Oh, I know that GTA itself isn't racing, but it does involve cars (as I remember)... so if you could use cars stolen from the players of other games, if would be neat.
And as far as the usefulness of having other players around, well, I just think the added complexity would be interesting. More targets to sort through, etc. It would be neat for one game to be able to cooperate with another in providing incentives / disincentives (like shooting a powerpuff girl would lose points, if you're 'sposed to be shooting bad guys).
And that GTA isn't itself a "racing" game except vs the clock needn't interfere with the games being played in a common world; the racers would still be racing, and the non-racers wouldn't be!:)
Again, I'm just thinking of games with different movitations and attitudes being played on the same field, a touch closer to real life. Heh -- GTA is probably not the greatest example. Just a gedankenexperiment.
I'm not a frequent gamer, console or otherwise, but I like the idea of the persistent world that many games create.
What I'm curious about is whether there are any game worlds online which allow multiple games (or rather *types* of games) to coexist and interact on the same network, even if the players are primarily playing only one of them in particular.
For instance (and I know I'm jumping genres, but indulge just for a second, ok?!), are there any gaming systems which would allow the players of a game like Grand Theft Auto to "interact with" the players of an auto racing game? (That is, steal their cars, perhaps complete the race, perhaps put them in hock...)
Since the Real World is full of people doing different things and with different motivations, I think this would improve the realism and interest of game worlds as well.
I really like this idea, and if there is no such system it would be neat to work toward one. Is there an equivalent (again, leaping from category to category and ignoring an orders-of-magniture change in complexity) to RDF for games, so different games could recognize and accomodate entirely different types of characters?
What I meant is that the attention that Carnivore has focused on online privacy and surveillance are important, that's all -- so more people will think about and use encryption, and object to "trust us, we're from the government" type arguments.
That's all. I'm not saying it was good to waste taxpayer money on such a boondoggle, and the "good for something" is a little bit like saying WWI was good because we got Aspirin out of it.
HunterZ wondered: "[W]ould you have said that if it was a Republican administration that had released it?"
Answer: Yes, absolutely. I have no particular affinity for the Democratic Party. Sara Michele Gelar aside, I'd have to admit that between the two I like the Republicans better. (And between hanging and gassing, I'm sure we all have our personal picks, too.)
And then said "If it's okay for Democrats to engage in 'corporate bread-buttering,' then I'd better not hear any criticisms of the Republicans in regards to similar activities."
I'm not saying it's "okay" -- I'm saying it's not confined to any particular political party, since they both rely on the same kind of crass Realpolitik. It's not that there shouldn't be criticism, it's that the criticism ought not be unfairly directed at (any) particular party unless specifically warranted. (two wings of the same evil bird...) That's all!:)
"My point, of course, is that the definition of terms embodies the intent of the law. It provides a context and scope for the legislation, which is good. The AHRA seeks to narrowly define (thank goodness) the devices it covers. Maybe I'm assuming a level of sophistication that I shouldn't, but that seems sensible to me, and that's why I didn't understand what your contention was."
The AHRA makes certain wise exceptions in the name of fair use, but cutting out general-purpose machines (like personal computers) from its definition is foolish and arbitrary.
I disagree with that you we should "thank goodness" that the AHRA (and as you point out, many other pieces of legislation) narrowly defines its terms; in fact, I object to this on the grounds that it creates a web of complicated, arbitrary definitions which evade common sense. In this case, ordinary, reasonable acts (like using a general purpose computer perfectly well suited to it for one of its many possible applications) are transformed into illegal, actionable ones ones. I do not think it is reasonable or moral to let the music industry determine via Congress on which of the electronic boxes I own I may record a backup copy of a CD on, for instance, but that's what the RIAA says.
Laws against copyright violation are one thing, laws restricting or taxing tools on the grounds that they could be used in copyright violation are another. (Check the price of the blank media for stand-alone CD-R recorders... what could be a reasonable means of recording anything from office phone calls to baby's 1st words is taxed on the assumption it will be used for copyright violations... probably a fair assumption, given that.)
Yes, I'd prefer a balder, less weasely approach. which would hopefully make people warier about getting what they want through legislation.
If the government has time to legislate the definition of "digital audio recorder" (or "cut greens") you can bet they're doing it in accord with the definition of the group pushing the legislation, whether copyright holders, florists, whomever. (And I can think of no circumstance under which practically anything to do with cut greens would bear on national defense or otherwise maintaining the Republic -- sounds like a business the state ought to leave its big nose out of.)
Yes, the act makes specific definition of digital audio recorder for its own purposes; do you think the definition is reasonable, fair or complete? I don't. It seems like a definition calculated to let the RIAA squeeze money out of -- and make certain design decisions, such as the inclusion of SMCS, for -- manufacturers of those devices without attracting the defense of general-purpose users, no matter what the eventual use of those recording devices would be.
A line that springs to mind from 'The Complete Walker' (One of my favorite books) is this: "[B]ureaucratic decrees are worst of all because they tend to accumulate and perpetuate and harden when they're administered, as they so often are, by people who revel in enforcing petty ukases."
We may disagree, but there's no reason to be sarcastic or insulting, ok? Since your response to me was, I end this line of argument.
timothy
*(and I only pointed out the silliest parts of that definition -- how about the idea that a device used primarily for spoken word applications doesn't count? Is an item's "primary purpose" always known before it hits the market anyhow? There was a time when the "primary purpose" of the Macintosh was DTP, and it came as a relative surprise. )
I made the comments, and hold no truck with Republicans either. Believe it or not (I can't make you) but I would have the exact same criticism of a Republican president. Same deal.
As I've said in other comments, so might as well here, in most elections and given *only * those two choices, I'd usually vote Republican, as that evil seems ever so slighly less to me. YMMV. "You might not like the Republicans," you say, but please note that I do like the Republican Party a hair more than I do the Democratic Party. To the extent that I *dislike* them, I dislike them both.
Zach Baker wrote:
"I'm not sure I understand quite what plain facts were turned on their head by the AHRA's definition (in 1992) of a digital audio recording device. Could you elaborate?"
Well, for instance:
"... Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
that's why I quoted this in the 1st place.
So, even if I hook my mixer to a set of analog ins on a sound card and record the school choir (using the hard disk to store the bits), the computer is not a digital audio recording device, and the hard disk is not a digital recording medium. Even if I have a dedicated computer which does nothing else, rackmounted in a nice SKB case with the rest of my gear, it doesn't count -- because it's not "primarily marketed" that way. Ha! Plain facts, on head. Convenient, phoney definitions.
Maybe we have to agree that we disagree here, if you think that the government's definition is sensible rather than silly and obviously false.
"For example, CmdrTaco recently aired his opinion that George W. Bush can, in not so many words, go suck his nuts. Since there was no evidence or even argument offered to support such an ad hominem attack, a large number of/. readers pointed out that if an editor moderation system was in place, his comments would easily have earned a large number of -1: Flamebait tags."
Actually, there is a system that's even more effective. You can completely block any stories that I (or any other author) post, by adjusting your user preferences. That way, you don't even need many other people to agree on a particular slashdot author -- you get to choose with total autonomy. If you block us all, the page will cause you much less stress!:)
But re: the claim about definition, well, I stand my the statement that spurious definitions can ruin any argument. 2+2=5 has several funny mathematical "proofs" out there, just like the proofs that say 1=0. In the case of the Act's definition of a digital recording device, especially, plain facts are turned on their heads in the guise of a "definition." That's why it's a ridiculous point, and why I wanted to make fun of.
BlueGecko wrote: "I wonder if Slashdot would say the same thing if our current president were a Republican..."
the answer to this is a resounding, primary-source, no-holds-barred YES! You betcha, absolutely, no problem, you know it, whatchu talkin' bout, Mr. D YES.
What I wonder if whether the same number of people would comment "I wonder if Slashdot would say the same thing if our current president were a Democrat...";)
Speaking as the one who posted this story and made that comment, I'm certainly more poised to criticize and less poised to vote for members of the Democratic Party than the Republican, though I find comparing them a tedious and mostly pointless exercise. That's why I made the comment about Establishmentarianism. Both of them seem more in favor of Mercantilism than capitalism, they vary more in details than in general. I was just saying that it sounds like the declaration of a mainstream politician of either major gang.
I hold no stock in either one, though I may find individual things that I like least about each depending on the issue.
Seems more like a question of Establishmentarianism -- politicians in office like to remain there, and know about both corporate bread-buttering and the importance of appearing reassuringly normal. "
TrailerTrash wrote:
That's all true, but according to the Democrats, that only applies to Republicans. It is important that light be shed on the double-standard.
Well, it goes both ways. According to the Republicans, it only applies to the Democrats. It's a Sharks vs. Jets thing in what is generally a roughly equal field of petty statists. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Most elections, given an at-gunpoint requirement to pick one of those non-choices, I'd probably take the the Republican as being the less invasive. Would depend on the case.
I was just trying to defuse the implication that only a Democratic Party administration would have filed tat brief, or that campaign donations had very much to do with it, at least the ones listed in that handy chart.
"This will be a shock, but some slashdot readers (i.e. ME) are actually Republicans. I do have Libertarian leanings (voted for some too) as well, but I'm a registered republican. I take great offence at being labeled as an "evil repbulican" by the mainstream media.
I agree with your comments sentiment, I don't like seeing all the mud slinging on the political side, especially when the party drawing the ire of/. in this case is the Democrats, but I guess they get a pass."[Emphasis mine]
Actually, if you've read my rants on guns or ever listened to me spout about intrusive government (or found me listening happily to the Liddy show) you'd be unlikely to think that I give a lot of Special Democrat Passes;)
Read the part I wrote and the part that Declan wrote; I was just trying to separate the political party from the general layer of Establishmentarianist political scum...
redtoade objected to me saying "it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here," and wrote: "Why the hell not? Why do people always insulate their chosen parties?"
Well, why people may isolate their chosen party I leave up to you -- perhaps in some cases because they implicitly agree with the arguments or stances that party chooses. But the Democrats certainly aren't my "chosen party." Neither are the Republicans, for that matter. I'm just saying that despite the nice graph of contributions by music industry bigwigs to Democrats, I doubt that Bush in the same situation would have filed a brief supporting Napster instead!
I think it's political, but of the sort that all the political types can get into without discrimination;)
Bob McCown wrote: "I know there are voluntary ratings on games, but I didnt know it was illegal for a 12 year old to buy Quake 3?!?!"
It's not.
But stores are free to set policies on who they sell things to. There are legal rules about *some* policies (making it illegal, say, to refuse service to someone because of their skin color) but age-based rules discriminating against kids, not really. Which is why I say to buy from a store whose policies you respect!
It's like blockbuster not carrying certain movies or refusing to rent them to those under a certain age, or stores not selling spraypaint to minors. Actually, in the case of spraypaint, in many states there *are* laws forbidding sale to minors! Not good laws -- just laws. In the case of movies, I'm not sure about whether there are laws or only the famous and silly guidelines...
XNormal makes a good point here about the fact that low-draw processors are less impressive than you might think in laptops because the backlight is the real hog.
Three words: "L"... "E"... "D."
OK, those aren't words, they're only letters. But they stand for words.
Now that white LEDs are widely available, I hope that some near generation of laptops will become truly powersaving by substituting LEDs for flourescent backlighting. Also, I don't know what the mimimum depth is for the tubes used in laptops, but I wonder if LEDS could also end up in space / weight savings.
From all I know of the IOC (a friend of mine has worked closely with them, but I know my knowledge is slight), they seem like a power-brokering circle of friends who are blessed with an organization not only mostly beyond legal purview, but which people associate with all the hard work and courage of the athletes.
I'm all in favor of a strong international athletic meet, but the particulars of the elite which holds the strings of the Olympics? No thanks. Greed, corruption, avarice. Remember guns in Salt Lake City? They play cities against one another, accepting bribes along the way, and no doubt members benefit hugely from knowing what cities will be picked. (I'd like to see a full accounting of the real estate holdings of the members, families and close associates of those on the IOC.)
From the "spirit of competition" to utter politicization (sp), the Olympics have suffered, even though all but a few competitors are honest / hardworking. I think it would be *more* cynical to just accept that than to point out the corporate greed which drives them now. Perhaps someone can start a better policed, less odious organization than the IOC?
[There may be some stinkers among the athletes, too, but that's another story.]
since those are all the possibilities, short of an intervening apocalypse. Esp. considering that I've been rolled by rumor sites before, I wanted to get in a "trust me.";)
The reason I ask that (rhetorical!:) ) question is because of the interconnectedness of software and hardware.
Often devices that work fine under one OS may not under another, even if they're advertised as supported the other. This could be the hardware maker's fault, it could be the software maker's (OS or drivers)... but if the device doesn't work as it's implied to, Rooney's bill would seem to make it a liability to the company.
that's why I think it's a bad, dangerous, stifling idea.
timothy
Re:"van de Raadt"? THIS IS ONLY A TEST
on
Free For All
·
· Score: 1
I had to test the Slashdot Emergency Response System, didn't I?
Thanks for spotting that, now fixed. If only I could remember how to spell his name, I could win on final jeopardy in the year 2018. (under "apparently misinterpreted famous software caricatures of evil")
Well, one point to consider re: UNIX alone is that the work done by the UCB CS dept makes up a lot of the stuff in both commercial and free Unices. I don't know the breakdown, but it's hard to separate the work done by Berkeley folks and considered so good that AT&T wanted to own it and that stuff done at AT&T / Bell Labs itself.
Another point is that the most important creative thing with Free software (IMO) is not any particular feature or program, but the underlying scheme of massively distributed re-use and re-release. Even if your factory turns out cars just like mine, if you can do it using volunteer labor, have happy customers, and hand out free toolkits (guess I've got ITBWTCL on the brain, but stephenson wasn't the first to come up with the analogy), then haven't you invented something worthwhile, even if it's hard to tell by examining the product in isolation?
Few inventions can't be traced back and called the derivative of *some* other invention; early cars were basically just re-implementations of horsecarts with a little different kernel... but actually *getting something made* is another thing. If a sculptor could replicate (fairly, using his own brain, hands, eyes) Michelangelo's David in front of you, using 15th century tools, would you just say "Eh, it's only a copy. Give ya 50 cents for it... "?:)
thanks for spotting it, or I might not have noticed... forest for trees sort of thing.
Here's what happened, if you're interested:)
When I build a Slashback, I usually start with one submisson -- in this case the New York voting thing -- and add others to it, rather than cut-n-paste *all* of them into a single other file. (Is that semi-clear?)
That voting one came in with a suggested topic of DOJ (appropriate) -- I meant to but obviously did not change the topic icon to the more general Slashback one, so that DOJ one "stuck."
I came back 2nd session too, but I wasn't supposed to give out any more guns (besides which I was out of them, only had the few).
Heh, glad you liked it -- it was a good excuse for me to come and see Lancaster again, which I miss as both student and staffer each summer:(
And with this UI stuff... well, the problem is (I postulate) that people like to extend their experience to those of other people, and like all processes of analogy, can do so only imperfectly. X was easy for me, it must be for you! Z was tough for me, so I bet it's tough for you! But yes, if I had to say what's usually the easiest thing to put on a computer, with or without an OS already, I would say at this point "start with mandrake and see how it goes." If you already have windows, it will even politely leave it there (i the automated install). Note that this reasoning is a little circular, but... I stand by it.
I like the Mac interface - consider how nice / snappy an SE/30 still is! Amazing! -- and I've been pleased (if baffled at first) by most of the window mgrs / desktops available for Linux. Windows still feel foreign to me, but it's certainly better than the *old* windows (for me).
What bothers me about windows is being tied to one company. With Linux, that can't happen!:)
I'll admit that MacOS is easy to install and use, but when it comes to sheer joy of installation, I stand by my claim that Mandrake goes on easier than Windows. Doesn't even need a reboot till the process is complete.
Of course, that's with my particular rotating collections of hardware that pass as PCs, some of which grouse about having any OS at all.
Installing new software, that's a different story -- some things are ridiculously easy to install under Linux (a nightly build of mozilla, most any RPM), but there are some things I've never gotten on right, or that slip on in one distro but flounder when I try to put them on another. In that regard, Windows may be ahead, but I don't use it often enough to say, and I've never been much of a Windows user anyhow.
I'm excited about Eazel (and other Gnome related projects) because of the even greater ease of use they promise, though. The Mac -- now *that* I'll admit beats any Linux gui I know for intuitiveness, but "intuition" varies enough person to person that I can see why some people prefer windows-like GUIs better. Variety, spice of life, now available with extra flavor, from Lipton.
Trying to put an AOL client onto Windows NT, for instance (for my mom! for my mom!) gave me hours of trouble, until I found out that the Windows AOL client doens't work with NT anyhow. (maybe that's changed with 2000? Dunno, don't care.) Installing certain MS software has failed for me inexplicably at different installation points -- and so have some linux distro's installs. But I can try another Linux (for free) -- with MS you're stuck with an expensive annoyance.
So there's my natural bias, don't mean it to be ridiculous, only in keeping with my own experience. I certainly hope you have a better time with any OS than I generally do!:)
alkali wrote: "And remember, those cows exist in nature. It's not like they're bred on giant "farms" by "farmers" such that the population of cows is artificially large."
Aren't people part of nature? (Well, OK, maybe you don't think so. So I am asserting that "Yes, people are part of nature.")
Modifying ones environment, cultivating certain resources, etc. is *part* of nature! Beavers are part of nature, right? They make lodges / dams; would you say the concentration of fish that the dams create is natural, or artificial?
Ants cultivate aphids for their sweet secretions, same thing. Natural?
The creation of materials which do *not* exist otherwise in nature I'm willing to call artificial (as in "demonstrating artifice") but all I'm saying is that the line is hazy and arbitrary between the "natural" and the "artificial." Some nature lovers like to live semi-primitively (roadside tent camping, or long-term survivalism) but they surely wouldn't want to remove their capacity to change their environment by choice, I would bet.
Re: cows -- a) tofu burgers are really good, and I actually prefer Gardenburgers to most beef hamburgers. Make non-beef alternatives attractive, and beef will be less valuable to grow. b) Giant Fullerine domes with methane catchers at the top! Sell it! Heat your home! Light your yard! Powerful, all-natural methane!
OK, here's an idea that struck me as people debate on this story the worth of time, the worth of programmers, the greatness or lameness of various distros... (esp. b/c someone raised the issue of buying Linus a long-distance beer)
BUY THEM FOOD.
That's right. Imagine a sort of pizza-and-beer account that you could contribute to, the way that people can / could buy Theo of OpenBSD pizza.
if you like a certain distro, you can give them some virtual calories by sending them some money online.
for instance:
welcome to the hungry programmers food page:
I want to give [check one]
o $5
o $10
o $15
o $300,000
to the [check one]
o debian project
o FSF contributors
o both the debian project and FSF contributors
[check one]
o pizza fund
o beer fund
And the music industry would have to jump on board, too, of course;)
Amazon, do you want to redeem yourself?! host the payments, and match them;)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I know that GTA itself isn't racing, but it does involve cars (as I remember) ... so if you could use cars stolen from the players of other games, if would be neat.
:)
And as far as the usefulness of having other players around, well, I just think the added complexity would be interesting. More targets to sort through, etc. It would be neat for one game to be able to cooperate with another in providing incentives / disincentives (like shooting a powerpuff girl would lose points, if you're 'sposed to be shooting bad guys).
And that GTA isn't itself a "racing" game except vs the clock needn't interfere with the games being played in a common world; the racers would still be racing, and the non-racers wouldn't be!
Again, I'm just thinking of games with different movitations and attitudes being played on the same field, a touch closer to real life. Heh -- GTA is probably not the greatest example. Just a gedankenexperiment.
timothy
I'm not a frequent gamer, console or otherwise, but I like the idea of the persistent world that many games create.
...)
What I'm curious about is whether there are any game worlds online which allow multiple games (or rather *types* of games) to coexist and interact on the same network, even if the players are primarily playing only one of them in particular.
For instance (and I know I'm jumping genres, but indulge just for a second, ok?!), are there any gaming systems which would allow the players of a game like Grand Theft Auto to "interact with" the players of an auto racing game? (That is, steal their cars, perhaps complete the race, perhaps put them in hock
Since the Real World is full of people doing different things and with different motivations, I think this would improve the realism and interest of game worlds as well.
I really like this idea, and if there is no such system it would be neat to work toward one. Is there an equivalent (again, leaping from category to category and ignoring an orders-of-magniture change in complexity) to RDF for games, so different games could recognize and accomodate entirely different types of characters?
OK, now you can ridicule me;)
timothy
What I meant is that the attention that Carnivore has focused on online privacy and surveillance are important, that's all -- so more people will think about and use encryption, and object to "trust us, we're from the government" type arguments.
That's all. I'm not saying it was good to waste taxpayer money on such a boondoggle, and the "good for something" is a little bit like saying WWI was good because we got Aspirin out of it.
timothy
HunterZ wondered: "[W]ould you have said that if it was a Republican administration that had released it?"
...) That's all! :)
Answer: Yes, absolutely. I have no particular affinity for the Democratic Party. Sara Michele Gelar aside, I'd have to admit that between the two I like the Republicans better. (And between hanging and gassing, I'm sure we all have our personal picks, too.)
And then said "If it's okay for Democrats to engage in 'corporate bread-buttering,' then I'd better not hear any criticisms of the Republicans in regards to similar activities."
I'm not saying it's "okay" -- I'm saying it's not confined to any particular political party, since they both rely on the same kind of crass Realpolitik. It's not that there shouldn't be criticism, it's that the criticism ought not be unfairly directed at (any) particular party unless specifically warranted. (two wings of the same evil bird
timothy
The AHRA makes certain wise exceptions in the name of fair use, but cutting out general-purpose machines (like personal computers) from its definition is foolish and arbitrary.
I disagree with that you we should "thank goodness" that the AHRA (and as you point out, many other pieces of legislation) narrowly defines its terms; in fact, I object to this on the grounds that it creates a web of complicated, arbitrary definitions which evade common sense. In this case, ordinary, reasonable acts (like using a general purpose computer perfectly well suited to it for one of its many possible applications) are transformed into illegal, actionable ones ones. I do not think it is reasonable or moral to let the music industry determine via Congress on which of the electronic boxes I own I may record a backup copy of a CD on, for instance, but that's what the RIAA says.
Laws against copyright violation are one thing, laws restricting or taxing tools on the grounds that they could be used in copyright violation are another. (Check the price of the blank media for stand-alone CD-R recorders
Yes, I'd prefer a balder, less weasely approach. which would hopefully make people warier about getting what they want through legislation.
If the government has time to legislate the definition of "digital audio recorder" (or "cut greens") you can bet they're doing it in accord with the definition of the group pushing the legislation, whether copyright holders, florists, whomever. (And I can think of no circumstance under which practically anything to do with cut greens would bear on national defense or otherwise maintaining the Republic -- sounds like a business the state ought to leave its big nose out of.)
Yes, the act makes specific definition of digital audio recorder for its own purposes; do you think the definition is reasonable, fair or complete? I don't. It seems like a definition calculated to let the RIAA squeeze money out of -- and make certain design decisions, such as the inclusion of SMCS, for -- manufacturers of those devices without attracting the defense of general-purpose users, no matter what the eventual use of those recording devices would be.
A line that springs to mind from 'The Complete Walker' (One of my favorite books) is this: "[B]ureaucratic decrees are worst of all because they tend to accumulate and perpetuate and harden when they're administered, as they so often are, by people who revel in enforcing petty ukases."
We may disagree, but there's no reason to be sarcastic or insulting, ok? Since your response to me was, I end this line of argument.
timothy
*(and I only pointed out the silliest parts of that definition -- how about the idea that a device used primarily for spoken word applications doesn't count? Is an item's "primary purpose" always known before it hits the market anyhow? There was a time when the "primary purpose" of the Macintosh was DTP, and it came as a relative surprise. )
I made the comments, and hold no truck with Republicans either. Believe it or not (I can't make you) but I would have the exact same criticism of a Republican president. Same deal.
As I've said in other comments, so might as well here, in most elections and given *only * those two choices, I'd usually vote Republican, as that evil seems ever so slighly less to me. YMMV. "You might not like the Republicans," you say, but please note that I do like the Republican Party a hair more than I do the Democratic Party. To the extent that I *dislike* them, I dislike them both.
Just so you know,
timothy
Zach Baker wrote:
... Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
"I'm not sure I understand quite what plain facts were turned on their head by the AHRA's definition (in 1992) of a digital audio recording device. Could you elaborate?"
Well, for instance:
"
that's why I quoted this in the 1st place.
So, even if I hook my mixer to a set of analog ins on a sound card and record the school choir (using the hard disk to store the bits), the computer is not a digital audio recording device, and the hard disk is not a digital recording medium. Even if I have a dedicated computer which does nothing else, rackmounted in a nice SKB case with the rest of my gear, it doesn't count -- because it's not "primarily marketed" that way. Ha! Plain facts, on head. Convenient, phoney definitions.
Maybe we have to agree that we disagree here, if you think that the government's definition is sensible rather than silly and obviously false.
timothy
Actually, there is a system that's even more effective. You can completely block any stories that I (or any other author) post, by adjusting your user preferences. That way, you don't even need many other people to agree on a particular slashdot author -- you get to choose with total autonomy. If you block us all, the page will cause you much less stress!
But re: the claim about definition, well, I stand my the statement that spurious definitions can ruin any argument. 2+2=5 has several funny mathematical "proofs" out there, just like the proofs that say 1=0. In the case of the Act's definition of a digital recording device, especially, plain facts are turned on their heads in the guise of a "definition." That's why it's a ridiculous point, and why I wanted to make fun of.
timothy
BlueGecko wrote: "I wonder if Slashdot would say the same thing if our current president were a Republican..."
..." ;)
the answer to this is a resounding, primary-source, no-holds-barred YES! You betcha, absolutely, no problem, you know it, whatchu talkin' bout, Mr. D YES.
What I wonder if whether the same number of people would comment "I wonder if Slashdot would say the same thing if our current president were a Democrat
Speaking as the one who posted this story and made that comment, I'm certainly more poised to criticize and less poised to vote for members of the Democratic Party than the Republican, though I find comparing them a tedious and mostly pointless exercise. That's why I made the comment about Establishmentarianism. Both of them seem more in favor of Mercantilism than capitalism, they vary more in details than in general. I was just saying that it sounds like the declaration of a mainstream politician of either major gang.
I hold no stock in either one, though I may find individual things that I like least about each depending on the issue.
timothy
TrailerTrash wrote:
Well, it goes both ways. According to the Republicans, it only applies to the Democrats. It's a Sharks vs. Jets thing in what is generally a roughly equal field of petty statists. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Most elections, given an at-gunpoint requirement to pick one of those non-choices, I'd probably take the the Republican as being the less invasive. Would depend on the case.
I was just trying to defuse the implication that only a Democratic Party administration would have filed tat brief, or that campaign donations had very much to do with it, at least the ones listed in that handy chart.
timothy
Actually, if you've read my rants on guns or ever listened to me spout about intrusive government (or found me listening happily to the Liddy show) you'd be unlikely to think that I give a lot of Special Democrat Passes;)
Read the part I wrote and the part that Declan wrote; I was just trying to separate the political party from the general layer of Establishmentarianist political scum
timothy
redtoade objected to me saying "it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here," and wrote: "Why the hell not? Why do people always insulate their chosen parties?"
Well, why people may isolate their chosen party I leave up to you -- perhaps in some cases because they implicitly agree with the arguments or stances that party chooses. But the Democrats certainly aren't my "chosen party." Neither are the Republicans, for that matter. I'm just saying that despite the nice graph of contributions by music industry bigwigs to Democrats, I doubt that Bush in the same situation would have filed a brief supporting Napster instead!
I think it's political, but of the sort that all the political types can get into without discrimination;)
timothy
Bob McCown wrote: "I know there are voluntary ratings on games, but I didnt know it was illegal for a 12 year old to buy Quake 3?!?!"
...
It's not.
But stores are free to set policies on who they sell things to. There are legal rules about *some* policies (making it illegal, say, to refuse service to someone because of their skin color) but age-based rules discriminating against kids, not really. Which is why I say to buy from a store whose policies you respect!
It's like blockbuster not carrying certain movies or refusing to rent them to those under a certain age, or stores not selling spraypaint to minors. Actually, in the case of spraypaint, in many states there *are* laws forbidding sale to minors! Not good laws -- just laws. In the case of movies, I'm not sure about whether there are laws or only the famous and silly guidelines
timothy
XNormal makes a good point here about the fact that low-draw processors are less impressive than you might think in laptops because the backlight is the real hog.
... "E" ... "D."
...
Three words: "L"
OK, those aren't words, they're only letters. But they stand for words.
Now that white LEDs are widely available, I hope that some near generation of laptops will become truly powersaving by substituting LEDs for flourescent backlighting. Also, I don't know what the mimimum depth is for the tubes used in laptops, but I wonder if LEDS could also end up in space / weight savings.
idle thoughts of an idle fellow
timothy
From all I know of the IOC (a friend of mine has worked closely with them, but I know my knowledge is slight), they seem like a power-brokering circle of friends who are blessed with an organization not only mostly beyond legal purview, but which people associate with all the hard work and courage of the athletes.
I'm all in favor of a strong international athletic meet, but the particulars of the elite which holds the strings of the Olympics? No thanks. Greed, corruption, avarice. Remember guns in Salt Lake City? They play cities against one another, accepting bribes along the way, and no doubt members benefit hugely from knowing what cities will be picked. (I'd like to see a full accounting of the real estate holdings of the members, families and close associates of those on the IOC.)
From the "spirit of competition" to utter politicization (sp), the Olympics have suffered, even though all but a few competitors are honest / hardworking. I think it would be *more* cynical to just accept that than to point out the corporate greed which drives them now. Perhaps someone can start a better policed, less odious organization than the IOC?
[There may be some stinkers among the athletes, too, but that's another story.]
timothy
since those are all the possibilities, short of an intervening apocalypse. Esp. considering that I've been rolled by rumor sites before, I wanted to get in a "trust me." ;)
timothy
The reason I ask that (rhetorical! :) ) question is because of the interconnectedness of software and hardware.
... but if the device doesn't work as it's implied to, Rooney's bill would seem to make it a liability to the company.
Often devices that work fine under one OS may not under another, even if they're advertised as supported the other. This could be the hardware maker's fault, it could be the software maker's (OS or drivers)
that's why I think it's a bad, dangerous, stifling idea.
timothy
I had to test the Slashdot Emergency Response System, didn't I?
Thanks for spotting that, now fixed. If only I could remember how to spell his name, I could win on final jeopardy in the year 2018. (under "apparently misinterpreted famous software caricatures of evil")
timothy
Well, one point to consider re: UNIX alone is that the work done by the UCB CS dept makes up a lot of the stuff in both commercial and free Unices. I don't know the breakdown, but it's hard to separate the work done by Berkeley folks and considered so good that AT&T wanted to own it and that stuff done at AT&T / Bell Labs itself.
... but actually *getting something made* is another thing. If a sculptor could replicate (fairly, using his own brain, hands, eyes) Michelangelo's David in front of you, using 15th century tools, would you just say "Eh, it's only a copy. Give ya 50 cents for it ... "? :)
Another point is that the most important creative thing with Free software (IMO) is not any particular feature or program, but the underlying scheme of massively distributed re-use and re-release. Even if your factory turns out cars just like mine, if you can do it using volunteer labor, have happy customers, and hand out free toolkits (guess I've got ITBWTCL on the brain, but stephenson wasn't the first to come up with the analogy), then haven't you invented something worthwhile, even if it's hard to tell by examining the product in isolation?
Few inventions can't be traced back and called the derivative of *some* other invention; early cars were basically just re-implementations of horsecarts with a little different kernel
idle thoughts,
timothy
thanks for spotting it, or I might not have noticed ... forest for trees sort of thing.
:)
Here's what happened, if you're interested
When I build a Slashback, I usually start with one submisson -- in this case the New York voting thing -- and add others to it, rather than cut-n-paste *all* of them into a single other file. (Is that semi-clear?)
That voting one came in with a suggested topic of DOJ (appropriate) -- I meant to but obviously did not change the topic icon to the more general Slashback one, so that DOJ one "stuck."
Brain fart it was.
timothy
when I went to UT Austin I felt pretty damn invisible, I thought it was just in the water there ... ;)
timothy
Ken -
:(
... well, the problem is (I postulate) that people like to extend their experience to those of other people, and like all processes of analogy, can do so only imperfectly. X was easy for me, it must be for you! Z was tough for me, so I bet it's tough for you! But yes, if I had to say what's usually the easiest thing to put on a computer, with or without an OS already, I would say at this point "start with mandrake and see how it goes." If you already have windows, it will even politely leave it there (i the automated install). Note that this reasoning is a little circular, but ... I stand by it.
:)
I came back 2nd session too, but I wasn't supposed to give out any more guns (besides which I was out of them, only had the few).
Heh, glad you liked it -- it was a good excuse for me to come and see Lancaster again, which I miss as both student and staffer each summer
And with this UI stuff
I like the Mac interface - consider how nice / snappy an SE/30 still is! Amazing! -- and I've been pleased (if baffled at first) by most of the window mgrs / desktops available for Linux. Windows still feel foreign to me, but it's certainly better than the *old* windows (for me).
What bothers me about windows is being tied to one company. With Linux, that can't happen!
timothy
I am the anti-intuitive computer user, though.
:)
I'll admit that MacOS is easy to install and use, but when it comes to sheer joy of installation, I stand by my claim that Mandrake goes on easier than Windows. Doesn't even need a reboot till the process is complete.
Of course, that's with my particular rotating collections of hardware that pass as PCs, some of which grouse about having any OS at all.
Installing new software, that's a different story -- some things are ridiculously easy to install under Linux (a nightly build of mozilla, most any RPM), but there are some things I've never gotten on right, or that slip on in one distro but flounder when I try to put them on another. In that regard, Windows may be ahead, but I don't use it often enough to say, and I've never been much of a Windows user anyhow.
I'm excited about Eazel (and other Gnome related projects) because of the even greater ease of use they promise, though. The Mac -- now *that* I'll admit beats any Linux gui I know for intuitiveness, but "intuition" varies enough person to person that I can see why some people prefer windows-like GUIs better. Variety, spice of life, now available with extra flavor, from Lipton.
Trying to put an AOL client onto Windows NT, for instance (for my mom! for my mom!) gave me hours of trouble, until I found out that the Windows AOL client doens't work with NT anyhow. (maybe that's changed with 2000? Dunno, don't care.) Installing certain MS software has failed for me inexplicably at different installation points -- and so have some linux distro's installs. But I can try another Linux (for free) -- with MS you're stuck with an expensive annoyance.
So there's my natural bias, don't mean it to be ridiculous, only in keeping with my own experience. I certainly hope you have a better time with any OS than I generally do!
Cheers,
timothy
alkali wrote: "And remember, those cows exist in nature. It's not like they're bred on giant "farms" by "farmers" such that the population of cows is artificially large."
Aren't people part of nature? (Well, OK, maybe you don't think so. So I am asserting that "Yes, people are part of nature.")
Modifying ones environment, cultivating certain resources, etc. is *part* of nature! Beavers are part of nature, right? They make lodges / dams; would you say the concentration of fish that the dams create is natural, or artificial?
Ants cultivate aphids for their sweet secretions, same thing. Natural?
The creation of materials which do *not* exist otherwise in nature I'm willing to call artificial (as in "demonstrating artifice") but all I'm saying is that the line is hazy and arbitrary between the "natural" and the "artificial." Some nature lovers like to live semi-primitively (roadside tent camping, or long-term survivalism) but they surely wouldn't want to remove their capacity to change their environment by choice, I would bet.
Re: cows -- a) tofu burgers are really good, and I actually prefer Gardenburgers to most beef hamburgers. Make non-beef alternatives attractive, and beef will be less valuable to grow. b) Giant Fullerine domes with methane catchers at the top! Sell it! Heat your home! Light your yard! Powerful, all-natural methane!
anyhow, idle thoughts.
timothy
OK, here's an idea that struck me as people debate on this story the worth of time, the worth of programmers, the greatness or lameness of various distros ... (esp. b/c someone raised the issue of buying Linus a long-distance beer)
;)
BUY THEM FOOD.
That's right. Imagine a sort of pizza-and-beer account that you could contribute to, the way that people can / could buy Theo of OpenBSD pizza.
if you like a certain distro, you can give them some virtual calories by sending them some money online.
for instance:
welcome to the hungry programmers food page:
I want to give [check one]
o $5
o $10
o $15
o $300,000
to the [check one]
o debian project
o FSF contributors
o both the debian project and FSF contributors
[check one]
o pizza fund
o beer fund
And the music industry would have to jump on board, too, of course;)
Amazon, do you want to redeem yourself?! host the payments, and match them
timothy