Remember when people said that the Japanese are only good at copying?? This March, when I was in Turkey, I ate breakfast with a German woman (a fabric buyer) who insisted that the Turkish people are only good at copying.
Yes, insurance exists to spread risks across a population. If I know I have a greater risk because I've taken a genetic test, am I really part of that population?? Is it fair for me to say to you "Yeah, let's share risks, 50/50, share and share alike."? No, of course not. I'd be lying to you. Just because there's an insurance company between me and you, that doesn't mean that I'm not lying to you if I enter into a risk pool I don't belong in.
And yes, I agree with you -- once risk assessment becomes so accurate that there are no unknowns, there is no reason for buying insurance. A risk is something unknown. Once you learn about it, it's not a risk anymore.
-russ
Okay, let's play baseball. I get to have a hundred players. You get three. Are you willing to play me? If you stack the bases against corporations so they cannot make money, they're going to liquidate their assets and go out of business.
Do you think people should be able to sell the risk of something bad happening to you? If so, then do you think both you and an insurance company should have an equal shot at measuring the risk? Remember, you can get a genetics test without telling the insurance company.
-russ
You guys have had your minds corrupted by our abuse of health "insurance." Most people in the US get their *ordinary care* paid for by insurance. This is completely WRONG. Insurance is for covering unknown risk. If you know a risk exists, and the insurance company does (hey, nothing's to stop you from getting a genetics test and keeping the information quiet), then you are RIPPING the insurance company off.
Geez, guys, learn something about economics before you comment on an economics issue. What you're saying makes no more sense to an economist than 3 + 3 = 7 to a mathemetician.
-russ
John is too modest -- he was also involved in creating AIX for IBM. He's much more technical than he's usually portrayed as being (particularly when he writes Dummies books for Windoze lusers).
-russ
Well, the reason Karl said what he said is because some people (namely NSI) have claimed that there are technical reasons why we should limit the number of gTLD's. In context, he's saying that what matters are the social concerns.
You seem to feel that the number of gTLDs should be limited. Why? Are you an NSI stockholder?
-russ
How do we know that the FBI will only deploy that which you have reviewed? FOIA requests have shown that the FBI has used other technology, which has done more than capture email.
The basic problem here is that one connection to one wire gives them access to everyone's traffic passing on that wire. So the only limitation on the FBI's activities is your review and our trust that they are actually running what you have reviewed. What is to prevent them from running a new version of Carnivore, which has new capabilities. Given people's intolerance of "child porn" (including non-purient pictures of young nudists, pictures legal in one country but not another, and pictures of adults who look and dress younger than their age), what is to prevent the FBI from looking for people reading alt.binaries.pictures.kiddie-porn?
An ISP to buy Napster?? Who do they think is downloading all this stuff?? People with modems?? Look at the speed of connections. These ISP's are dreaming. A buyout of Napster, to be bundled with the ISP's services, would guarantee that somebody else would step up to be "the new" non-proprietary Newpster.
-russ
I would not be complimenting you if I told you that you used the word "compliment" in place of "complement"; rather, the complement.
-russ
p.s. Jon, you're a native English speaker. You have no excuse.
The original Luddites were selfishly fighting to keep their unproductive jobs. This would have kept clothing expensive for everyone else. Instead, they lost out, and people got affordable woolens. And in a generation, the industry grew back to its former employment levels.
-russ
Cool conspiracy theory! But isn't it a little circumscribed? What about the Trilateral Commission? And the Pope? Aren't they involved too? What about the Russian mafioso?
-russ
Yes, because DC has explicitly said that you are bound to use that free gift ONLY in approved manners. The implication is that if you don't, you have to return it or pay them $20 for a personal developer's license. You got it in the mail as a free gift. Postal laws say that you canNOT be bound in this manner. It's all about freedom. How would you like it if Microsoft could send you a "Free Windows-ME CD" and bind you to either having to install it, return it or pay for it? Oh, gee, all of a sudden it becomes different, eh?
None of this applies to people who asked for them at ratshack, of course.
-russ
It's about control of things you own. If you buy something, or are given it as a gift, you (should) have the right to use it as you wish. You shouldn't be bound by a contract based on a copyright that you didn't violate. Heck, the morons didn't even shrink-wrap their CD, so how would they know you touched the CD or not? Check for fingerprints??
-russ
"Self-regulation" hasn't failed. Nobody ever expected companies to regulate themselves. It's the market that will regulate companies use of information about ourselves. Now, some people don't like the decisions other people make, so they want to interfere with those decisions. They claim that "self-regulation" has failed.
What has happened instead is thatt some people have discovered that it's to their benefit to share information about themselves. Some privacy advocates forget that there can be benefits to disclosing information about yourself. The real question here is not whether private information is being shared. The question is: did you give this information willingly, and were you compensated for it.
If you were compensated for telling people about yourself, then stop whining about how "self-regulation" has failed, because the "self" is *your*self. And there's no way a government can save your from your own mistakes.
-russ
Libertarians are NOT the friends of open source, and we would do well to steer clear of them.
I am *too* the friend of open source. I resent your assertion that I'm not. I've been running an open source business for 9 years now. Check out my web site to see the free software activities that I support.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who says I don't work hard enough for open source.
where church and state are separated.
I just want a system where state and economy are separated. The government can be as big as it wants, as long as it keeps its nose out of what I buy and sell.
the [libertarian] government would have let a DCMA style bill
Nope. No libertarian government would pass such a fascist bill. I wonder if you understand what you are criticizing?
-russ
Now you know why rms invented the GPL. You have absolutely *no* rights under the Berne Convention (to which Poland is, AFAIK, a signator). You said, in readme.html, that you don't care what people do with it. Guess what?? The people who copied it took you at your word.
If you want it to stay libre, you have to use a license that puts restrictions on non-free redistribution. This bothers some people for some weird-ass reason, as free countries also nearly always prohibit slavery and yet everybody still says that they're free countries.
-russ
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when people said that the Japanese are only good at copying?? This March, when I was in Turkey, I ate breakfast with a German woman (a fabric buyer) who insisted that the Turkish people are only good at copying.
Hehe.
-russ
s/insurance company does/insurance company does not/
Sorry. "Use the Preview Button!"
-russ
Yes, insurance exists to spread risks across a population. If I know I have a greater risk because I've taken a genetic test, am I really part of that population?? Is it fair for me to say to you "Yeah, let's share risks, 50/50, share and share alike."? No, of course not. I'd be lying to you. Just because there's an insurance company between me and you, that doesn't mean that I'm not lying to you if I enter into a risk pool I don't belong in.
And yes, I agree with you -- once risk assessment becomes so accurate that there are no unknowns, there is no reason for buying insurance. A risk is something unknown. Once you learn about it, it's not a risk anymore.
-russ
Okay, let's play baseball. I get to have a hundred players. You get three. Are you willing to play me? If you stack the bases against corporations so they cannot make money, they're going to liquidate their assets and go out of business.
Do you think people should be able to sell the risk of something bad happening to you? If so, then do you think both you and an insurance company should have an equal shot at measuring the risk? Remember, you can get a genetics test without telling the insurance company.
-russ
You guys have had your minds corrupted by our abuse of health "insurance." Most people in the US get their *ordinary care* paid for by insurance. This is completely WRONG. Insurance is for covering unknown risk. If you know a risk exists, and the insurance company does (hey, nothing's to stop you from getting a genetics test and keeping the information quiet), then you are RIPPING the insurance company off.
Geez, guys, learn something about economics before you comment on an economics issue. What you're saying makes no more sense to an economist than 3 + 3 = 7 to a mathemetician.
-russ
John is too modest -- he was also involved in creating AIX for IBM. He's much more technical than he's usually portrayed as being (particularly when he writes Dummies books for Windoze lusers).
-russ
Well, the reason Karl said what he said is because some people (namely NSI) have claimed that there are technical reasons why we should limit the number of gTLD's. In context, he's saying that what matters are the social concerns.
You seem to feel that the number of gTLDs should be limited. Why? Are you an NSI stockholder?
-russ
How do we know that the FBI will only deploy that which you have reviewed? FOIA requests have shown that the FBI has used other technology, which has done more than capture email.
The basic problem here is that one connection to one wire gives them access to everyone's traffic passing on that wire. So the only limitation on the FBI's activities is your review and our trust that they are actually running what you have reviewed. What is to prevent them from running a new version of Carnivore, which has new capabilities. Given people's intolerance of "child porn" (including non-purient pictures of young nudists, pictures legal in one country but not another, and pictures of adults who look and dress younger than their age), what is to prevent the FBI from looking for people reading alt.binaries.pictures.kiddie-porn?
Well, I meant "He's smart, honest, and principled," but you knew that.
Karl is a lawyer. He happens to work as a techie because he enjoys that more.
-russ
I highly recommend voting for Karl Auerbach. It's smart, honest, and principled.
-russ
An ISP to buy Napster?? Who do they think is downloading all this stuff?? People with modems?? Look at the speed of connections. These ISP's are dreaming. A buyout of Napster, to be bundled with the ISP's services, would guarantee that somebody else would step up to be "the new" non-proprietary Newpster.
-russ
I would not be complimenting you if I told you that you used the word "compliment" in place of "complement"; rather, the complement.
-russ
p.s. Jon, you're a native English speaker. You have no excuse.
The original Luddites were selfishly fighting to keep their unproductive jobs. This would have kept clothing expensive for everyone else. Instead, they lost out, and people got affordable woolens. And in a generation, the industry grew back to its former employment levels.
-russ
Cool conspiracy theory! But isn't it a little circumscribed? What about the Trilateral Commission? And the Pope? Aren't they involved too? What about the Russian mafioso?
-russ
Oh, you think that Wired or Forbes cares? They sold DC their mailing list, just like they sold everybody else their mailing list.
AOL doesn't insist that it still belongs to them, and that you have to use it the way they require or pay for it.
-russ
Yes, because DC has explicitly said that you are bound to use that free gift ONLY in approved manners. The implication is that if you don't, you have to return it or pay them $20 for a personal developer's license. You got it in the mail as a free gift. Postal laws say that you canNOT be bound in this manner. It's all about freedom. How would you like it if Microsoft could send you a "Free Windows-ME CD" and bind you to either having to install it, return it or pay for it? Oh, gee, all of a sudden it becomes different, eh?
None of this applies to people who asked for them at ratshack, of course.
-russ
Aberystwyth doesn't rhyme with with. Next contestant, thanks for playing.
-russ
Wired and Forbes subscribers get them mailed. Wait, didn't I just say that? Oh well; SLASH doesn't allow an empty body.
-russ
It's about control of things you own. If you buy something, or are given it as a gift, you (should) have the right to use it as you wish. You shouldn't be bound by a contract based on a copyright that you didn't violate. Heck, the morons didn't even shrink-wrap their CD, so how would they know you touched the CD or not? Check for fingerprints??
-russ
Sure. Remember that they're trying to charge you a $20 fee to use their gift in ways other than they choose?
-russ
"Self-regulation" hasn't failed. Nobody ever expected companies to regulate themselves. It's the market that will regulate companies use of information about ourselves. Now, some people don't like the decisions other people make, so they want to interfere with those decisions. They claim that "self-regulation" has failed.
What has happened instead is thatt some people have discovered that it's to their benefit to share information about themselves. Some privacy advocates forget that there can be benefits to disclosing information about yourself. The real question here is not whether private information is being shared. The question is: did you give this information willingly, and were you compensated for it.
If you were compensated for telling people about yourself, then stop whining about how "self-regulation" has failed, because the "self" is *your*self. And there's no way a government can save your from your own mistakes.
-russ
Libertarians are NOT the friends of open source, and we would do well to steer clear of them.
I am *too* the friend of open source. I resent your assertion that I'm not. I've been running an open source business for 9 years now. Check out my web site to see the free software activities that I support.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who says I don't work hard enough for open source.
where church and state are separated.
I just want a system where state and economy are separated. The government can be as big as it wants, as long as it keeps its nose out of what I buy and sell.
the [libertarian] government would have let a DCMA style bill
Nope. No libertarian government would pass such a fascist bill. I wonder if you understand what you are criticizing?
-russ
Please identify the security holes in qmail.
There are none.
-russ
Now you know why rms invented the GPL. You have absolutely *no* rights under the Berne Convention (to which Poland is, AFAIK, a signator). You said, in readme.html, that you don't care what people do with it. Guess what?? The people who copied it took you at your word.
If you want it to stay libre, you have to use a license that puts restrictions on non-free redistribution. This bothers some people for some weird-ass reason, as free countries also nearly always prohibit slavery and yet everybody still says that they're free countries.
-russ