendtity when sending the spam 3. Just plain swindling folks out of their money.
Get all of these spammers when they screw up, and you'll eliminate 90% of spam.
Just curious: How would the RIAA catch downloaders? By snooping traffic all over the Net? By offering up files (or gibberish misnamed files) themselves, and catching the downloaders? Can you say "entrapment?"
...just that "Lucas could probably be tricked by telling him that Joseph Campbell" was going to do a documentary on him.
This is more a commentary on the intellect of Lucas than the alive-ness of Campbell.:-)
Re:It's only a matter of time
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2
The Simon-Erlich wager is a poor analogy. Metals can be recycled and reused, so they can be thought of as an infinite resource. Once oil is burned, the chemical energy is gone. There is only so much.
1.So far, the world has used about 900 billion barrels of crude.
2.The USGS estimates that the total global output of petroleum - past, present, and future - will be around 3 trillion barrels.
3.Our per-capita use of petroleum is still rising.
Sure, when the price goes up, the search for alternatives will be increasingly lucritive. BUT, will we have the underlying technology ready in time? Is the fact that we developed synthetic polymer materials just in time to avoid timber and rubber shortages an example of the power of markets, or plain dumb luck? I for one would like to be ready for the worst case scenario.
Re:The only real answer is to reorganize society.
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Suburbia is the killer. If our lives could be structured such that cars were not *necessary*, we can do fine. Residential infill, cohousing, mixed use zoning are all steps in the right direction.
All of those folks huddled together in high-rise apartments still need:
-To heat their homes
-To run their refridgerators
-A job to go to (what exactly can we make or do when cheap energy goes away?)
-Food to eat.
Personal transportation is still a very very tiny part of the equasion. We could all drive self-sufficient solar supercars, and it would not change our situation. Everything we do and touch is dependent on cheap energy.
My advice would be to learn to live off of the grid. We should be building self-sufficient communities that can grow their own food, make their own clothes, and build and maintain shelters. Plan for the collapse of civilization as we know it, and be prepared to live in a gridless world, because there's a good chance we'll see it come in our lifetime.
It's only a matter of time
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oil production is going to peak, then slowly decline over half a century. According to the most alarmist estimates, this peak has already occurred. But even the most optomistic estimates have the peak happening in 2030 at the latest.
This isn't a matter of giving up our SUVs for hybrid cars. That isn't going to matter one bit. The fact is, we've spent the last 100 years building an entire economy around absurdly cheap energy. This energy is going to run out. If we do not find a way to run our world without petroleum and coal, we are doomed. What's really going to be fun is, when this peak occurs, the powers of the world are going to fight more and more visciously for the remaining scraps. We will face war, poverty, and social upheaval which will grow ever worse as the lights slowly dim... and then burn out.
The only way around this is some serious technological advances. We need to develop a sustainable energy economy, and we need to do it yesterday. Lifestyle changes, solar panels, wind farms, and hybrid cars won't do a damn bit of good without massive new technology.
Boys and girls, we have about 25 years. I suggest you study physics and chemistry. Hard.
Slashdot Mirror
This brings up an interesting point. People hate Communism. Do you know why? Because Communism involves the State stepping in and telling you where you can live, how much money you can make, how much of X product you can purchase, what ideas you are allowed to express, what church you can go to, and so forth. The State takes away your rights.
Now we are faced with more and more right-wingers who want to regulate our lives to death to satisfy a few greedy entertainment executives. Load a "bad" program? Go to jail. Buy a VCR? Go to jail. Devise an algorithm to uncripple your own media? Go to jail. This is the world that faces us, if this agenda is successful.
Bill of Rights? We're talking about legislation specifically designed to take our rights away.
Now, back under your bridge, Troll.
To be fair, SBC does not want P2P networks attacked. They know pretty well that the reason most people get DSL is to download music and movies. And that P2P makes this easy.
The non-entertainment-vested telcos and bandwidth providers would just as soon have this debate go away in favor of unfettered file swapping. They're not saying it publicly, but they're thinking it.
Ewan telnet ruled! How come it isn't reviewed?
They don't need to bribe anyone, because most Congressmen, and more Americans in general, are blissfully ignorant of the issues involved. The presentation before Congress would go something like this:
Jack Valenti: We really want to provide more digital content, but we can't as long as digital devices exist that ignore copy protection. Consumers would win out big-time if they could download movies and music on-demand, for very little cost.
Bill Gates: We in the consumer electronics industry have devised a standard, called "trusted computing," that allows for strong encryption of digital content, and provides copy protection and other anti-piracy measures. We can now make home-delivery of digital content a reality for consumers. It wouldn't affect the use of any previous digital content, and un-protected material can be used just as well as protected. But in order to get all the new cool protected content, a computer would have to conform to the "Trusted Computing" standard.
Jack Valenti: Who would want a crippled computer? One that can't play all the cool new stuff? Obviously, the only people who possibly would even want such computers would be using them only for nefarious purposes. Therefore, the legislation we propose would outlaw the manufacture or sale of such devices. This will pave the way for a new future in which the artists, actors, directors, and everyone else can be assured that their work will be protected, and consumers can enjoy a new age of entertainment options.
Final House Vote: 432-3
Final Senate Vote: 98-2
Yes there is. It's in the DMCA:/ 12/07/story7.html
- 00/dmca-2k/macrovision.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/1998
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99
Just because DRM is there doesn't mean software will be DRM-protected. And just because software vendors aren't DRMing their products doesn't mean TPTB won't impose DRM on all electronic components.
It's like Macrovision. About 90% of commercial VHS tapes are not Macrovisioned. But 100% of VCRs are Macrovision-compliant by law. Sure, you can purchase deMacrovision boxes for legal use, but most people aren't going to go through the trouble. The same thing will happen with computer hardware. All computer components manufactured for sale in the US will be "trusted." The enterprising and resourceful geek will get all of his components direct from Asia and either run Linux or a dusty old copy of XP/Longhorn, but for all practical purposes, DRM will be everywhere. It may not be taken advantage of by everyone, but it will be everywhere.
You do realize that once this is in place, the **AA will convince Congress that only pirates, criminals, and terrorists would possibly want a computer without a "trusted" BIOS, don't you? Non-trusted hardware will go the way of Macrovision-free VCRs and Broadcast-flag-free HDTV tuners. When all of the Linux users and OS hackers raise holy hell, the response will be:
Jack Valenti: "These people are just a fringe nitch. Why should we threaten our precious content just to cater to the whims of a few people?"
Bill Gates: "The 'Trusted Computing Consotium' has made available [closed, blackboxed, and encrypted] APIs to the 'trusted hardware' industry spec. Why can't Linux use them just like any other OS?"
They'll also save money on props and costumes by sending Winona on a "shopping trip" for them.
(Repeat ad nauseum.)
Do you mean to tell me that that wherever people drive in the UK, their cars will be "tagged" with a unique identifier that will allow a car to be "traced" back to an owner?
We can't put up with this, people. Next thing you know, police will be able to take this "tag" number, run it though a "computer data base," and find out how many traffic violations you have committed! I, for one, fight tooth and nail to keep this from coming to pass.
Everything will get much, much faster when Sun moves all Linux desktop applications to Java.
Ok, so it's the fat metabolism that does it... (like I said, I'm not a nutritional scientist), but the point is, your body is thrown into a state of ketosis (http://atkins.com/helpatkins/newfaq/answers/Since StartingTheAtkinsProgramIHaveBadBreath.html) Ketosis is GREAT for weight-loss. You con your body into feeding off its own fat. But like I said, you don't want to be on this for the *long term*. A "low carb lifestyle" is NOT healthy.
Would you mind providing a reference for the "Ketoines cause organ damage"-claim, or would that spoil the fun?
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId= 342&fArticleId=255925
"Ketosis happens when the body needs glucose to fuel its processes, and can't get it from its usual source - carbohydrates. The body has a back-up mechanism that turns to stored fat or protein to produce the glucose, by going into a state called ketosis.
The problem with ketosis is that its by-products are toxic to the body in excess.
Ketogenic diets have been implicated in causing not only halitosis (bad breath), but also cancer, heart disease, kidney ailments and brittle bones.
I think a lot of that is covered in the "Find out what is reasonable for you" part. Some people, especially those more sensitive to blood sugar changes, need to eat more than three meals a day. The main point I'm trying to convey is that most of us geeks should lay off the chips and Dew at their desk job. I got into this habit. High-calorie snacking + sedentary job = bad. When my weight topped out near 210 (I was 155 in high school and 175 in college) I knew I needed to do something. I didn't want to starve myself, and I knew rapid weight loss was bad. Going through the day with no snacks was a big adjustment, but after a week or two, I got used to it. I'm losing weight at the rate of about 5 lbs per month. And getting stronger in the weight room at the same time. I'll be at my target weight by the end of the year, or sooner. AND, this is a lifestyle I can live with.
You would be amazed what you can get used to when you make it routine. Besides becoming accustomed to not snacking, I just can't eat the amounts of food I used to. There was a time when I could pack away a double whopper with cheese and a large fries, and still be ready for dessert. Now, that amount of food makes me feel kind of ill.
Of, course, I'm just one guy, and I know everyone's different, but most people can get good fitness results by small, permanent changes to their lifestyle.
You mean to say that we should be good and do the right things instead of being bad and doing wrong things?
*slaps forehead*
Why didn't *I* think of that???
Staying on Atkins for any length of time longer than months is a Very Bad Idea. IANA nutritional scientist, but I know that when you get most of your energy form metabolizing protien, ketones build up in your bloodstream. These are very bad chemicals that do damage to organs. You want to get the bulk of your energy from complex carbohydrates. Here's the Mr. Neutron Plan for Pysical Fitness:
1. Get rid of refined simple sugars and starches. Eat reasonable amounts of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables instead. /.), meaning you'll burn fat faster.
2. Get rid of saturated fats - especially artificially hydrogenated oils, which are mucho bad for you.
3. Eat three reasonable meals a day. Find out what is reasonable for you. Eat meat, fish, and eggs (or soy if you're vegan) in decent amounts. You need these to keep muscle tissue.
4. Quit snacks. Period. Learn to live on your three meals a day, with the *occasional* treat.
5. Exercise. At least 30 minutes of strenuous exercise, three times a week. By strenuous, I mean you should have enough breath to carry on a conversation, but not enough to sing. If you know how, strength train three times a week. This is especially helpful for guys, as we tend to put on muscle mass easily. More muscle mass means a higher metobolic rate (even when sitting at a desk reading
Try this for several months to a year, and see if you can reach your desired shape. If you do this for a year, and can't get where you want to be, resign yourself to the shape you have. Remember that you have done some great things for your health, and that is more important than a number on a scale. At this point, you can add the snacks back in - even the occasional sugary or fatty treat - but keep this routine going as a lifestyle. It would be very hard not to be healthy if you are eating right and exercising.
While the boundary between legitimate email and "spam" is fuzzy, almost all of what we term "spam" is going to have something nefarious behind it. Why? Because legitimate business ALMOST NEVER sends completely unsolicited email as a promotional practice. They know better. So, the best way to get the spammers, rather than outlawing "unsolicited commercial email," is to wait for the spammer to screw up. Almost certainly, he will be doing one or all of the following:
1. Fraudulently misadvertizing or misrepresenting products (bait-and-switch)
2. Fraudulently using someone else's idendtity when sending the spam
3. Just plain swindling folks out of their money.
Get all of these spammers when they screw up, and you'll eliminate 90% of spam.
You know, everyone says Napster is just a less-hot version of iTunes.
As long as it's not Gilbert Gottfried, I'm cool with it.
Just curious: How would the RIAA catch downloaders? By snooping traffic all over the Net? By offering up files (or gibberish misnamed files) themselves, and catching the downloaders? Can you say "entrapment?"
After all, it worked in Jurassic Park.
...just that "Lucas could probably be tricked by telling him that Joseph Campbell" was going to do a documentary on him.
:-)
This is more a commentary on the intellect of Lucas than the alive-ness of Campbell.
The Simon-Erlich wager is a poor analogy. Metals can be recycled and reused, so they can be thought of as an infinite resource. Once oil is burned, the chemical energy is gone. There is only so much.
1.So far, the world has used about 900 billion barrels of crude.
2.The USGS estimates that the total global output of petroleum - past, present, and future - will be around 3 trillion barrels.
3.Our per-capita use of petroleum is still rising.
Sure, when the price goes up, the search for alternatives will be increasingly lucritive. BUT, will we have the underlying technology ready in time? Is the fact that we developed synthetic polymer materials just in time to avoid timber and rubber shortages an example of the power of markets, or plain dumb luck? I for one would like to be ready for the worst case scenario.
All of those folks huddled together in high-rise apartments still need:
-To heat their homes
-To run their refridgerators
-A job to go to (what exactly can we make or do when cheap energy goes away?)
-Food to eat.
Personal transportation is still a very very tiny part of the equasion. We could all drive self-sufficient solar supercars, and it would not change our situation. Everything we do and touch is dependent on cheap energy.
My advice would be to learn to live off of the grid. We should be building self-sufficient communities that can grow their own food, make their own clothes, and build and maintain shelters. Plan for the collapse of civilization as we know it, and be prepared to live in a gridless world, because there's a good chance we'll see it come in our lifetime.
This isn't a matter of giving up our SUVs for hybrid cars. That isn't going to matter one bit. The fact is, we've spent the last 100 years building an entire economy around absurdly cheap energy. This energy is going to run out. If we do not find a way to run our world without petroleum and coal, we are doomed. What's really going to be fun is, when this peak occurs, the powers of the world are going to fight more and more visciously for the remaining scraps. We will face war, poverty, and social upheaval which will grow ever worse as the lights slowly dim... and then burn out.
The only way around this is some serious technological advances. We need to develop a sustainable energy economy, and we need to do it yesterday. Lifestyle changes, solar panels, wind farms, and hybrid cars won't do a damn bit of good without massive new technology.
Boys and girls, we have about 25 years. I suggest you study physics and chemistry. Hard.
ascii-art or otherwise, to tell me that the site's been /.ed.