The best way to run it is open source. There is peer review on open source programs, and also anyone who want to modify it (to get rid of keylength caps) can. If you think, you will sound more intelligent.
The source and encryption methodology betray nothing about how to decrypt a message. That is why PGP is pretty good. Also, is anyone really going to run a company that seems so inable to make money? As least people should have source to play with if they company is going under.
The wheelbase width of cars in almost all western countries is standardized, and ALL trains track widths are. They are standardized to 4 ft, 8.5 inches.
The judges who decide the laws regarding the application of antiuquated law to software don't have any free time to debate philosophy of ownership and the Bazaar model of open source software, because unlike politicians, they have jobs!
Your analogy is simply wrong. They are not protesting the technology, but the Idea that others have any rights to what they created in the first place. If I write a book, shouldn't I decide if other can read it, at least while I'm alive? If I invent a machine, shouldn't I decide who can get one?
Also: if you want to eliminate arbitrariness in the world, stop using base-10 numbering, and switch to base 60, or binary. Build a car with a different wheelbase width, or for that matter a train. The fact that the numbers are arbitrary is pointless, the fact that the numbers are too large is what should bother you.
Some very good points about the history and the missapplication of current copyright law. Despite this, corporations and think tanks do need incentive to do research or create intellectual property, however, because only the largest institutions can afford to do reasearch in certain areas, or create certain media (large action films, etc.) and without copyright, there is less incentive to do this.
The only thing about your post that confuses me is the following;
"Being a capitalist country[, we] should not rely on government protection of property, seeing as how that is contrary to the concept of capitalism in general. But we do need government intervention to aid private inventors, perhaps in the form of government subsidies."
Obviously you never read the assignments on Adam Smith. (What do you mean it's not required reading? Bah, what do they teach in schools these days?)
However, I'm very impressed. You seem to be managing feats that most contortionists would balk at, endorsing both libertian anti-government control and the democrat's semi-socialist agenda AT THE SAME TIME.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who realizes that there IS a benefit to copyright law. When people say things like this, it becomes very obvious that there is a segment of the population that will never accept laws that are passed, and beleive that they are justified in their opinions becuase they are fighting for what is "fair and right." With no legal training and a sketchy background in the history of legal protections such as copyright, it continues to amaze me that people in this forum complain that OTHERS don't have the training needed to deal with the problems they face.
It would be impossible for the courts to work out an entirely new paradigm for deciding how copyrights and non-physical property such as software should be copyrighted and patented, therefor working to improve the current system slowly is better than the suggestions I continue to see rehashed here.
If you really think no laws are better than inadequate laws, maybe you think that the stock marrket should be unregulated, or all theft laws should be repealed. These laws are imperfect, and it'd be great to change that, but otherwisse just learn to be satisfied with a set of laws that do a pretty damn good job overall.
the fact that satelite usage is now cheap enough to make this cost effective.
We complain that space is not being pushed enough, and THIS is what will make people invest in NASA's technology. Whenever the demand exists for a product, the market finds a way to deliver it as cheaply as possible, in order to maximize profit margins. This is the technology that will enable the space industry to bring the cost per pound of lifting stuff down.
Of all of the space stories in the past year that I have seen on/., this is the one that makes me most optimistic about the space program.
The only part that worries me is that there are not enough satelites to fill current demand, so planes are being used instead as the inferior alternative.
"Satellite images, which require more time to downlink and process, can take from 2 to 7 days to reach a farmer.
Such delays won't be a problem forever, though. 'Technology is advancing quickly and more of these commercial satellites are being launched each year,' he added."
You have to say things that are verifiable and factual if you want to write it out. Saying that they don't function well with other employees is ok, but it's safer if there are employee complaints against him. Saying he is not a good worker is ok, but only if he repeatedly doesn't show up, etc.
The other (preliminary) question is whether the employee is allowed to see the reccomendation, becasue if not, it ceases to be a problem. The standard I would look at is the college recommendation letter format.
No no no, you see, every 7 years, if you can show improvement, your patent renews, and the human race has improved over the last several thousand years, right???
it's setting the pace for the important stuff. As soon as people get used to trusting these glorified mass transit devices, computer run cars won't be dismissed as a pipe dream.
Since the technology is already here, the important advances in travel will come as soon as there is a market. When I say the technology is already here, I mean that no scientific discovery is needed to pull this off, just some clever engineers and bit pushers.
We should applaud the invention becasue of what it will lead to, instead of ridiculing the present "state of the art."
how important is it to be up 24/7? You will not be able to keep it up that much, and it will become a time drain (however minor) in terms of upkeep.
I love my server, and no-one visits it, but thats ok (and/. can't have the IP/Address.) Of course, if you want e-mail you need more time, ditto other services. The real question is; is it worth the money saved (10.95 a month, really) in terms of effort, power bills, hardware cost, extra bandwith used, etc.
My first instinct is that it's cheaper overall to go with a cheap web hosting place.
God has countersued the human race for copyright violations, making many thousands of copies of "Human Beings" which he said are not only infringing on his copyright, but also dilute his brand name, being inferior copies, "made in god's image" by much inferior beings.
The point is that a congressional stafer told me a couple of weeks ago that the staff tallies pro/con e-mails, and usually that info doesn't even reach the men in charge.
Letters are all read, sometimes even by the congressperson.
Here, Here, or Here, To do something about the bill. Try all 3. It can't hurt, and might do some good. If you want to hand write a letter (they are treated very differently in Washington, ie. read by someone who matters, not JUST form letter replies like e-mails) the bill is H.R. 1542.
Tell them it sucks. Do research and say it intelligently, but they have a monopoly SPONSORED by the state. The state therefore needs to be the ones regulating them. It's simple. Lay it out. Write a letter (by HAND!) and say these things.
Who will licence this technology for free? It's no good for linux if it's proprietary.
The other problem is that it won't co-exist with MP3. One format or the other will win out, and as we see with minidiscs, it's all about marketshare.
It's nice for proprietary technology (VOIP comnes to mind) but otherwise seems useless. With commercial technology, in 6 months there will be better compression, just like.ogg and this. It's neat, and I'd like to see an explanation of the math, though...
"yes, it is pretty crazy, unless you're being very loose with your definition of similar. The two continents would likely have very different climates, which would affect the developing dinosaurs directly, as well as providing completely different vegetation and even bacteria surrounding the two different groups of dinosaurs."
The problem I have with this is that the bacteria and vegetation are the same, all coming from the bacteria and vegetation on pangaea. Also, the climate didn't differe very much, because of the slow rate of movement of the continents. The exact timing (couple dozen million years) of when there was a land bridge shouldn't matter that much.
Anyways, I don't think the article explains it well, because it makes very little sense.
"For one thing, that the breakup of the ancient supercontinent Pangaea was not rapid, as widely believed, but slow enough to drastically limit dinosaur evolution in the region. "
I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?
The article repeatedly discusses the amazing radiation, yet they wonder how it occurred as they ask about how the supercontinent broke up?
"In a 1999 report in the journal Science, Sereno said: 'I think there was some kind of a tenuous land bridge [linking Europe and Africa] for several million years' after initial breakup of Pangaea. 'That land mass prevented the evolution, in isolation, of a unique southern dinosaur fauna.'"
Is it absolutely crazt to think that with the same pressures, and starting from the same genetic base, the two continents would develop similar dinosaurs?
Does the article explain this that badly (I assume) or are these scientists just dumb?
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to run it is open source. There is peer review on open source programs, and also anyone who want to modify it (to get rid of keylength caps) can. If you think, you will sound more intelligent.
The source and encryption methodology betray nothing about how to decrypt a message. That is why PGP is pretty good. Also, is anyone really going to run a company that seems so inable to make money? As least people should have source to play with if they company is going under.
Check the source yourself... (no, it doesn't)
What part of antique do you not understand?
The wheelbase width of cars in almost all western countries is standardized, and ALL trains track widths are. They are standardized to 4 ft, 8.5 inches.
The judges who decide the laws regarding the application of antiuquated law to software don't have any free time to debate philosophy of ownership and the Bazaar model of open source software, because unlike politicians, they have jobs!
Your analogy is simply wrong. They are not protesting the technology, but the Idea that others have any rights to what they created in the first place. If I write a book, shouldn't I decide if other can read it, at least while I'm alive? If I invent a machine, shouldn't I decide who can get one?
Also: if you want to eliminate arbitrariness in the world, stop using base-10 numbering, and switch to base 60, or binary. Build a car with a different wheelbase width, or for that matter a train. The fact that the numbers are arbitrary is pointless, the fact that the numbers are too large is what should bother you.
Some very good points about the history and the missapplication of current copyright law. Despite this, corporations and think tanks do need incentive to do research or create intellectual property, however, because only the largest institutions can afford to do reasearch in certain areas, or create certain media (large action films, etc.) and without copyright, there is less incentive to do this.
The only thing about your post that confuses me is the following;
"Being a capitalist country[, we] should not rely on government protection of property, seeing as how that is contrary to the concept of capitalism in general. But we do need government intervention to aid private inventors, perhaps in the form of government subsidies."
Obviously you never read the assignments on Adam Smith. (What do you mean it's not required reading? Bah, what do they teach in schools these days?)
However, I'm very impressed. You seem to be managing feats that most contortionists would balk at, endorsing both libertian anti-government control and the democrat's semi-socialist agenda AT THE SAME TIME.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who realizes that there IS a benefit to copyright law. When people say things like this, it becomes very obvious that there is a segment of the population that will never accept laws that are passed, and beleive that they are justified in their opinions becuase they are fighting for what is "fair and right." With no legal training and a sketchy background in the history of legal protections such as copyright, it continues to amaze me that people in this forum complain that OTHERS don't have the training needed to deal with the problems they face.
It would be impossible for the courts to work out an entirely new paradigm for deciding how copyrights and non-physical property such as software should be copyrighted and patented, therefor working to improve the current system slowly is better than the suggestions I continue to see rehashed here.
If you really think no laws are better than inadequate laws, maybe you think that the stock marrket should be unregulated, or all theft laws should be repealed. These laws are imperfect, and it'd be great to change that, but otherwisse just learn to be satisfied with a set of laws that do a pretty damn good job overall.
the fact that satelite usage is now cheap enough to make this cost effective.
/., this is the one that makes me most optimistic about the space program.
We complain that space is not being pushed enough, and THIS is what will make people invest in NASA's technology. Whenever the demand exists for a product, the market finds a way to deliver it as cheaply as possible, in order to maximize profit margins. This is the technology that will enable the space industry to bring the cost per pound of lifting stuff down.
Of all of the space stories in the past year that I have seen on
The only part that worries me is that there are not enough satelites to fill current demand, so planes are being used instead as the inferior alternative.
"Satellite images, which require more time to downlink and process, can take from 2 to 7 days to reach a farmer.
Such delays won't be a problem forever, though. 'Technology is advancing quickly and more of these commercial satellites are being launched each year,' he added."
You have to say things that are verifiable and factual if you want to write it out. Saying that they don't function well with other employees is ok, but it's safer if there are employee complaints against him. Saying he is not a good worker is ok, but only if he repeatedly doesn't show up, etc.
The other (preliminary) question is whether the employee is allowed to see the reccomendation, becasue if not, it ceases to be a problem. The standard I would look at is the college recommendation letter format.
No no no, you see, every 7 years, if you can show improvement, your patent renews, and the human race has improved over the last several thousand years, right???
Nevermind.
it's setting the pace for the important stuff. As soon as people get used to trusting these glorified mass transit devices, computer run cars won't be dismissed as a pipe dream.
Since the technology is already here, the important advances in travel will come as soon as there is a market. When I say the technology is already here, I mean that no scientific discovery is needed to pull this off, just some clever engineers and bit pushers.
We should applaud the invention becasue of what it will lead to, instead of ridiculing the present "state of the art."
how important is it to be up 24/7? You will not be able to keep it up that much, and it will become a time drain (however minor) in terms of upkeep.
/. can't have the IP/Address.) Of course, if you want e-mail you need more time, ditto other services. The real question is; is it worth the money saved (10.95 a month, really) in terms of effort, power bills, hardware cost, extra bandwith used, etc.
I love my server, and no-one visits it, but thats ok (and
My first instinct is that it's cheaper overall to go with a cheap web hosting place.
Would anyone bother with vinyl to MP3 if it wasn't such a popular way to pirate anyways?
God has countersued the human race for copyright violations, making many thousands of copies of "Human Beings" which he said are not only infringing on his copyright, but also dilute his brand name, being inferior copies, "made in god's image" by much inferior beings.
The point is that a congressional stafer told me a couple of weeks ago that the staff tallies pro/con e-mails, and usually that info doesn't even reach the men in charge.
Letters are all read, sometimes even by the congressperson.
That on one of the only forums in the world that cares, we aren't saying anything?
Does anyone care? The staes are finally doing something about the obvious abuses (not the hidden, legalistic ones) and no-one cares.
I don't remember who said it, but "Hate isn't the opposite of love, Apathy is."
Here, Here, or Here, To do something about the bill. Try all 3. It can't hurt, and might do some good. If you want to hand write a letter (they are treated very differently in Washington, ie. read by someone who matters, not JUST form letter replies like e-mails) the bill is H.R. 1542.
Tell them it sucks. Do research and say it intelligently, but they have a monopoly SPONSORED by the state. The state therefore needs to be the ones regulating them. It's simple. Lay it out. Write a letter (by HAND!) and say these things.
Who will licence this technology for free? It's no good for linux if it's proprietary.
.ogg and this. It's neat, and I'd like to see an explanation of the math, though...
The other problem is that it won't co-exist with MP3. One format or the other will win out, and as we see with minidiscs, it's all about marketshare.
It's nice for proprietary technology (VOIP comnes to mind) but otherwise seems useless. With commercial technology, in 6 months there will be better compression, just like
In little Timmie Smith's class, someone says that their dad installed linux on a computer.
/. than anything concerning FreeBSD.
Oh wait, that generates much more interest on
Half of the worlds landmass isn't really "isolated."
Any evolution that occurs would be on such a large timescale that it seems as though a landbridge for a couple million years wouldn't matter.
Here it is, in case people wanted it...
"yes, it is pretty crazy, unless you're being very loose with your definition of similar. The two continents would likely have very different climates, which would affect the developing dinosaurs directly, as well as providing completely different vegetation and even bacteria surrounding the two different groups of dinosaurs."
The problem I have with this is that the bacteria and vegetation are the same, all coming from the bacteria and vegetation on pangaea. Also, the climate didn't differe very much, because of the slow rate of movement of the continents. The exact timing (couple dozen million years) of when there was a land bridge shouldn't matter that much.
Anyways, I don't think the article explains it well, because it makes very little sense.
"For one thing, that the breakup of the ancient supercontinent Pangaea was not rapid, as widely believed, but slow enough to drastically limit dinosaur evolution in the region. "
I beleive that geographic isolation (punctuated equilibrium) differentiated species after a long (the longer the better) period of mutation. Are there any biology/ecology people out there who can correct me?
The article repeatedly discusses the amazing radiation, yet they wonder how it occurred as they ask about how the supercontinent broke up?
"In a 1999 report in the journal Science, Sereno said: 'I think there was some kind of a tenuous land bridge [linking Europe and Africa] for several million years' after initial breakup of Pangaea. 'That land mass prevented the evolution, in isolation, of a unique southern dinosaur fauna.'"
Is it absolutely crazt to think that with the same pressures, and starting from the same genetic base, the two continents would develop similar dinosaurs?
Does the article explain this that badly (I assume) or are these scientists just dumb?
I agree. Read my post. My point is that he argues his point miserably.