Agreed, but I would not think a prohibition on cell phones would be too great an inconvenience. Besides, it's a bad idea to drive and talk on a cell phone... many areas have laws to this effect.
RF interference stories occur once every little while, and I hope this finally shuts up the people who say, "my cell phone couldn't possibly crash a plane, the greedy airline just wants me to use their satphone".
It's true that your cell phone, BY ITSELF, will not cause the plane to explode and shower the countryside with flaming wreckage. However, look at any airline accident in the last ten years or so. In almost every case, a sequence of one-in-a-million flukes comes together at exactly the wrong time to cause a crash. In the article, they cite probable cases where RF interference caused the airplane to fly slightly off course, or caused errors in the flight controls. If something like that happened at exactly the wrong time, YOU BET there would be an accident, and your cellphone would be to blame.
I'm all for paranoia in the airline industry. It's what makes the flight safer than the drive to the airport.
Instead of firing off that e-mail, why not click "print" and mail it using the regular postal service?
In Canada at least, sending a letter via regular post to any Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, is free. Your letter is also far more likely to be read.
Give everyone on Earth one square meter of space. That's about enough space to stand, or even sit comfortably. There are roughly 6.3 billion people on Earth. To give everyone 1m^2 would require 6.3x10^9 m^2. This could be accommodated by a square with sides 79,400m long (around 50 miles).
Cuba's area is 110,860 km^2, or 1.1x10^11 m^2, which is enough to give each person on Earth a luxurious 17.6m^2 of space, or around 158 sq ft -- about the size of a bathroom or small bedroom.
I don't see why he felt it necessary to make such a sweeping, rediculous and borderline insulting statement to start his review.
Check the e-mail address. The submitter is probably a she.
Illegal versus unethical
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I used Napster a handful of times too, but only when I was looking for a specific song off a hard-to-find album.
Although the law does not technically distinguish between the two cases, I would argue that my use of Napster was not unethical, because if everyone did it, it would not have a significantly negative impact on the production of music, and because the music industry has provided no legitimate alternative. Meanwhile, downloading thousands of songs to avoid paying for music at all is unethical, because the downloader benefits from musicians' work without giving them any possibility of compensation. If everyone did that, the availability of music would likely decrease as fewer people could afford to produce it, and everyone would suffer.
Your argument, that breaking a law is black-and-white regardless of intention or magnitude, is the sort of logic that puts petty thieves away for life under three-strikes laws. It also implies that legality is the same as morality, and sets up the government as the ultimate judge of correct social behaviour.
And I think those who download music should consider that because they can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.
I don't think the Slashdot crowd has the same mentality toward legal issues involving the RIAA as normal users.
The reason why slashdot users are passionate about things like the RIAA, the DMCA, etc. etc., than the average person is that the average person accepts the argument that sharing copyrighted files is wrong.
Thus, while the average person will share files in an anonymous environment, he or she either feels guilty about sharing or otherwise doesn't feel strongly enough about it to cause trouble, and sees it as inevitable, and possibly right, that the sites will eventually be shut down.
My advice to you is: if you want people to become passionate about IP issues, either convince them that sharing files is right and good, or that the commodified music of the RIAA is a far greater evil. Otherwise it's a hopeless task.
Users are greedy bastards who never want to pay for content, and are prepared to use all kinds of dubious logical machinations, hippie philosophy, and references to the constitution to justify IP infringement.
Re:Sex is holding us back!
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 1
I'm thinking of the point in the book where Black (? -- is that his name? it's been a while) argues that Party scientists will eventually do away with sex as a means of reproduction. Sex and love are used as metaphors for rebellion.
Re:Sex is holding us back!
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 1
Firstly, we could wish that the world was a friendly place, but that doesn't make it so.
Secondly, I don't see anybody out there trying to count the cost of what would have happened if the Americans had done nothing. If the US had intervened in Rwanda, for example, it would probably have appeared on your list as having caused a few dozen local casualties, but they could have saved the lives of close to a million people.
That's Murphy's Law in its original sense: If there is more than one way that something can be installed or connected, and one of those ways leads to catastrophe, someone will eventually do it the bad way. In other words, given enough people and enough time, anything that can be done, however remotely possible, will eventually be done.
I am distressed that most of the anti-SCO argument seems to be based on the fact that SCO continued to publish Linux after claiming infringement.
David Boies is a smart man, and surely he or his legal team would have thought of this. They must have some sort of legitimate defense up their sleeve. Maybe a direct attack on the legitimacy of the GPL?
I think it will run something like this: Linux is important to SCO's business. Even though they discovered violations in linux, they had to continue to release linux or suffer grave damage to their business. They should not be made to suffer for the malicious actions of IBM, and they did not voluntarily release their own source code, so the GPL should not apply to their proprietary code that somehow found its way into linux.
there was no legally guaranteed "right to profit" and that if they couldn't make it in the "New Economy", they should get a different business model. "That's how capitalism works" was the libertarian cry.
Heh... I remember the new economy.
There's no legally guaranteed right to share music or copy software, either -- quite the opposite. Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen. Beware the law of unintended consequences.
surely their duty of care would be to say which parts of the development kernel are infringing so that they can be removed before they get distributed to the four winds?
If they win -- if -- they might argue that they are not obliged to publicly disclose which parts of Linux are infringing, as that would disclose their trade secrets. Keeping it in the released source code without revealing where it is would be sort of a security-through-obscurity scenario.
I also suspect that they would argue that Linux violates the GPL, and that its distribution should be immediately halted, which would also remedy the violation.
Fine, but this has an unfortunate side effect: people who think they're talented geeks act the same way. Thus, we are forced to deal with hundreds of arrogant pricks, only a few of whom are truly talented.
I respect his opinions, but the man needs some serious lessons in humility and respect for others.
Strangely, this is exactly the way I feel about RMS. What is it about technology and arrogant pricks?
Re:For those unfortunate times...
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yes, you would be screwed if you had to charge a 42v battery from one 12v. Even four 12v in series might be a problem; the extra (48-42)=6v load would be dissipated in the battery, and shorting a few volts across a battery might not be good for it.
If the car companies had any brains, they would anticipate this problem. They could put some electronic thingy on the charging posts that automatically senses 12v and runs it through some power electronics to step it up to 42v. I don't know how efficient that would be.
Or, if the engine electrical system still runs on 12v (through a step-down), there could be a direct interface to the starter -- once the engine is started, the alternator takes over and charges the battery at 42v.
On the other hand, they could just go with the inelegant solution of designing an interface that makes it impossible to connect jumper cables. Then you would be in trouble.
Re:For those unfortunate times...
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
That would make sense if the timing was based on charging a capacitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but I would not think a prohibition on cell phones would be too great an inconvenience. Besides, it's a bad idea to drive and talk on a cell phone ... many areas have laws to this effect.
RF interference stories occur once every little while, and I hope this finally shuts up the people who say, "my cell phone couldn't possibly crash a plane, the greedy airline just wants me to use their satphone".
It's true that your cell phone, BY ITSELF, will not cause the plane to explode and shower the countryside with flaming wreckage. However, look at any airline accident in the last ten years or so. In almost every case, a sequence of one-in-a-million flukes comes together at exactly the wrong time to cause a crash. In the article, they cite probable cases where RF interference caused the airplane to fly slightly off course, or caused errors in the flight controls. If something like that happened at exactly the wrong time, YOU BET there would be an accident, and your cellphone would be to blame.
I'm all for paranoia in the airline industry. It's what makes the flight safer than the drive to the airport.
Instead of firing off that e-mail, why not click "print" and mail it using the regular postal service?
In Canada at least, sending a letter via regular post to any Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, is free. Your letter is also far more likely to be read.
Give everyone on Earth one square meter of space. That's about enough space to stand, or even sit comfortably. There are roughly 6.3 billion people on Earth. To give everyone 1m^2 would require 6.3x10^9 m^2. This could be accommodated by a square with sides 79,400m long (around 50 miles).
Cuba's area is 110,860 km^2, or 1.1x10^11 m^2, which is enough to give each person on Earth a luxurious 17.6m^2 of space, or around 158 sq ft -- about the size of a bathroom or small bedroom.
How do you think Uranus feels?
(waits for a goatse link)
Which would you rather do?
Drive to the airport (gas, etc.), pay for parking, pay for access, download a few MP3's before your battery runs out, and come home hours later
-or-
Go to a store and buy an album
I don't see why he felt it necessary to make such a sweeping, rediculous and borderline insulting statement to start his review.
Check the e-mail address. The submitter is probably a she.
I used Napster a handful of times too, but only when I was looking for a specific song off a hard-to-find album.
Although the law does not technically distinguish between the two cases, I would argue that my use of Napster was not unethical, because if everyone did it, it would not have a significantly negative impact on the production of music, and because the music industry has provided no legitimate alternative. Meanwhile, downloading thousands of songs to avoid paying for music at all is unethical, because the downloader benefits from musicians' work without giving them any possibility of compensation. If everyone did that, the availability of music would likely decrease as fewer people could afford to produce it, and everyone would suffer.
Your argument, that breaking a law is black-and-white regardless of intention or magnitude, is the sort of logic that puts petty thieves away for life under three-strikes laws. It also implies that legality is the same as morality, and sets up the government as the ultimate judge of correct social behaviour.
And I think those who download music should consider that because they can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.
I don't think the Slashdot crowd has the same mentality toward legal issues involving the RIAA as normal users.
The reason why slashdot users are passionate about things like the RIAA, the DMCA, etc. etc., than the average person is that the average person accepts the argument that sharing copyrighted files is wrong.
Thus, while the average person will share files in an anonymous environment, he or she either feels guilty about sharing or otherwise doesn't feel strongly enough about it to cause trouble, and sees it as inevitable, and possibly right, that the sites will eventually be shut down.
My advice to you is: if you want people to become passionate about IP issues, either convince them that sharing files is right and good, or that the commodified music of the RIAA is a far greater evil. Otherwise it's a hopeless task.
Memorandum
To: Rep. Putnam
From: Slashdot
L1nux r00lz! M1cr0$haft sux0rz! LOLOLOL
Because the craft is an experiment to see if solar sails work in perfect vacuum. Thrust is not an end in itself.
How's that? Are you entitled to these works?
What's the other edge?
Users are greedy bastards who never want to pay for content, and are prepared to use all kinds of dubious logical machinations, hippie philosophy, and references to the constitution to justify IP infringement.
I'm thinking of the point in the book where Black (? -- is that his name? it's been a while) argues that Party scientists will eventually do away with sex as a means of reproduction. Sex and love are used as metaphors for rebellion.
Yes, I read 1984 too.
Firstly, we could wish that the world was a friendly place, but that doesn't make it so.
Secondly, I don't see anybody out there trying to count the cost of what would have happened if the Americans had done nothing. If the US had intervened in Rwanda, for example, it would probably have appeared on your list as having caused a few dozen local casualties, but they could have saved the lives of close to a million people.
Then again, perhaps IHBT and IHL.
'cause it's much more likely to strike fear into the hearts of America's enemies than the USS Jimmy Carter (motto: Malaise Forever).
That's Murphy's Law in its original sense: If there is more than one way that something can be installed or connected, and one of those ways leads to catastrophe, someone will eventually do it the bad way. In other words, given enough people and enough time, anything that can be done, however remotely possible, will eventually be done.
Let that be a lesson when designing hardware.
I am distressed that most of the anti-SCO argument seems to be based on the fact that SCO continued to publish Linux after claiming infringement.
David Boies is a smart man, and surely he or his legal team would have thought of this. They must have some sort of legitimate defense up their sleeve. Maybe a direct attack on the legitimacy of the GPL?
I think it will run something like this: Linux is important to SCO's business. Even though they discovered violations in linux, they had to continue to release linux or suffer grave damage to their business. They should not be made to suffer for the malicious actions of IBM, and they did not voluntarily release their own source code, so the GPL should not apply to their proprietary code that somehow found its way into linux.
there was no legally guaranteed "right to profit" and that if they couldn't make it in the "New Economy", they should get a different business model. "That's how capitalism works" was the libertarian cry.
Heh ... I remember the new economy.
There's no legally guaranteed right to share music or copy software, either -- quite the opposite. Don't forget that without strong intellectual property laws, the GPL would not exist, and it would be in nobody's interest to share code or ideas for fear that they would get stolen. Beware the law of unintended consequences.
surely their duty of care would be to say which parts of the development kernel are infringing so that they can be removed before they get distributed to the four winds?
If they win -- if -- they might argue that they are not obliged to publicly disclose which parts of Linux are infringing, as that would disclose their trade secrets. Keeping it in the released source code without revealing where it is would be sort of a security-through-obscurity scenario.
I also suspect that they would argue that Linux violates the GPL, and that its distribution should be immediately halted, which would also remedy the violation.
Fine, but this has an unfortunate side effect: people who think they're talented geeks act the same way. Thus, we are forced to deal with hundreds of arrogant pricks, only a few of whom are truly talented.
I respect his opinions, but the man needs some serious lessons in humility and respect for others.
Strangely, this is exactly the way I feel about RMS. What is it about technology and arrogant pricks?
Yes, you would be screwed if you had to charge a 42v battery from one 12v. Even four 12v in series might be a problem; the extra (48-42)=6v load would be dissipated in the battery, and shorting a few volts across a battery might not be good for it.
If the car companies had any brains, they would anticipate this problem. They could put some electronic thingy on the charging posts that automatically senses 12v and runs it through some power electronics to step it up to 42v. I don't know how efficient that would be.
Or, if the engine electrical system still runs on 12v (through a step-down), there could be a direct interface to the starter -- once the engine is started, the alternator takes over and charges the battery at 42v.
On the other hand, they could just go with the inelegant solution of designing an interface that makes it impossible to connect jumper cables. Then you would be in trouble.
That would make sense if the timing was based on charging a capacitor.