There is a degree of criticality. I personally don't care if Linux is #1 on the desktop, for that matter with OS X I wouldn't mind seeing Mac take over th #1 slot. However if we wan't to be able to continue to use Linux it needs to have a degree of popularity among 'desktop' users. I want more mainstream software. More games, more applications, particularly specialized applications. I keep windows around mostly for games now, but also to be able to use and mess with some specialized software.
I could use WINE or WINEX, or I could go to VMware, but I have windows, I had to pay for it anyway, so I got it.
We need Linux to be popular enough that it's not sane not to release software for it. We need Linux to be popular that it's not sane to release hardware drivers for it. Open is better, but I'll settle for closed drivers if a particular piece of hardware is significantly better.
There needs to be a level of popularity on the desktop, or a significant number of companies won't consider using it server side. It's just the business mentality.
We need Linux to be popular enough to get vendor support with either software and drivers, or standards and specifications so we can easily interoperate. Constantly having to reverse engineer gives the impression of always playing catch up which slows adoption not only to the desktop, but to the server.
In short, Linux needs to be popular enough that I get to use it at work instead of windows. That will require a higher level of desktop popularity that it currently enjoys.
Also, in the end, cigarrettes do cause cancer and other lung-related diseases, while playing Everquest is no more dangerous than any kind of computer use (obesity and heart condition due to incufficient exercize and so on).
I wouldn't say that. There may not be physical risks, but my cousin's moron friend is now going to fail his second senior year of high school because he skipped school to play everquest. He's nineteen so his parents can't/won't FORCE him to go, and he goes to friends houses (most of his friends have graduated) to play, making his parents believe that he went to shcool.
Granted his parents bear some responsibility. They are paying for his car, his insurence, his computer, his internet access, and his NeverRest account. Still the game has him completely addicted. I heard him complaining just today that he to get on to roll for an item. He said that he hated everquest, but not playing would be 'insane'.
Trust me, there is addiction there (at least with him), and he is suffering serious negative side effects. Maybe not physical, but he's pretty much flushed his future employment prospects if he doesn't change things soon.
There are a number of people who 'invented' the television. Farnsworth invented television in it's current common form, namely the CRT, scan lines etcetera. Other functional forms predated Farnsworth's model by many years, most were electromechanical in nature, and the most common involved a rapidly rotating wheel with holes in it.
Farnsworth invented what was known a television set, and the basic techlology that brought acceptable television to the masses.
Sonce you asked, I have a number of memories from long before I could speak, or even had a concept of language, and I can remember having thoughts that I can now put into words, so I don't buy the tripe that many psycologists spout that language is necessary for cognition.
My earliest involves lying in my crib looking up at a crib toy my mother had made for me. It was made from wooden spools she had colored with crayons, and strung through a long shoelace like thing. In retrospect it could not have been a shoelace, since it would have had to been at least four feet long, but it was long and flat like an older style shoelace, it had shoelace ends on it, and it was red. She tied it across the top rails of my crib.
I can remember being bored, and looking for something to do. I remember wanting to play with a different toy but it wasn't there right then. I have an impression that it was to the left of my head, but I couldn't get to it, which would make it likely that I wasn't rolling over, or wasn't mobile enough to find it. I believe the toy may have been a rattle. I can clearly remember reaching up to play with it, but changing my mind because it wasn't that interesting of a toy. I also have the impression that other people were watching me, and commmenting on my actions.
I later confirmed the existence and particulars of the toy my mother created for me, and the fact that I never seemed interested in playing with it. This corroborated my memory that the toy was boring, and that I had other much more interesting toys. Strangely, I don't remember those.
I can also remember learning to walk using one of those baby walkers. The kind you generally put a kid into, so they can't fall down. It lets their feet touch the ground, and they can move around. However I don't remember being in it, I remember grabbing on to it, and walking behind it as I pushed it around.
I tend to think that the memories are there, but are not indexed well. There has been some research into hypnotic regression that can access some of these memories, however if the memory isn't there or isn't accessible, the human mind will 'remember' things that never happened, and these will be as real as any other memory. The only real way to tell them apart is by confirming them with surrounding facts, such as the 'shoelace' and spools toy my mother made. It was gone before I could ever sit up alone, but I was later able to describe it to her in detail.
Memory is a tricky thing. At a guess, I would say that the brain learns how to index what it expierences. Very early memories would be from a few pointers that made possibly by mere chance.
For myself, I have pretty much consistent memories since about four. Obviously I've forgotten a lot, but I can easily remember most major events from about four years old on.
The idea behind ALICE is that people are stupid
on
ALICE vs. ALICE
·
· Score: 1
If I recall the article correctly (photocopied and left on a desk half a year ago, so I don't know what magazine (or was it printed from a website?) it was from, and some of the details have started to fade), ALICE started as the idea that people actually said very few things to one another. The creator hypothized that most of human conversation was accounted for by comparatively few canned phrases and some simple rules. Eliza worked on similar principles.
ALICE annoyed several AI researchers because it ISN'T intelligent. It simply fakes human behaivor quite well, and when it is noticed that there is a deficiency in it's conversational ability, that is simply fixed. It's not processing meaning from what you say, it's simply repeating things you say with some bit of random crap thrown in.
The groundbreaking discovery behind ALICE isn't algorithmic. In that, it's not very different from ELIZA. The database of responses is larger, and in general it is better at picking what to say. Really the amazing thing is how little people actually say to each other, and how easy it is to use canned responses to simulate a human.
Damnit, I hate it when I accidently click off the entry window and hit submit by accident. NOTE TO SLASHCODE AUTHORS... HOW ABOUT HAVING PREVIEW BE DEFAULT INSTEAD OF SUBMIT.
Now to repost what I was saying.
Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.
It's a pretty thought, but not realistic. There is no such thing as total freedom. You make tradeoffs between freedom and safety all the time, and YOUR freedom vs MY freedom as well.
Drivers licenses restrict freedom, but keep people who are not competent to drive off the road (actually I think they aren't nearly tough enough, but that's a different rant).
You are not free to go and set up a medical practice without proving that you DO in fact have some sort of medical training. This keeps people safe from con artists, and quacks.
These restrict some freedoms, but actually grant others. People can drive, and be reasonably sure that the other drivers aren't totally wreckless. People can go to a doctor and be reasonably sure that he actually has some medical training.
Do people who shouldn't drive still drive? Yes, but the filter of the law keeps those who shouldn't from doing so. Con artists still practice 'medicine' but the filter of the law stops a lot from doing so, and provides a way to punish those who do.
No mater what, there are restrictions on freedom vs security. Should people be free to use alcohol? I would venture that most everyone reading this would say yes. What if they use copious quantities of alcohol, then climb behind the drivers seat of a car? Most anyone should be able to drink, most anyone should be able to drive, but the two together is an iota of your freedom that you (probably willingly) have given up in order for greater safety
There IS in fact a line between freedom and safety. The more freedom you officially get, the less safety you have. Interestingly enough, after a point, the more freedom you officially have, the less you may have in reality. Take many third world countries as an example, particularly after a governmental collapse. There is no government imposed restrictions on freedom, but is there freedom? Nope. The guys with the guns get to make the decisions.
I actually like the words of the declaration of independance.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
All too often it stops here, but there is much much more.
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Even more often, this is all people get. They seem to think that the rest (the actual substance) is somehow unrelated.
It is interesting that Pursuit of Happiness is listed last.
--That to secure these rights,
Life, Liberty and the bursuit of Happiness. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Quite often, particularly here on Slashdot, we get the juvinile libritarian viewpoint that anyone telling you that you can't do something is wrong. I know one individual who claims to believe that "Whatever you do is allright as long as you don't screw anyone else over." Which would be a nice thought if he wasn't constantly screwing over other people, and believing that he isn't. Government exists not only to protect us from predatory individuals whether terrorist or CEO, but also from thoughtles individuals who exercise their 'rights' while causing others to have to clean up after them.
In my view, the substance of the laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 aren't unreasonable. What's unreasonable is that they are permanant reactions to a what should be a temporary situation. It would have been better to pass all these things as one law that gave lawmakers and citizens a simple quick and easy to jetteson it when the situation changed.
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Now we get to the intersting part.
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It is perhaps of note that safety is listed first there, and happiness is once again listed last.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
I just like that part.
Government, indeed society is about drawing the line between freedom and security. Some restrictions on actions actually grant us freedom. The error is to make a knee jerk reaction just after a tragedy.
The line between safety and freedom will also be situational. During WWII there were blackouts in europe. People wern't allowed to have lights on at night. This protected the cities from a very real threat of bombing. Now when there aren't daily bombng raids, this would be a silly law, and with some of the newer nightvision technology would be now anyway, but at the time it temporarily exchanged some fredom for a little security.
The question the NSA seems to be asking is "Has the proper location for this line changed?", and if so, "Where should it be now?"
The no compromise ideal you espouse is a nice pretty idealistic viewpoint, but doesn't stand up to reality. You have traded many, many 'freedoms' for better security. You may not consider them freedoms, but if the laws governing them didn't exist, you might.
Should I be able to have some form of weapon to protect myself? I think so, but where should the line be drawn? Rocks, clubs, knives, firearms, guns[1], moarters, missiles, nuclear warheads?
I tend to think it would be a bad idea to allow most people to have access to nuclear warheads, and I think most people would agree with me. That is a restriction on my right to bear arms as outlined in the constitiution (it doesn't specify what is or isn't covered), but not something I mind giving up in order to keep them out of the hands of people less sane than myself.
As we move back up the list, we would get more and more people chiming in that such things should be restricted, hence the gun[1] control debate. By the time we got to rocks, I doubt very much that many would be in favor of restricting their access this being slashdot, I'm, there will likely be posts on the dangers of rocks, and even the rights of rocks not to be thrown, but that's just how things are here.
We choose every day how much freedom we want vs how much security. Sometimes the government has to step in and adjust that line. If the government makes a mistake it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it, or to decide that the government has indeed done the right thing.
---------- [1] acutal guns generally require a crew, and something to secure them. A handgun, or a hunting rifle do not qualify as guns. "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for killing this one's for..."
Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.
It's a pretty thought, but not realistic. There is no such thing as total freedom. You make tradeoffs between freedom and safety all the time, and YOUR freedom vs MY freedom as well.
Drivers licenses restrict freedom, but keep people who are not competent to drive off the road (actually I think they aren't nearly tough enough, but that's a different rant).
You are not free to go and set up a medical practice without proving that you DO in fact have some sort of medical training. This keeps people safe from con artists, and quacks.
These restrict some freedoms, but actually grant others. People can drive, and be reasonably sure that the other drivers aren't totally wreckless. People can go to a doctor and be reasonably sure that he actually has some medical training.
Do people who shouldn't drive still drive? Yes, but the filter of the law keeps those who shouldn't from doing so. Con artists still practice 'medicine' but the filter of the law stops a lot from doing so, and provides a way to punish those who do.
No mater what, there are restrictions on freedom vs security. Should people be free to use alcohol? I would venture that most everyone reading this would say yes. What if they use copious quantities of alcohol, then climb behind the drivers seat of a car? Most anyone should be able to drink, most anyone should be able to drive, but the two together is an iota of your freedom that you (probably willingly) have given up in order for greater safety.
There IS in fact a line between freedom and safety. The more freedom you officially get, the less safety you have. Interestingly enough, after a point, the more freedom you officially have, the less you may have in reality. Take many third world countries as an example, particularly after a governmental collapse. There is no government imposed restrictions on freedom, but is there freedom? Nope. The guys with the guns get to make the decisions.
I actually like the words of the declaration of independance.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
All too often it stops here, but there is much much more
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There seem to be two questions going on here. Is it legal? and Is it moral? I cover the second first.
It is absolutely moral. They are not passing it off as an original unedited version. They are saying it has been edited with explicit criteria. Criteria designed to match the sensibilities of the intended audience. There is no attempt to prevent the movie from being published, there is no attempt to tell people that their version is the only one that can be seen. Someone who wants to see the unedited version is totally free to rent it.
As far as any critic here is concerned, what business is it of yours? You are not affected in any way by such businesses. It isn't even the director's business what parts of his movie that I watch. He might have a legal concern, but for the moment I'm talking ethics.
Convince me why I shouldn't be able to see an edited movie. I reject out of hand any crap about artistic integrity, or the director's ability to divorce himself from something, as anyone with a nonnegative IQ would be able to know that an edited version is not what the director originally planned (whether edited for content, or simply to put in an extra 20 minutes of commercials). I also reject the lame argument that the context might be lost. So what? If I choose to watch an edited movie, I know full well that there may be context and continuity problems. What I choose to watch is none of your business.
I find it ironic that some of the same people who clamor for the right to do what they want with the software they buy, would clamor just as loudly that you shouldn't be able to do the same to a movie.
From a legal perspective, I believe they are likely safe with the vhs, but may run into problems with the DVD's. From what I've been able to gather, the VHS tapes are edited by actually cutting the offending tape off of the original, and blanking out the audio for offending dialogue.
There is no real copying of the tapes. Rather there are physical modifications to a physical object.
The DVD's are another matter as they can not be edited so easily. They are apparently coppied, however even in that case, the original is rendered unplayable, and kept with the copies. There can be no possible piracy charge, since each copy is legitimate.
In the end however, I am brought back to my original question. What business is it of yours? How are you damaged if someone decides to utilize one of these establishments? I've read everything so far in these article, and found not a single compelling argument.
Do you not think that Trekkers & Trekkies would gladly sit through 3 hours...heck they would probably sit through 4 hours! Look at the first Movie...nothing can be as boring as that...and it made a great deal of money!
Speaking as a Trekker myself, I would gladly sit thorugh 3 hours of good action, story, etc to be in the Trek Universe on a big screen with a super sound system. And I think that I would love to see a resolution of Wil's charactor from the Trek universe...
Get the novel.
But to answer your point, the pressure to keep a movie under 2 hours comes not from moviegoers, but from cinemas. They want to be able to run a movie every two hours. That's why most movies are only 90-100 minutes long. Sometimes special movies can go over that without too much problem, but as far s most moviegoers are concerned, this just isn't that special, so you get a shorter movie.
Uh, arrogance on the side of Microsoft for not setting up dual boot for Linux?
No. Arrogance in the assumption that you will ONLY be using Microsoft Operating systems. When I installed NT4 workstation, and turned my box into a triple booting machine, It detected and added Windows 95 to it's bootloader, but blew away LILO.
When I looked up triple booting instructions, I noticed that it would have been a trivial task to save the original MBR and use at as one of the options. That's really about all that Linux installers do when installing LILO or GRUP. If you dual boot with Linux and BSD, or Linux and BeOS, or Linux and some bizzare OS you wrote yourself, the installer still won't render your other OS unbootable.
Therefore it is either extreme arogance or extreme laziness on the part of Microsoft and its programmers to simply wipe away the MBR and install what THEY think you should have.
Floppies are a nice, cheap, easy to use, disposable media. They are a default bootable device. How else do you boot? Use a cdrom or cdrw? They are in many cases far cheaper, but no where nearly as convinent. CDR/RW drives don't react well to shock while writing, making them less than ideal for laptops. They are by no means standard so if you need to make a boot disk, you have to find a machine with a cdr/rw to make your disk. If only using cdr's you waste the disk if you do it wrong, making things more difficult when trying to boot expiermental custom configs.
Floppies are supported in hardware. No drivers are necessary. You plug it in and it works. The technology is so old and so well tested that it just always works. There are no arguments about protocol, or drivers or copy protection. If I'm fixing something, I KNOW the floppy will work. I don't know if a zip, cdrom, network or whatever else will work.
In school, floppies come in handy, particularly in larger schools. Imagine a cs class turning in a 1 meg zipped assignment (usually using Visual C++ these days (yes it sucks)). Now if a professor has 200-300 students in class (common in larger schools), email might work, but it could be a pain getting 300 meg/wk in your inbox isn't fun. Besides he's not likely to grade it himself. He has people to do that for him. Floppies are the easiest answer. Give him a floppy. You don't care if you ever see the floppy again, he can read it, his graders can read it, it's easy to deal with. CDR/RW drives are rare enough that requiring them could cause problems for students.
I prefer to have a floppy available even though I barely use it. It's an emergency recovery device. I would like to see something better, but it would have to be high capacity, non propritary, rock stable, have inexpensive media, be supported from hardware (no drivers needed), and in most every machine.
The guy in front could be done for dangerous driving if he admitted he did it deliberately to cause an accident, but if he can give even a halfway believable excuse (even if he only says he braked to avoid running over a rabbit) then you're screwed.
In my neck of the woods, people behind are at 100% fault even if the person in front (when stopped at an intersection for instance) throws the car in reverse and floors it. I've known a number of people who have had this happen. The cop just says "Sorry, you're SOL it's the law. If you don't like it get it changed." So far no one has.
What about the cell phones with positional tracking "for 911 safety" - they already record every conversation you make, why not just save the positional data while they're at it?
Do you really think the government can actually do this? Sure, the technology exists, but hasn't the Government repeatedly demonstrated that the competency to actually do what you suggest is sorely lacking?
The WTC attack could have easily been prevented. All the data was there (whether or not you agree with the methods). It was all on tape or on hard drives somewhere. Nobody looked at it. It wasn't correlated until after they had killed 6000 people.
There's an old saying "The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they assume the government is organized." Another states "Never ascribe to malice that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity."
I don't doubt that some in the government would like to do just what you say, but they are so tied up in ego and having all the power to themselves, that untill there are major changes in the way things are done, they'll never do much besides inter agency fighting. Homeland security was supposed to 'solve' all of that, but by all appearences, it's just caused more.
If I had teenagers, I would personally install one of these on the condition that it didn't broadcast data to anyone else, and was inadmisable as court evidence (except in the case of an accident in which case it could be used like the black boxes in aircraft).
I'm actually more afraid that some marketer will get the idea that this should broadcast data for better targeted marketing then will insist on some sort of ignition interlock so that it can't easily be disabled.
Business is far more frightening than the Government.
Linux is succeeding extremely well on the desktop when one considers the complete lack of software availibility, and our own arrogance.
Already, Linux would be just as easy for my parents to deal with. They would just scream for me to fix it. At least with Linux I get the option of doing that remotely. (I could with Windows too, but it costs a bundle).
The first main problem with Desktop Linux is that you must install it yourself. Installing Linux is infinitely more difficult than getting a machine preinstalled with windows (or Linux). A few beige box makers have at times made Linux available. One wonders why they do not now. We hear mumbles about investment return, and such, but I tend to suspect that Microsoft puts some pressure on them. Case in point is Walmart. If they piss Microsoft off and Microsoft says, "you aren't licensed as an OEM to out Windows on your computers now." Walmart can say "OK. We won't sell them with it. Computers are such a small portion of their inconme that it doesn't matter to them.
Contrast this with Dell. If Microsoft were to lean on them, Dell couldn't possibly afford to go against them. The loss of the right to put Windows on their machines would be financial suicide. Microsoft may of signed a consent decree, not to do so, but we all know how well they've lived up to such agreements in the past.
If we ignore the install proceedure, and assume that all the apps are available and set up as desired, Linux is no more difficult, and at times eaiser than Windows.
The problems with getting things released for Linux so that Linux can compete are mostly political and perceptual. The almost fanatical zeal we often have toward many aspects of computing is also a severe problem.
First off we have the GPL. This worries a lot of companies. RMS is a zealot, and a wierdo, but most everyone agrees that when he says he means something, he does. Unfortunatly that isn't good enough for a lot of people, corporate lawyers in particular. According to a lot of them, the GPL is inadequate when it comes to explicitly describing what you can and can't do with GPLed code. There are language problems that to a typical geek don't seem to be there, but to a lawyer seem to cause palpitations. Some have suggested that a section clearly defining several terms used in the GPL might help a lot.
There is also a percieved problem with the GPL and many of it's supporters. To many businessmen, it smacks of socialism. To their minds, socialism wants to take away everything they have worked to get, and give it to people who would rather not work. (Argue amongst yourselves if this is an accurate definition of socialism, I am not defining it, just pointing out how how a segment of society (and one that we need to cultivate to accepting the GPL) sees things).
The BSD liscense is more palitable to many, but the Halloween Documents would indicate that Microsoft already had stratgedy in place to counter the BSD crowd. It would seem that the 'viral' (yes I dislike the term too) nature of the GPL is something that they saw no real way to combat.
The solution here is to check with some corporate lawyers, and fix some of the ambiguity of the GPL that they seem to fear, then counter the Microsoft "GPL will make you give up all your company's secretes" FUD with reasoned, non-sarcastic, counterarguments, preferably from people who look every bit like the businessmen that Microsoft reps do. Remember, to some it's more important that you look the part than it is that you can actually fufill the part. It's life, deal with it.
Another problem is with computers and the general populace in general. The truth of the matter is that people are taught not to think. They're taught to memorize everything. If you havn't memorized how to do it, you can't do it. Linux is now different. That means that even if you developed an EXACT replica of a Microsoft GUI, the vast majority of people would have to completely rememorize everything they knew about windows before they could use it under Linux, even though they wouldn't know there was a difference unless you told them. I've actually seen people get lost because the colors on the desktop changed.
The real solution here is to get people as they enter the computer world. Get people to switch from windows to Linux, but aim at the new users. Of course to solve this problem we have to solve the problem of getting Linux preinstalled on machines, which I have the feeling won't happen untill Microsoft is slapped down hard.
Finally we as a group tend to be arrogant asses, (and I am also guilty) who tend to be very offputting to the non-geek. This won't be solved any time soon either though. It's fairly easy for one person to say "Gee, I'm being an asshole. I should change." Than it is to get a culture to do the same.
If you get shot by someone and suffer horrendous injuries, do you sue every bullet proof vest manufacturer, or gun manufacturer because they didn't base their business model around you?
Believe it or not, a lot of people are trying just that, and frightenly having a fair amount of success.
The problem in the case of Code Red, and the worm of the week wreaking havoc with Microsoft products, is one of false representation, and perhaps outright fraud.
People keep getting told from Microsoft "Our servers are stable and secure, you don't need to don't need to worry." Then something happens, and Microsoft does nothing until someone has demonstrated in an amazingly public way that their stuff in indeed vunerable.
Once that happens they issue a fix. The fix usually seems to be some method of messing up the specific method used, so minor changes to the worm make it work again.
The Open Source world on the other hand is very quick to fix any bugs they know about and can that can be fixed. More than once some of the security groups were frustrated when Red Hat or some other Linux distro maker, after being informed of a problem, releasing not only the details but a fix long before they were ready.
Microsoft has actively tried to keep anyone from finding out through any legal means about any security problems with their products. The Linux community works hard to find and fix problems.
Microsoft products are a little like the Ford Pinto of the software world. The Pinto would blow up rather spectacularly if rear ended. Ford was sued and had to fix the problem.
Had Ford voulantarily recalled the Pinto earlier (and the evidence suggested that they knew of the problem before the first Pinto was ever sold), there would have been no casue to sue them. However they tried to cover up the problem, and repeatedly denied the existence of any problem.
Microsoft knows there are vast security holes in their products. They prefer to put them out and hope no one notices. When someone does notice, they deny there is a problem, and have pushed to get anyone who tries to find such problems arrested. They are, in effect, enganged in a cover up. This is what opens them up to being sued. There is rarely a good faith effort to fix any security hole before it becomes a problem.
Contrast that with the Linux world. There are occasionaly penetrations, but there is always an effort to find and fix such problems long before such things happen.
The other problem was that IIS and WPS are often installed and running without the person even knowing it. In fairness, most linux distros seem to install and set up Apache without permission too, but at least Apache has been pretty much immune to worms for the last few years. Should you hold everyone who installed win2k on a networked machine responsible because they failed to install security patches on a server they didn't even know they were running?
Microsoft acts very irresponsibly with their software, and there should be some accountability. I wouldn't sue them just over Code Red, but take the worm of the week hitting IIS, and the worm of the week hitting Outhouse, and Microsoft's complete indifference to fixing either, and we get a pattern of indifference which is prosecutable.
A number of people are (in my opinion) being foolish and treating Blizzard, or Havas, like some horrible megacorporation that kicks puppies for fun and pursues legal action only out of sheer greed. To determine whether or not Blizzard is actually doing something wrong, I'd like some answers based on tangible facts. So, if you'd please:
1. Could BNetD have even technically included CD key-checking and otherwise verifying that the users had legit copies?
Yes. In fact if you had bothered to read the bnetd site, you would have found that they contacted blizzard and offered to do just such a thing and were rebuffed.
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," did the BNetD developer(s) actively take steps to make those checks that WOULDN'T potentially allow for cracks that would bypass those checks on BNetD servers (by exposing how the key checks are made)?
They claim that they would have, however given the technical difficulty, the fact that Blizzard wouldn't let them, and that Blizzard knew about and ignored bnetd for over two years, they didn't bother to expend the effort.
3. People here are talking about how it's Blizzard's fault for this happening, since they hadn't encrypted their Battle.net code in such a way as to make it impossible to reverse-engineer (or to do so legally). Is this not hypocrisy for open-source fans (presumably) to demand a company to close off their code yet further, in order to prevent open-source people from accessing their code without permission?
Your question is based on incorrect assumptions, and is therefore not answerable in any reasonable manner. The canonical question of this type is to ask a (never married) "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" To answer no implies that he not only has a wife, but beats her. To answer yes implies that he has a wife and used to beat her.
Blizzard knew about and ignored bnetd for over two years. The bnetd group contacted Blizzard on several occasions offering to interoperate better with them, even asking for permission to check keys against their servers. Blizzard refused, but they issued no demands, requests, or even hints that they should stop developing bnetd.
As far as anyone could tell, bnetd was ok with Blizzard, and their past actions indicated that they were ok with such servers. With Warcraft II, a server called Kali was created. Blizzard went so far as to include it on the Warcraft II cd's, even though they didn't create it.
The problem started when the warforge group (not afffiliated with bnetd) figured out how to hack (changing a single bit) warcraft III beta. Instead of suing the warforge people, they went after bnetd.
At first they claimed that bnetd had violated their IP, the EFF wrote back and said specifically what violates it, and which exact laws were being violated. Blizzard at first refused to answer, but simply demanded that bnetd be taken down because in their opinion it was a violation of the law.
The eff wrote back, and said essentially 'if you don't tell us what is in violation we will have the information put back up, and you will have to sue.'
Blizzard wrote back and said basically 'we think it violates the DMCA somewhere.'
EFF said 'where?' Here are the specific sections that cover reverse engineering, and they specifically allow what our clients did. If you do not provide specifics, the program will be replaced."
Blizzard then sued, claiming that bnetd had reverse engineered the compiled code, and copied a bug exactly. Bnetd claims that they did not, and the entire process was simply snooping their own packets while playing on a Battle net server. That is specifically allowed by the DMCA, and any other law covering such things.
According to every IP lawyer I've been able to look up and find, Blizzard has no case, and is simply engaged in malicious prosecution. I've looked for and been totally unable to find any contrary legal opinion from anyone who is educationally qualified to comment on the case and the specific laws covering it.
It is their opinion that Blizzard is engaged in a case of Barratry hoping to destroy and bankrupt those who do things they don't like. Microsoft does such things all the time. They know that they have deeper pockets, and can keep the case going long enough to bankrupt some small time developer. They were hoping that the bnetd people would roll over and play dead, now they HAVE to bring a suit to save face. One telling thing is the complete vagueness of the initial letters. The essence was "We think something on your website might be in violation of our IP, you must therefore take down your website."
I dont want to flame but an american did not invent the tv "Philo Farnsworth"-who?? im sorry but ill bet he was american , he did not invent the tv John Logie Baird as stated above was the inventor he was working in Dublin ( Ireland ) at the time i believe
You are absolutely correct that Philo Farnsworth didn't invent the concept of television. He invented the first all electronic television. link
The other individual you mentioned invented a functional Television first, however it was mechanical.He later much improved on the electronic design, and for that deserves much credit, however Farnsworth did invent television in pretty much the form we use today.
, just like americans didnt invent the Computer , no the English didnt either , a German beat them all to it just before the begining of WW11
Gee I always thought Charles Babbage was English, and in every CS book that mentions the history of the computer, Babbage is credited as it's inventor. I also thought he invented it in the 1830's, long before the First World War, let alone the second, although it is true that Babbage may not deserve all of the credit for inventing the first real computer.
I found Konrad Zuse (not 'zuze'). His machines were rather remarkable. He had paper paper tape (although he used old movie film because paper for paper tape or punch cards was in short supply), he used binary, and considered using vaccum tubes instead of relays, but found relays to be more plentiful. His machine also predated the Harvard Mark I(IBM ASCC), however that machine was apparently invented independantly, and the fact that the Z3 had predated it was not found out until after WWII. All of this information is here.
However, several full fleged computers predated Zuse's machine, including Babbage's machines, and the Turnig machine.
The jet fighter was the English , who were gracious enough to lend there jet tech to America.
Gee, my history books always said it was Germany. They were at least the first to use them AS fighters during WWII.
From here 1939 First jet aircraft is flown, Heinkel HE 178 Heinkel Germany 1942 First operational jet, ME-262 Messerschmitt Germany
It kinda looks to me like it wasn't the British, but actually the Germans who deveoped the first Jet.
Nothing againts America I still think its a great country but not everything is invented in america!.ill be moded as offtopic i presume , who cares , what i said is still true.
It's nice of you to say that we're a great country, and that you have nothing against us, (some of your aside comments would indicate otherwise, but I'll take you at your word), but what you say isn't really true. You failed to make even the most cursory of checks using google for any of the claims you made.
Since when does ITAR apply to scientific papers written by civillians?? If ITAR and DMCA apply to scientific papers isn't that a blatent violation of the first amendment??
It might be, but publishing the results isn't the only thing you can be nailed for. The publication of said paper could simply be used as evidence against you that you violated the portions of the DMCA that forbid you to even do said research.
The ban on said research may suck, and may set back science ten thousand years, but it isn't unconstitutional.
It's a little like a gang of morons who thought they would be cute and videotape themselves trashing a new house. Nobody questioned their legal right to make the videotape (they questioned their intelligence for making a videotape of themselves causing thousands of dollars worth of damage, but that's a different issue), but the videotape provided a nearly open and shut case against them.
You don't necessarily have to restrict people's right to publish directly, you just have to restrict their right to do the research.
It seems is IEEE would have stood up for academic freedom they would have had a good chance of overturning ITAR and DMCA in court.
No, they probably would have only overturned the portions of it that say you can't legally publish. You would still be stuck with the rest of the abomination, and it would be more entrenched.
Actually, I bet the new pollicy comes from the company that publishes for the IEEE and wants to protect DMCA from any constitutional challenge because they make piles of money appropriating copyrights for other people's work.
More likely it's just a simple case of CYA. Every large organization does this. It really isn't that big of a deal..
The major purpose of signatures is to prove that you and another party agreed to the same thing. You do not really need a signature to make a contract. Legally binding contracts can easily be verbal (although it seems not, in select cases).
This principle is nonrepudiation (SP?). It means that it can be reasonably proved that I agreed to something.
If two parties were carrying on some sort of email type agreement, there is a record of what each party says.
Now if one party were to allege that something had been changed or tampered with, there may be a problem, however if both parties agree that what is presented in the emails are as they wrote or recieved them, then we have a nonrepudiated agreement.
PGP signatures serve to prove that you and no one else signed a digital document (actually that assumes your passphrase hasn't been compromised). However swearing in a court of law that you wrote or said something is just as valid of method of legally proving that you said or wrote somthing.
If this is indeed what happened in this particular case, that as far as I know it doesn't matter what kind of seal, signature, mark or whatever else is on the document. Swearing that you wrote it would indeed prove legally that you did.
Once the fact that you did write it is established, it is then only a short hop to make it a legally binding document. This is done all the time for verbal agreements.
It is a good idea not to allow some high stakes agreements to be legally binding if verbal, this is because people can remember differently. In the case of email however there isn't this problem. You get the general spirit of a verbal agreement without the problems of misremembering what was agreed to, or claiming of misunderstanding.
Why? Buzzword Bingo. It's hard enough to compete with Microsoft to get a persons attention, and convince them to try a new OS. And, when the average person looks for a "alternative" Linux is the most obvious choice. FreeBSD gets only a small fraction of that attention, even if it is technically equivalent (or better in some people's opinion).
Actually, although "Buzzword Bingo" may be a part of it, Linux was actually just in the right place at the right time with the right people running the project.
The technical differences between Linux and the BSD variants aren't that great. They are both basicaly UNIX. Maybe Linux isn't in name, but in function it is well within expected variation of UNIX systems.
Could BSD replace Linux? Absolutely. Will it? I tend to doubt it. There is already a lot of work invested in getting Linux to where it is that would have to be redone for BSD.
Then there is the issues over GPL. No matter your feelings on the GPL, it may have some serious use. The power of the GPL vs other licenses was first shown to me in the Halloween documents under code forking. The basic conclusion (and ESR appears to agree) that using a license like the GPL makes code forking non advantageous, whereas the BSD scheme gets several subtly incompatible operating systems.
If I, as a developer make cool changes to BSD, I may be tempted to fork the code. I get better credit that way, and I can try to sell it (I don't morally see anything wrong with that).
On the other hand, with something under GPL, I can't close the code, so there is much less motivation to fork it.
If a company needs a change to something under the BSD license, they will change it, and perhaps sell it, trying to eke out a little extra profit. If they need something added to a GPL project, suddenly there is a large organization with resources to devote to development of the software. They can keep it inhouse, but why?
The GPL therefore leads to a larger developer base, simply because the GPL seems to inhibit code forking without prohibiting it (yes code CAN fork, but is much rarer under GPL software).
This larger developer base leads to better support, and a larger mind share. This leads to more developers choosing Linux using the GPL over BSD variants, which in turn increasees the Linux mindshare over BSD, repeating the cycle. This itself leads to the "buzzword bingo" you refrence.
Is BSD technically superior to Linux? I can't say for sure, but everyone I've ever talked to who has used and examined both seems to think so. Would I use BSD if I were running a business? Probably not. Linux has fewrer driver problems, the differences among the distributions is minimal, and the track record of Linux not having numerous subtly incompatible code forks is much better, making me more likely to use Linux. If support for my BSD variant dries up, (assuming it is an Open Source variant) I can always support it myself, but that's expensive. Support can also dry up for Linux, but which is more likely? A BSD variant falling into an unmaintained state, or Linux?
Linux has yet to truely fork. There are really only a couple of main stable kernel versions, and I expect 2.2 to go away before too long. The other versions usually get merged eventually into the main tree, so they aren't a big deal. Anyone who needs a stable mission critical system wouldn't think of running anything but a stable release, unless vital functionality was only provided by an alternative. BSD does not have his continuity of code, this is, I feel, one of the main reasons for Linux's rise.
The other main reason being Linus being the right person in the right place at the right time.
There are also weaker versions of tear gas (irritant gas?) that are often used to break up protests in some countries. It isn't plesant, and has the tendency to make you want to be elsewhere, but isn't nearly as bad as the real tear gas.
(ot) In the Dominican Republic, I saw the strangest thing. There was a huelga (translates as strike, but more resembels a riot). There were rocks and molitov cocktails being thrown by protestors, and tear gas and rubber bullets being shot by police. At noon, everyone went home for lunch and then siesta, at 2:00 everyone came back and resumed the protest.
As for the goo, I tend to doubt it will be used ON protestors. More likely it will be used to prevent passage across a particular area. Slime a nice perimeter around something, and it makes it very difficult to get through. It would be a good substitute for a fence when you need a barrier in a few seconds.
Had Bemer or IBM, his employer at the time, patented the escape concept, he or they could own a sizable chunk of the world's technology right now.
If he had indeed patented this in 1960, the patent would have expired by now. Even if it took a few years for him to get the patent, the 17 years would be long over.
Very true, but since the concept is so useful and pervasive, there would have been a monopoly that would have been very difficult to break. Others might have started comming in in the 80's, but it would have taken almost until now for there to be any sizable dent in their share.
Slashdot Mirror
but does everyone else think it is so critical?
There is a degree of criticality. I personally don't care if Linux is #1 on the desktop, for that matter with OS X I wouldn't mind seeing Mac take over th #1 slot. However if we wan't to be able to continue to use Linux it needs to have a degree of popularity among 'desktop' users. I want more mainstream software. More games, more applications, particularly specialized applications. I keep windows around mostly for games now, but also to be able to use and mess with some specialized software.
I could use WINE or WINEX, or I could go to VMware, but I have windows, I had to pay for it anyway, so I got it.
We need Linux to be popular enough that it's not sane not to release software for it. We need Linux to be popular that it's not sane to release hardware drivers for it. Open is better, but I'll settle for closed drivers if a particular piece of hardware is significantly better.
There needs to be a level of popularity on the desktop, or a significant number of companies won't consider using it server side. It's just the business mentality.
We need Linux to be popular enough to get vendor support with either software and drivers, or standards and specifications so we can easily interoperate. Constantly having to reverse engineer gives the impression of always playing catch up which slows adoption not only to the desktop, but to the server.
In short, Linux needs to be popular enough that I get to use it at work instead of windows. That will require a higher level of desktop popularity that it currently enjoys.
Also, in the end, cigarrettes do cause cancer and other lung-related diseases, while playing Everquest is no more dangerous than any kind of computer use (obesity and heart condition due to incufficient exercize and so on).
I wouldn't say that. There may not be physical risks, but my cousin's moron friend is now going to fail his second senior year of high school because he skipped school to play everquest. He's nineteen so his parents can't/won't FORCE him to go, and he goes to friends houses (most of his friends have graduated) to play, making his parents believe that he went to shcool.
Granted his parents bear some responsibility. They are paying for his car, his insurence, his computer, his internet access, and his NeverRest account. Still the game has him completely addicted. I heard him complaining just today that he to get on to roll for an item. He said that he hated everquest, but not playing would be 'insane'.
Trust me, there is addiction there (at least with him), and he is suffering serious negative side effects. Maybe not physical, but he's pretty much flushed his future employment prospects if he doesn't change things soon.
There are a number of people who 'invented' the television. Farnsworth invented television in it's current common form, namely the CRT, scan lines etcetera. Other functional forms predated Farnsworth's model by many years, most were electromechanical in nature, and the most common involved a rapidly rotating wheel with holes in it.
Farnsworth invented what was known a television set, and the basic techlology that brought acceptable television to the masses.
Sonce you asked, I have a number of memories from long before I could speak, or even had a concept of language, and I can remember having thoughts that I can now put into words, so I don't buy the tripe that many psycologists spout that language is necessary for cognition.
My earliest involves lying in my crib looking up at a crib toy my mother had made for me. It was made from wooden spools she had colored with crayons, and strung through a long shoelace like thing. In retrospect it could not have been a shoelace, since it would have had to been at least four feet long, but it was long and flat like an older style shoelace, it had shoelace ends on it, and it was red. She tied it across the top rails of my crib.
I can remember being bored, and looking for something to do. I remember wanting to play with a different toy but it wasn't there right then. I have an impression that it was to the left of my head, but I couldn't get to it, which would make it likely that I wasn't rolling over, or wasn't mobile enough to find it. I believe the toy may have been a rattle. I can clearly remember reaching up to play with it, but changing my mind because it wasn't that interesting of a toy. I also have the impression that other people were watching me, and commmenting on my actions.
I later confirmed the existence and particulars of the toy my mother created for me, and the fact that I never seemed interested in playing with it. This corroborated my memory that the toy was boring, and that I had other much more interesting toys. Strangely, I don't remember those.
I can also remember learning to walk using one of those baby walkers. The kind you generally put a kid into, so they can't fall down. It lets their feet touch the ground, and they can move around. However I don't remember being in it, I remember grabbing on to it, and walking behind it as I pushed it around.
I tend to think that the memories are there, but are not indexed well. There has been some research into hypnotic regression that can access some of these memories, however if the memory isn't there or isn't accessible, the human mind will 'remember' things that never happened, and these will be as real as any other memory. The only real way to tell them apart is by confirming them with surrounding facts, such as the 'shoelace' and spools toy my mother made. It was gone before I could ever sit up alone, but I was later able to describe it to her in detail.
Memory is a tricky thing. At a guess, I would say that the brain learns how to index what it expierences. Very early memories would be from a few pointers that made possibly by mere chance.
For myself, I have pretty much consistent memories since about four. Obviously I've forgotten a lot, but I can easily remember most major events from about four years old on.
If I recall the article correctly (photocopied and left on a desk half a year ago, so I don't know what magazine (or was it printed from a website?) it was from, and some of the details have started to fade), ALICE started as the idea that people actually said very few things to one another. The creator hypothized that most of human conversation was accounted for by comparatively few canned phrases and some simple rules. Eliza worked on similar principles.
ALICE annoyed several AI researchers because it ISN'T intelligent. It simply fakes human behaivor quite well, and when it is noticed that there is a deficiency in it's conversational ability, that is simply fixed. It's not processing meaning from what you say, it's simply repeating things you say with some bit of random crap thrown in.
The groundbreaking discovery behind ALICE isn't algorithmic. In that, it's not very different from ELIZA. The database of responses is larger, and in general it is better at picking what to say. Really the amazing thing is how little people actually say to each other, and how easy it is to use canned responses to simulate a human.
Damnit, I hate it when I accidently click off the entry window and hit submit by accident. NOTE TO SLASHCODE AUTHORS... HOW ABOUT HAVING PREVIEW BE DEFAULT INSTEAD OF SUBMIT.
..."
Now to repost what I was saying.
Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.
It's a pretty thought, but not realistic. There is no such thing as total freedom. You make tradeoffs between freedom and safety all the time, and YOUR freedom vs MY freedom as well.
Drivers licenses restrict freedom, but keep people who are not competent to drive off the road (actually I think they aren't nearly tough enough, but that's a different rant).
You are not free to go and set up a medical practice without proving that you DO in fact have some sort of medical training. This keeps people safe from con artists, and quacks.
These restrict some freedoms, but actually grant others. People can drive, and be reasonably sure that the other drivers aren't totally wreckless. People can go to a doctor and be reasonably sure that he actually has some medical training.
Do people who shouldn't drive still drive? Yes, but the filter of the law keeps those who shouldn't from doing so. Con artists still practice 'medicine' but the filter of the law stops a lot from doing so, and provides a way to punish those who do.
No mater what, there are restrictions on freedom vs security. Should people be free to use alcohol? I would venture that most everyone reading this would say yes. What if they use copious quantities of alcohol, then climb behind the drivers seat of a car? Most anyone should be able to drink, most anyone should be able to drive, but the two together is an iota of your freedom that you (probably willingly) have given up in order for greater safety
There IS in fact a line between freedom and safety. The more freedom you officially get, the less safety you have. Interestingly enough, after a point, the more freedom you officially have, the less you may have in reality. Take many third world countries as an example, particularly after a governmental collapse. There is no government imposed restrictions on freedom, but is there freedom? Nope. The guys with the guns get to make the decisions.
I actually like the words of the declaration of independance.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
All too often it stops here, but there is much much more.
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Even more often, this is all people get. They seem to think that the rest (the actual substance) is somehow unrelated.
It is interesting that Pursuit of Happiness is listed last.
--That to secure these rights,
Life, Liberty and the bursuit of Happiness.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Quite often, particularly here on Slashdot, we get the juvinile libritarian viewpoint that anyone telling you that you can't do something is wrong. I know one individual who claims to believe that "Whatever you do is allright as long as you don't screw anyone else over." Which would be a nice thought if he wasn't constantly screwing over other people, and believing that he isn't. Government exists not only to protect us from predatory individuals whether terrorist or CEO, but also from thoughtles individuals who exercise their 'rights' while causing others to have to clean up after them.
In my view, the substance of the laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 aren't unreasonable. What's unreasonable is that they are permanant reactions to a what should be a temporary situation. It would have been better to pass all these things as one law that gave lawmakers and citizens a simple quick and easy to jetteson it when the situation changed.
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Now we get to the intersting part.
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It is perhaps of note that safety is listed first there, and happiness is once again listed last.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
I just like that part.
Government, indeed society is about drawing the line between freedom and security. Some restrictions on actions actually grant us freedom. The error is to make a knee jerk reaction just after a tragedy.
The line between safety and freedom will also be situational. During WWII there were blackouts in europe. People wern't allowed to have lights on at night. This protected the cities from a very real threat of bombing. Now when there aren't daily bombng raids, this would be a silly law, and with some of the newer nightvision technology would be now anyway, but at the time it temporarily exchanged some fredom for a little security.
The question the NSA seems to be asking is "Has the proper location for this line changed?", and if so, "Where should it be now?"
The no compromise ideal you espouse is a nice pretty idealistic viewpoint, but doesn't stand up to reality. You have traded many, many 'freedoms' for better security. You may not consider them freedoms, but if the laws governing them didn't exist, you might.
Should I be able to have some form of weapon to protect myself? I think so, but where should the line be drawn? Rocks, clubs, knives, firearms, guns[1], moarters, missiles, nuclear warheads?
I tend to think it would be a bad idea to allow most people to have access to nuclear warheads, and I think most people would agree with me. That is a restriction on my right to bear arms as outlined in the constitiution (it doesn't specify what is or isn't covered), but not something I mind giving up in order to keep them out of the hands of people less sane than myself.
As we move back up the list, we would get more and more people chiming in that such things should be restricted, hence the gun[1] control debate. By the time we got to rocks, I doubt very much that many would be in favor of restricting their access this being slashdot, I'm, there will likely be posts on the dangers of rocks, and even the rights of rocks not to be thrown, but that's just how things are here.
We choose every day how much freedom we want vs how much security. Sometimes the government has to step in and adjust that line. If the government makes a mistake it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it, or to decide that the government has indeed done the right thing.
----------
[1] acutal guns generally require a crew, and something to secure them. A handgun, or a hunting rifle do not qualify as guns. "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for killing this one's for
Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.
It's a pretty thought, but not realistic. There is no such thing as total freedom. You make tradeoffs between freedom and safety all the time, and YOUR freedom vs MY freedom as well.
Drivers licenses restrict freedom, but keep people who are not competent to drive off the road (actually I think they aren't nearly tough enough, but that's a different rant).
You are not free to go and set up a medical practice without proving that you DO in fact have some sort of medical training. This keeps people safe from con artists, and quacks.
These restrict some freedoms, but actually grant others. People can drive, and be reasonably sure that the other drivers aren't totally wreckless. People can go to a doctor and be reasonably sure that he actually has some medical training.
Do people who shouldn't drive still drive? Yes, but the filter of the law keeps those who shouldn't from doing so. Con artists still practice 'medicine' but the filter of the law stops a lot from doing so, and provides a way to punish those who do.
No mater what, there are restrictions on freedom vs security. Should people be free to use alcohol? I would venture that most everyone reading this would say yes. What if they use copious quantities of alcohol, then climb behind the drivers seat of a car? Most anyone should be able to drink, most anyone should be able to drive, but the two together is an iota of your freedom that you (probably willingly) have given up in order for greater safety.
There IS in fact a line between freedom and safety. The more freedom you officially get, the less safety you have. Interestingly enough, after a point, the more freedom you officially have, the less you may have in reality. Take many third world countries as an example, particularly after a governmental collapse. There is no government imposed restrictions on freedom, but is there freedom? Nope. The guys with the guns get to make the decisions.
I actually like the words of the declaration of independance.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
All too often it stops here, but there is much much more
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There seem to be two questions going on here. Is it legal? and Is it moral? I cover the second first.
It is absolutely moral. They are not passing it off as an original unedited version. They are saying it has been edited with explicit criteria. Criteria designed to match the sensibilities of the intended audience. There is no attempt to prevent the movie from being published, there is no attempt to tell people that their version is the only one that can be seen. Someone who wants to see the unedited version is totally free to rent it.
As far as any critic here is concerned, what business is it of yours? You are not affected in any way by such businesses. It isn't even the director's business what parts of his movie that I watch. He might have a legal concern, but for the moment I'm talking ethics.
Convince me why I shouldn't be able to see an edited movie. I reject out of hand any crap about artistic integrity, or the director's ability to divorce himself from something, as anyone with a nonnegative IQ would be able to know that an edited version is not what the director originally planned (whether edited for content, or simply to put in an extra 20 minutes of commercials). I also reject the lame argument that the context might be lost. So what? If I choose to watch an edited movie, I know full well that there may be context and continuity problems. What I choose to watch is none of your business.
I find it ironic that some of the same people who clamor for the right to do what they want with the software they buy, would clamor just as loudly that you shouldn't be able to do the same to a movie.
From a legal perspective, I believe they are likely safe with the vhs, but may run into problems with the DVD's. From what I've been able to gather, the VHS tapes are edited by actually cutting the offending tape off of the original, and blanking out the audio for offending dialogue.
There is no real copying of the tapes. Rather there are physical modifications to a physical object.
The DVD's are another matter as they can not be edited so easily. They are apparently coppied, however even in that case, the original is rendered unplayable, and kept with the copies. There can be no possible piracy charge, since each copy is legitimate.
In the end however, I am brought back to my original question. What business is it of yours? How are you damaged if someone decides to utilize one of these establishments? I've read everything so far in these article, and found not a single compelling argument.
Do you not think that Trekkers & Trekkies would gladly sit through 3 hours...heck they would probably sit through 4 hours! Look at the first Movie...nothing can be as boring as that...and it made a great deal of money!
Speaking as a Trekker myself, I would gladly sit thorugh 3 hours of good action, story, etc to be in the Trek Universe on a big screen with a super sound system. And I think that I would love to see a resolution of Wil's charactor from the Trek universe...
Get the novel.
But to answer your point, the pressure to keep a movie under 2 hours comes not from moviegoers, but from cinemas. They want to be able to run a movie every two hours. That's why most movies are only 90-100 minutes long. Sometimes special movies can go over that without too much problem, but as far s most moviegoers are concerned, this just isn't that special, so you get a shorter movie.
Uh, arrogance on the side of Microsoft for not setting up dual boot for Linux?
No. Arrogance in the assumption that you will ONLY be using Microsoft Operating systems. When I installed NT4 workstation, and turned my box into a triple booting machine, It detected and added Windows 95 to it's bootloader, but blew away LILO.
When I looked up triple booting instructions, I noticed that it would have been a trivial task to save the original MBR and use at as one of the options. That's really about all that Linux installers do when installing LILO or GRUP. If you dual boot with Linux and BSD, or Linux and BeOS, or Linux and some bizzare OS you wrote yourself, the installer still won't render your other OS unbootable.
Therefore it is either extreme arogance or extreme laziness on the part of Microsoft and its programmers to simply wipe away the MBR and install what THEY think you should have.
Floppies are a nice, cheap, easy to use, disposable media. They are a default bootable device. How else do you boot? Use a cdrom or cdrw? They are in many cases far cheaper, but no where nearly as convinent. CDR/RW drives don't react well to shock while writing, making them less than ideal for laptops. They are by no means standard so if you need to make a boot disk, you have to find a machine with a cdr/rw to make your disk. If only using cdr's you waste the disk if you do it wrong, making things more difficult when trying to boot expiermental custom configs.
Floppies are supported in hardware. No drivers are necessary. You plug it in and it works. The technology is so old and so well tested that it just always works. There are no arguments about protocol, or drivers or copy protection. If I'm fixing something, I KNOW the floppy will work. I don't know if a zip, cdrom, network or whatever else will work.
In school, floppies come in handy, particularly in larger schools. Imagine a cs class turning in a 1 meg zipped assignment (usually using Visual C++ these days (yes it sucks)). Now if a professor has 200-300 students in class (common in larger schools), email might work, but it could be a pain getting 300 meg/wk in your inbox isn't fun. Besides he's not likely to grade it himself. He has people to do that for him. Floppies are the easiest answer. Give him a floppy. You don't care if you ever see the floppy again, he can read it, his graders can read it, it's easy to deal with. CDR/RW drives are rare enough that requiring them could cause problems for students.
I prefer to have a floppy available even though I barely use it. It's an emergency recovery device. I would like to see something better, but it would have to be high capacity, non propritary, rock stable, have inexpensive media, be supported from hardware (no drivers needed), and in most every machine.
The guy in front could be done for dangerous driving if he admitted he did it deliberately to cause an accident, but if he can give even a halfway believable excuse (even if he only says he braked to avoid running over a rabbit) then you're screwed.
In my neck of the woods, people behind are at 100% fault even if the person in front (when stopped at an intersection for instance) throws the car in reverse and floors it. I've known a number of people who have had this happen. The cop just says "Sorry, you're SOL it's the law. If you don't like it get it changed." So far no one has.
What about the cell phones with positional tracking "for 911 safety" - they already record every conversation you make, why not just save the positional data while they're at it?
Do you really think the government can actually do this? Sure, the technology exists, but hasn't the Government repeatedly demonstrated that the competency to actually do what you suggest is sorely lacking?
The WTC attack could have easily been prevented. All the data was there (whether or not you agree with the methods). It was all on tape or on hard drives somewhere. Nobody looked at it. It wasn't correlated until after they had killed 6000 people.
There's an old saying "The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they assume the government is organized." Another states "Never ascribe to malice that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity."
I don't doubt that some in the government would like to do just what you say, but they are so tied up in ego and having all the power to themselves, that untill there are major changes in the way things are done, they'll never do much besides inter agency fighting. Homeland security was supposed to 'solve' all of that, but by all appearences, it's just caused more.
If I had teenagers, I would personally install one of these on the condition that it didn't broadcast data to anyone else, and was inadmisable as court evidence (except in the case of an accident in which case it could be used like the black boxes in aircraft).
I'm actually more afraid that some marketer will get the idea that this should broadcast data for better targeted marketing then will insist on some sort of ignition interlock so that it can't easily be disabled.
Business is far more frightening than the Government.
Linux is succeeding extremely well on the desktop when one considers the complete lack of software availibility, and our own arrogance.
Already, Linux would be just as easy for my parents to deal with. They would just scream for me to fix it. At least with Linux I get the option of doing that remotely. (I could with Windows too, but it costs a bundle).
The first main problem with Desktop Linux is that you must install it yourself. Installing Linux is infinitely more difficult than getting a machine preinstalled with windows (or Linux). A few beige box makers have at times made Linux available. One wonders why they do not now. We hear mumbles about investment return, and such, but I tend to suspect that Microsoft puts some pressure on them. Case in point is Walmart. If they piss Microsoft off and Microsoft says, "you aren't licensed as an OEM to out Windows on your computers now." Walmart can say "OK. We won't sell them with it. Computers are such a small portion of their inconme that it doesn't matter to them.
Contrast this with Dell. If Microsoft were to lean on them, Dell couldn't possibly afford to go against them. The loss of the right to put Windows on their machines would be financial suicide. Microsoft may of signed a consent decree, not to do so, but we all know how well they've lived up to such agreements in the past.
If we ignore the install proceedure, and assume that all the apps are available and set up as desired, Linux is no more difficult, and at times eaiser than Windows.
The problems with getting things released for Linux so that Linux can compete are mostly political and perceptual. The almost fanatical zeal we often have toward many aspects of computing is also a severe problem.
First off we have the GPL. This worries a lot of companies. RMS is a zealot, and a wierdo, but most everyone agrees that when he says he means something, he does. Unfortunatly that isn't good enough for a lot of people, corporate lawyers in particular. According to a lot of them, the GPL is inadequate when it comes to explicitly describing what you can and can't do with GPLed code. There are language problems that to a typical geek don't seem to be there, but to a lawyer seem to cause palpitations. Some have suggested that a section clearly defining several terms used in the GPL might help a lot.
There is also a percieved problem with the GPL and many of it's supporters. To many businessmen, it smacks of socialism. To their minds, socialism wants to take away everything they have worked to get, and give it to people who would rather not work. (Argue amongst yourselves if this is an accurate definition of socialism, I am not defining it, just pointing out how how a segment of society (and one that we need to cultivate to accepting the GPL) sees things).
The BSD liscense is more palitable to many, but the Halloween Documents would indicate that Microsoft already had stratgedy in place to counter the BSD crowd. It would seem that the 'viral' (yes I dislike the term too) nature of the GPL is something that they saw no real way to combat.
The solution here is to check with some corporate lawyers, and fix some of the ambiguity of the GPL that they seem to fear, then counter the Microsoft "GPL will make you give up all your company's secretes" FUD with reasoned, non-sarcastic, counterarguments, preferably from people who look every bit like the businessmen that Microsoft reps do. Remember, to some it's more important that you look the part than it is that you can actually fufill the part. It's life, deal with it.
Another problem is with computers and the general populace in general. The truth of the matter is that people are taught not to think. They're taught to memorize everything. If you havn't memorized how to do it, you can't do it. Linux is now different. That means that even if you developed an EXACT replica of a Microsoft GUI, the vast majority of people would have to completely rememorize everything they knew about windows before they could use it under Linux, even though they wouldn't know there was a difference unless you told them. I've actually seen people get lost because the colors on the desktop changed.
The real solution here is to get people as they enter the computer world. Get people to switch from windows to Linux, but aim at the new users. Of course to solve this problem we have to solve the problem of getting Linux preinstalled on machines, which I have the feeling won't happen untill Microsoft is slapped down hard.
Finally we as a group tend to be arrogant asses, (and I am also guilty) who tend to be very offputting to the non-geek. This won't be solved any time soon either though. It's fairly easy for one person to say "Gee, I'm being an asshole. I should change." Than it is to get a culture to do the same.
If you get shot by someone and suffer horrendous injuries, do you sue every bullet proof vest manufacturer, or gun manufacturer because they didn't base their business model around you?
Believe it or not, a lot of people are trying just that, and frightenly having a fair amount of success.
The problem in the case of Code Red, and the worm of the week wreaking havoc with Microsoft products, is one of false representation, and perhaps outright fraud.
People keep getting told from Microsoft "Our servers are stable and secure, you don't need to don't need to worry." Then something happens, and Microsoft does nothing until someone has demonstrated in an amazingly public way that their stuff in indeed vunerable.
Once that happens they issue a fix. The fix usually seems to be some method of messing up the specific method used, so minor changes to the worm make it work again.
The Open Source world on the other hand is very quick to fix any bugs they know about and can that can be fixed. More than once some of the security groups were frustrated when Red Hat or some other Linux distro maker, after being informed of a problem, releasing not only the details but a fix long before they were ready.
Microsoft has actively tried to keep anyone from finding out through any legal means about any security problems with their products. The Linux community works hard to find and fix problems.
Microsoft products are a little like the Ford Pinto of the software world. The Pinto would blow up rather spectacularly if rear ended. Ford was sued and had to fix the problem.
Had Ford voulantarily recalled the Pinto earlier (and the evidence suggested that they knew of the problem before the first Pinto was ever sold), there would have been no casue to sue them. However they tried to cover up the problem, and repeatedly denied the existence of any problem.
Microsoft knows there are vast security holes in their products. They prefer to put them out and hope no one notices. When someone does notice, they deny there is a problem, and have pushed to get anyone who tries to find such problems arrested. They are, in effect, enganged in a cover up. This is what opens them up to being sued. There is rarely a good faith effort to fix any security hole before it becomes a problem.
Contrast that with the Linux world. There are occasionaly penetrations, but there is always an effort to find and fix such problems long before such things happen.
The other problem was that IIS and WPS are often installed and running without the person even knowing it. In fairness, most linux distros seem to install and set up Apache without permission too, but at least Apache has been pretty much immune to worms for the last few years. Should you hold everyone who installed win2k on a networked machine responsible because they failed to install security patches on a server they didn't even know they were running?
Microsoft acts very irresponsibly with their software, and there should be some accountability. I wouldn't sue them just over Code Red, but take the worm of the week hitting IIS, and the worm of the week hitting Outhouse, and Microsoft's complete indifference to fixing either, and we get a pattern of indifference which is prosecutable.
A number of people are (in my opinion) being foolish and treating Blizzard, or Havas, like some horrible megacorporation that kicks puppies for fun and pursues legal action only out of sheer greed. To determine whether or not Blizzard is actually doing something wrong, I'd like some answers based on tangible facts. So, if you'd please:
1. Could BNetD have even technically included CD key-checking and otherwise verifying that the users had legit copies?
Yes. In fact if you had bothered to read the bnetd site, you would have found that they contacted blizzard and offered to do just such a thing and were rebuffed.
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," did the BNetD developer(s) actively take steps to make those checks that WOULDN'T potentially allow for cracks that would bypass those checks on BNetD servers (by exposing how the key checks are made)?
They claim that they would have, however given the technical difficulty, the fact that Blizzard wouldn't let them, and that Blizzard knew about and ignored bnetd for over two years, they didn't bother to expend the effort.
3. People here are talking about how it's Blizzard's fault for this happening, since they hadn't encrypted their Battle.net code in such a way as to make it impossible to reverse-engineer (or to do so legally). Is this not hypocrisy for open-source fans (presumably) to demand a company to close off their code yet further, in order to prevent open-source people from accessing their code without permission?
Your question is based on incorrect assumptions, and is therefore not answerable in any reasonable manner. The canonical question of this type is to ask a (never married) "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" To answer no implies that he not only has a wife, but beats her. To answer yes implies that he has a wife and used to beat her.
Blizzard knew about and ignored bnetd for over two years. The bnetd group contacted Blizzard on several occasions offering to interoperate better with them, even asking for permission to check keys against their servers. Blizzard refused, but they issued no demands, requests, or even hints that they should stop developing bnetd.
As far as anyone could tell, bnetd was ok with Blizzard, and their past actions indicated that they were ok with such servers. With Warcraft II, a server called Kali was created. Blizzard went so far as to include it on the Warcraft II cd's, even though they didn't create it.
The problem started when the warforge group (not afffiliated with bnetd) figured out how to hack (changing a single bit) warcraft III beta. Instead of suing the warforge people, they went after bnetd.
At first they claimed that bnetd had violated their IP, the EFF wrote back and said specifically what violates it, and which exact laws were being violated. Blizzard at first refused to answer, but simply demanded that bnetd be taken down because in their opinion it was a violation of the law.
The eff wrote back, and said essentially 'if you don't tell us what is in violation we will have the information put back up, and you will have to sue.'
Blizzard wrote back and said basically 'we think it violates the DMCA somewhere.'
EFF said 'where?' Here are the specific sections that cover reverse engineering, and they specifically allow what our clients did. If you do not provide specifics, the program will be replaced."
Blizzard then sued, claiming that bnetd had reverse engineered the compiled code, and copied a bug exactly. Bnetd claims that they did not, and the entire process was simply snooping their own packets while playing on a Battle net server. That is specifically allowed by the DMCA, and any other law covering such things.
According to every IP lawyer I've been able to look up and find, Blizzard has no case, and is simply engaged in malicious prosecution. I've looked for and been totally unable to find any contrary legal opinion from anyone who is educationally qualified to comment on the case and the specific laws covering it.
It is their opinion that Blizzard is engaged in a case of Barratry hoping to destroy and bankrupt those who do things they don't like. Microsoft does such things all the time. They know that they have deeper pockets, and can keep the case going long enough to bankrupt some small time developer. They were hoping that the bnetd people would roll over and play dead, now they HAVE to bring a suit to save face. One telling thing is the complete vagueness of the initial letters. The essence was "We think something on your website might be in violation of our IP, you must therefore take down your website."
I dont want to flame but an american did not invent the tv "Philo Farnsworth"-who?? im sorry but ill bet he was american , he did not invent the tv John Logie Baird as stated above was the inventor he was working in Dublin ( Ireland ) at the time i believe
You are absolutely correct that Philo Farnsworth didn't invent the concept of television. He invented the first all electronic television.
link
The other individual you mentioned invented a functional Television first, however it was mechanical.He later much improved on the electronic design, and for that deserves much credit, however Farnsworth did invent television in pretty much the form we use today.
, just like americans didnt invent the Computer , no the English didnt either , a German beat them all to it just before the begining of WW11
Gee I always thought Charles Babbage was English, and in every CS book that mentions the history of the computer, Babbage is credited as it's inventor. I also thought he invented it in the 1830's, long before the First World War, let alone the second, although it is true that Babbage may not deserve all of the credit for inventing the first real computer.
I found Konrad Zuse (not 'zuze'). His machines were rather remarkable. He had paper paper tape (although he used old movie film because paper for paper tape or punch cards was in short supply), he used binary, and considered using vaccum tubes instead of relays, but found relays to be more plentiful. His machine also predated the Harvard Mark I(IBM ASCC), however that machine was apparently invented independantly, and the fact that the Z3 had predated it was not found out until after WWII. All of this information is here.
However, several full fleged computers predated Zuse's machine, including Babbage's machines, and the Turnig machine.
The jet fighter was the English , who were gracious enough to lend there jet tech to America.
Gee, my history books always said it was Germany. They were at least the first to use them AS fighters during WWII.
From here
1939 First jet aircraft is flown, Heinkel HE 178 Heinkel Germany
1942 First operational jet, ME-262 Messerschmitt Germany
It kinda looks to me like it wasn't the British, but actually the Germans who deveoped the first Jet.
Nothing againts America I still think its a great country but not everything is invented in america!.ill be moded as offtopic i presume , who cares , what i said is still true.
It's nice of you to say that we're a great country, and that you have nothing against us, (some of your aside comments would indicate otherwise, but I'll take you at your word), but what you say isn't really true. You failed to make even the most cursory of checks using google for any of the claims you made.
Am I the only person who like Jar-Jar from TPM?
Probably. Even the three year olds from my mother's day-care class hated Jar-Jar. So much for Jar-Jar's alleged appeal to children.
My first clue that it was propaganda was the url:
a .h tml
http://members.truepath.com/objective/propagand
I don't really know about anyone else, but I tend to think that anyting with the filenmame "propaganda.html" would tend to fall into that category.
Alright, anyone who didn't catch that this was a joke within the first ten seconds out of the pool now.
Since when does ITAR apply to scientific papers written by civillians?? If ITAR and DMCA apply to scientific papers isn't that a blatent violation of the first amendment??
It might be, but publishing the results isn't the only thing you can be nailed for. The publication of said paper could simply be used as evidence against you that you violated the portions of the DMCA that forbid you to even do said research.
The ban on said research may suck, and may set back science ten thousand years, but it isn't unconstitutional.
It's a little like a gang of morons who thought they would be cute and videotape themselves trashing a new house. Nobody questioned their legal right to make the videotape (they questioned their intelligence for making a videotape of themselves causing thousands of dollars worth of damage, but that's a different issue), but the videotape provided a nearly open and shut case against them.
You don't necessarily have to restrict people's right to publish directly, you just have to restrict their right to do the research.
It seems is IEEE would have stood up for academic freedom they would have had a good chance of overturning ITAR and DMCA in court.
No, they probably would have only overturned the portions of it that say you can't legally publish. You would still be stuck with the rest of the abomination, and it would be more entrenched.
Actually, I bet the new pollicy comes from the company that publishes for the IEEE and wants to protect DMCA from any constitutional challenge because they make piles of money appropriating copyrights for other people's work.
More likely it's just a simple case of CYA. Every large organization does this. It really isn't that big of a deal..
The major purpose of signatures is to prove that you and another party agreed to the same thing. You do not really need a signature to make a contract. Legally binding contracts can easily be verbal (although it seems not, in select cases).
This principle is nonrepudiation (SP?). It means that it can be reasonably proved that I agreed to something.
If two parties were carrying on some sort of email type agreement, there is a record of what each party says.
Now if one party were to allege that something had been changed or tampered with, there may be a problem, however if both parties agree that what is presented in the emails are as they wrote or recieved them, then we have a nonrepudiated agreement.
PGP signatures serve to prove that you and no one else signed a digital document (actually that assumes your passphrase hasn't been compromised). However swearing in a court of law that you wrote or said something is just as valid of method of legally proving that you said or wrote somthing.
If this is indeed what happened in this particular case, that as far as I know it doesn't matter what kind of seal, signature, mark or whatever else is on the document. Swearing that you wrote it would indeed prove legally that you did.
Once the fact that you did write it is established, it is then only a short hop to make it a legally binding document. This is done all the time for verbal agreements.
It is a good idea not to allow some high stakes agreements to be legally binding if verbal, this is because people can remember differently. In the case of email however there isn't this problem. You get the general spirit of a verbal agreement without the problems of misremembering what was agreed to, or claiming of misunderstanding.
Why? Buzzword Bingo. It's hard enough to compete with Microsoft to get a persons attention, and convince them to try a new OS. And, when the average person looks for a "alternative" Linux is the most obvious choice. FreeBSD gets only a small fraction of that attention, even if it is technically equivalent (or better in some people's opinion).
Actually, although "Buzzword Bingo" may be a part of it, Linux was actually just in the right place at the right time with the right people running the project.
The technical differences between Linux and the BSD variants aren't that great. They are both basicaly UNIX. Maybe Linux isn't in name, but in function it is well within expected variation of UNIX systems.
Could BSD replace Linux? Absolutely. Will it? I tend to doubt it. There is already a lot of work invested in getting Linux to where it is that would have to be redone for BSD.
Then there is the issues over GPL. No matter your feelings on the GPL, it may have some serious use. The power of the GPL vs other licenses was first shown to me in the Halloween documents under code forking. The basic conclusion (and ESR appears to agree) that using a license like the GPL makes code forking non advantageous, whereas the BSD scheme gets several subtly incompatible operating systems.
If I, as a developer make cool changes to BSD, I may be tempted to fork the code. I get better credit that way, and I can try to sell it (I don't morally see anything wrong with that).
On the other hand, with something under GPL, I can't close the code, so there is much less motivation to fork it.
If a company needs a change to something under the BSD license, they will change it, and perhaps sell it, trying to eke out a little extra profit. If they need something added to a GPL project, suddenly there is a large organization with resources to devote to development of the software. They can keep it inhouse, but why?
The GPL therefore leads to a larger developer base, simply because the GPL seems to inhibit code forking without prohibiting it (yes code CAN fork, but is much rarer under GPL software).
This larger developer base leads to better support, and a larger mind share. This leads to more developers choosing Linux using the GPL over BSD variants, which in turn increasees the Linux mindshare over BSD, repeating the cycle. This itself leads to the "buzzword bingo" you refrence.
Is BSD technically superior to Linux? I can't say for sure, but everyone I've ever talked to who has used and examined both seems to think so. Would I use BSD if I were running a business? Probably not. Linux has fewrer driver problems, the differences among the distributions is minimal, and the track record of Linux not having numerous subtly incompatible code forks is much better, making me more likely to use Linux. If support for my BSD variant dries up, (assuming it is an Open Source variant) I can always support it myself, but that's expensive. Support can also dry up for Linux, but which is more likely? A BSD variant falling into an unmaintained state, or Linux?
Linux has yet to truely fork. There are really only a couple of main stable kernel versions, and I expect 2.2 to go away before too long. The other versions usually get merged eventually into the main tree, so they aren't a big deal. Anyone who needs a stable mission critical system wouldn't think of running anything but a stable release, unless vital functionality was only provided by an alternative. BSD does not have his continuity of code, this is, I feel, one of the main reasons for Linux's rise.
The other main reason being Linus being the right person in the right place at the right time.
There are also weaker versions of tear gas (irritant gas?) that are often used to break up protests in some countries. It isn't plesant, and has the tendency to make you want to be elsewhere, but isn't nearly as bad as the real tear gas.
(ot) In the Dominican Republic, I saw the strangest thing. There was a huelga (translates as strike, but more resembels a riot). There were rocks and molitov cocktails being thrown by protestors, and tear gas and rubber bullets being shot by police. At noon, everyone went home for lunch and then siesta, at 2:00 everyone came back and resumed the protest.
As for the goo, I tend to doubt it will be used ON protestors. More likely it will be used to prevent passage across a particular area. Slime a nice perimeter around something, and it makes it very difficult to get through. It would be a good substitute for a fence when you need a barrier in a few seconds.
...some innocent trampling of my rights.
Great line. I'll enjoy thinking about that one all day.
Had Bemer or IBM, his employer at the time, patented the escape concept, he or they could own a sizable chunk of the world's technology right now.
If he had indeed patented this in 1960, the patent would have expired by now. Even if it took a few years for him to get the patent, the 17 years would be long over.
Very true, but since the concept is so useful and pervasive, there would have been a monopoly that would have been very difficult to break. Others might have started comming in in the 80's, but it would have taken almost until now for there to be any sizable dent in their share.