A high spot?!? You DO realize that most of Florida is barely above sea level? The highest point in Florida is only 345 feet above sea level, the lowest high point of any state in the US.
No, wire shelving is hot. Like hot with live electricity, if you have a badly grounded case sitting on a metal wire shelf. Metal shelving is unsuitable for electronics, unless you're using proper rackmount equipment with proper electrical wiring.
Self-heating cans have been around for ages and ages. I remember seeing ads for self-heating canned foods for camping back in the early 1980s. I first saw a can of self-heating sake in the Tokyo Hilton in 1996, ever since then I've been kicking myself for not buying it from the overpriced mini-bar. Self-heating foods are a staple of MREs in the US Military, it uses the same exothermic chemical packs.
OK, you realize that there are serious 3D scanners that have been on the market for many years? Products like the Cyberware Scanners are in the industry standard, used by major film studios and CG effects companies, engineers, game programmers, etc. They produce platform-independent datasets like VRML, DXF, IGES, etc etc. They use lasers to scan the surface of an object, since video has insufficient resolution to produce accurate 3D surface models (which should be obvious from looking at the crappy models from Project Splinescan). So.. just what was the point of inventing an cheap but inferior technology that can never produce detailed, accurate models?
You're missing the point. Your fashion showcase still has the practical value of covering a body and shielding it from the sun, prying eyes, the cold, etc. A program may have no practical purpose, but it is still a set of practical instructions that command a microprocessor chip to do specific practical things.
You're getting close to one of the fundamental divisions in art. There are "practical arts" and "fine arts."
A practical art is something like architecture or fashion design, something where the aesthetic properties are completely secondary to the functional properties. Most people assign practical arts to the category of "craft" rather than art.
A fine art is something that has no practical application whatsoever, and solely exists for aesthetic reasons. Like a painting, photograph, etc.
Programming can never be a fine art because a program is nothing but a specification of functional properties. Programming can be a highly developed craft, but it cannot be art.
SCOTUS ruling on the definition of Art
on
Is Programming Art?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The US Supreme Court made a definitive ruling on the definition of art in the 1929 case Brancusi vs. US Treasury Dept.
Constantin Brancusi imported his famous metal sculpture "Bird in Flight" and was assessed a 40% tariff by Customs, categorizing it as "Machined metal implements, Kitchen Utensils, and Hospital Supplies" rather than the 0% tariff applied to art objects. Brancusi sued the Treasury Department to recover the tariff.
Eventually the Supreme Court agreed with Brancusi that the object was art rather than a mere machined metal object. The core definition of an art object is: something made with the express purpose of being an art object, made by someone recognized as an artist by other artists.
Well, that is a fairly circular definition, in part, but it does clearly lay out the rules. Artists (those people society generally recognizes as artists) get to define art. The corollary: programmers do not get to define their work as art.
I'm not sure how the ACLU/KKK issue is analogous here. The KKK is a political group, Grokster is a corporation, there's a clear line between corporate law and civil rights law. But let's leave that aside as I generally see what you're arguing.
I think you are getting to the core issue, it appears that the EFF definitely feels that EVERY attempt to regulate Internet activity is a restriction on individual freedoms. They live in a SF utopia where freedom knows no limits. Those of us who live in the Real World know better. You cannot defend every freedom, especially those not recognized in the Constitution. I'm more concerned about protecting my rights that are clearly set out in the Constitution, rights that are already in jeopardy and with far too few defenders.
There's the core issue. Big bucks were spent on researching and emulating an effect that can be done for pennies with real ink, paper, and a brush. Some things do not need to be simulated, they are so cheap and easy to do in the original media. The best input for brushwork is ink and paper, and a scanner. People often ask me how I get my brushwork effects in my computer graphics, I tell them I do brushwork with a real brush.
Perhaps it is incorrect to characterize by problems with the EFF is that they are "run ineffectively," I would assert the problem is that they are ineffective. Money given to the EFF has not won victories that protected the rights of online users. They have wasted their efforts on losing cases like Grokster, trying to protect corporate interests from government regulation. Grokster wasn't about civil rights, it was about civil law, about a greedy corporation trying to preserve its ability to exploit other greedy corporations out on the "lawless frontier." It was doomed, and any sensible person surely knew that regulation would eventually come to the "electronic frontier." It was bound to happen, there was too much corporate money at stake. So just where in this scenario do the civil rights of individuals come in? Is the EFF trying to preserve The People's "right" to use Grokster to steal music on the internet? This is why the EFF loses the big cases, they are always fighting the wrong battle, the Constitution does not enshrine the right to pirate tunes, quite the contrary it establishes Copyrights. I support copyrights, they protect me and my artworks just as well as they protect greedy robber barons like Bill Gates or the RIAA and MPAA. A frequent problem with "niche" isue advocacy is that it cannot address larger issues due to a lack of vision. This is what has happened to the EFF. Now these issues are no longer niche issues, they cut to the fundamental issues of life, commerce, government, etc. and are more properly the turf of experienced constitutional law advocates like the ACLU. This is why the EFF failures before SCOTUS are so damaging, noone can undo these failures.
There's the problem in a nutshell. I am labeled a troll because I dare to have a different opinion. Even worse, I dared to contradict a popular internet pundit.
Action speaks louder than words. I've done nothing worse than disagree with Conventional Opinion. On the other hand Cory used private data from the BB comment registration system to "out" my sooper sekrit Sakusha identity. How do you feel about a system operator revealing private registration data because he feels like being malicious towards a registered user? Isn't that right to privacy something the EFF fights for? How would they feel when their paid advocate uses his system administration privileges to attempt to harm someone else?
The facts remain: the EFF has only been up to bat TWICE in truly significant cases, specifically, the Supreme Court. They went down in flames in both Eldred and Grokster. All the other "winning" cases are insignificant in comparison, they are trivial administrative issues, not the truly fundamental rulings that would have reshaped the legal landscape. In both cases, significant harm was caused to the "Electronic Frontier" by losing these cases. The EFF is doing more harm than good.
So go ahead and try to smash me down with ad hominem attacks, completely disregard the case I present. Because Cory dislikes me, my opinions are invalid, right? Sheesh.
Gee Cory, who is embarassed? Me, who calmly and rationally lays out their reasons (unpopular though they might be) for why I think the EFF has been ineffective, and how they are taking credit for the work of other successful groups like the ACLU; or YOU, who threatened me with violence with no provocation? Who is the troll, the identifiable slashdot account with maxed-out positive karma, or the Anonymous Coward? I think it's YOU with the vendetta. You're notorious for acting psychotic whenever someone disagrees with you. You are not only embarassing yourself, but the EFF, and proving my point in the process. The EFF is a failure because it relies on people like YOU to fight their battles, people like you who cannot deal with their failures, people like you who cannot deal rationally with opposition. Until you realize that you learn more from your opponents than you learn from your allies, you will always be a failure.
The problem is that the EFF doesn't know where to fight its battles. It takes on any trendy case that involves the internet, since that grabs headlines. They do not know how to pick the important battles that might preserve civil rights, their effectiveness is diluted by trying to fight battles that can not be won. There are no such things as rights in the "electronic frontier" that are in any way separate from plain old human civil rights. The battleground is not where the EFF thinks it is. The battleground is the same place as it has always been, in the courts, in the halls of congress, etc. What we need is an organization that has a long history of fighting for civil rights on behalf of the individuals, not corporate interests. We need an organization with a proven track record of winning these cases. We need an organization that is more interested in taking the fight to the enemy than in taking credit for the wins. We need an organization with a widespread infrastructure that is ready to ramp up operations if it could only get more funding. We already have that organization, ironically, it is the organization that won most of the cases the EFF claims it won on its own. That organization: the ACLU.
OK, then you're Cory Doctorow, the one other person who knows my pseudonym. You really ought to know better than to try to post violent threats in a thread where you personally have a financial interest, as an employee of the EFF, and where it is so easy to identify you. Cory, I've been trying to avoid making it personal, but let me be more explicit: the EFF is a failure because of people like YOU, publicity whores who are more interested in headlines than legal precedents. Every dime spent on your salary is money NOT spent on someone who might actually get something done: a lawyer. The reason nobody takes the EFF seriously is because they rely on people like you that can only preach to the choir, and are out of their depths when they have to persuade opponents. You are a failure and the EFF is a failure.
OK, I'll bite. Is the EFF legally named "American Library Association" or "Federal Communciations Commission?" Because I searched the PDF you cited and there was no mention of EFF. The ALA doesn't need help from the likes of EFF, they successfully fought and won the case all on their own. But the EFF is always ready to jump in and take credit for other peoples' work.
What a load of total bullshit. The "victories" by the EFF are nothing but a list of cases where they fought for the rights of corporations to make a fast buck. Cases like JibJab.com suing to establish their right to make a buck off a Woody Guthrie song. Excuse me if I don't think this is a "victory" for the common man. Maybe the EFF should fight for something besides corporate interests. You failed to note my criterion: cases that expanded freedom or civil rights. Any cases even REMOTELY resembling that result are cases where the EFF participation was so minimal that it was insignificant. But that doesn't stop the EFF from claiming other plaintiffs' victories (i.e. ACLU) as their own.
Broadcast flag wasn't a legal case, it was a piece of proposed legislation. There never has been a broadcast flag, so it is hardly plausible to celebrate the EFF for its continuing nonexistence.
Name one lawsuit that the EFF filed or was amicus curiae that was won in a manner that expanded freedom or civil rights. You can't do it. All their cases have failed miserably, most notably Eldred, which failed so miserably that it slammed the door on future attempts to liberate copyright. The EFF and their golden boy Lessig should give up before they screw us all permanently.
EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on. In fact, some of the cases the EFF fought most heavily have been lost in a manner that substantially weakens the EFF positions. It is my opinion that the EFF should disband before it does more damage to our civil rights.
Yeah, that sort of lore is something I'd like to promote at the nearby "Isaac Newton Christian Academy." I don't know how they picked Newton as the guiding spirit for their little christian indoctrination school, but I'd like to go there and give the little K-8 kiddies a REAL lesson in what Newton was into.
If you want evidence, you could merely Google on a string like "Bill Gates Pharmaceutical Stocks." You could easily find a story from the Wall Street Journal that describes Gates' investments in Merck, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, etc. There was a really good article on Siliconvalley.com that described the full extent of Gates' pharma holdings, but alas it has gone behind their new paid archives.
Watch closely where Gates is putting his money. He is slowly and quietly liquidating his MSFT stock holdings and putting the money into Big Pharmaceutical stocks. Gates is one of the biggest Big Pharma stockholders in the world. And gee, what a surprise, his "charities" (and I use that term loosely) are solely dedicated to getting the 3rd World hooked on Big Pharma products. It appears the only monopoly more profitable than Microsoft is Pharmaceuticals.
Slashdot Mirror
A high spot?!? You DO realize that most of Florida is barely above sea level? The highest point in Florida is only 345 feet above sea level, the lowest high point of any state in the US.
No, wire shelving is hot. Like hot with live electricity, if you have a badly grounded case sitting on a metal wire shelf. Metal shelving is unsuitable for electronics, unless you're using proper rackmount equipment with proper electrical wiring.
Self-heating cans have been around for ages and ages. I remember seeing ads for self-heating canned foods for camping back in the early 1980s. I first saw a can of self-heating sake in the Tokyo Hilton in 1996, ever since then I've been kicking myself for not buying it from the overpriced mini-bar. Self-heating foods are a staple of MREs in the US Military, it uses the same exothermic chemical packs.
So, what's so special about the coffee cans now?
OK, you realize that there are serious 3D scanners that have been on the market for many years? Products like the Cyberware Scanners are in the industry standard, used by major film studios and CG effects companies, engineers, game programmers, etc. They produce platform-independent datasets like VRML, DXF, IGES, etc etc. They use lasers to scan the surface of an object, since video has insufficient resolution to produce accurate 3D surface models (which should be obvious from looking at the crappy models from Project Splinescan).
So.. just what was the point of inventing an cheap but inferior technology that can never produce detailed, accurate models?
You're missing the point. Your fashion showcase still has the practical value of covering a body and shielding it from the sun, prying eyes, the cold, etc. A program may have no practical purpose, but it is still a set of practical instructions that command a microprocessor chip to do specific practical things.
You're getting close to one of the fundamental divisions in art. There are "practical arts" and "fine arts."
A practical art is something like architecture or fashion design, something where the aesthetic properties are completely secondary to the functional properties. Most people assign practical arts to the category of "craft" rather than art.
A fine art is something that has no practical application whatsoever, and solely exists for aesthetic reasons. Like a painting, photograph, etc.
Programming can never be a fine art because a program is nothing but a specification of functional properties. Programming can be a highly developed craft, but it cannot be art.
The US Supreme Court made a definitive ruling on the definition of art in the 1929 case Brancusi vs. US Treasury Dept.
Constantin Brancusi imported his famous metal sculpture "Bird in Flight" and was assessed a 40% tariff by Customs, categorizing it as "Machined metal implements, Kitchen Utensils, and Hospital Supplies" rather than the 0% tariff applied to art objects. Brancusi sued the Treasury Department to recover the tariff.
Eventually the Supreme Court agreed with Brancusi that the object was art rather than a mere machined metal object. The core definition of an art object is: something made with the express purpose of being an art object, made by someone recognized as an artist by other artists.
Well, that is a fairly circular definition, in part, but it does clearly lay out the rules. Artists (those people society generally recognizes as artists) get to define art. The corollary: programmers do not get to define their work as art.
Correct, the EFF lost the only significant battles it took on, Eldred and Grokster.
I'm not sure how the ACLU/KKK issue is analogous here. The KKK is a political group, Grokster is a corporation, there's a clear line between corporate law and civil rights law. But let's leave that aside as I generally see what you're arguing.
I think you are getting to the core issue, it appears that the EFF definitely feels that EVERY attempt to regulate Internet activity is a restriction on individual freedoms. They live in a SF utopia where freedom knows no limits. Those of us who live in the Real World know better. You cannot defend every freedom, especially those not recognized in the Constitution. I'm more concerned about protecting my rights that are clearly set out in the Constitution, rights that are already in jeopardy and with far too few defenders.
There's the core issue. Big bucks were spent on researching and emulating an effect that can be done for pennies with real ink, paper, and a brush. Some things do not need to be simulated, they are so cheap and easy to do in the original media. The best input for brushwork is ink and paper, and a scanner. People often ask me how I get my brushwork effects in my computer graphics, I tell them I do brushwork with a real brush.
Perhaps it is incorrect to characterize by problems with the EFF is that they are "run ineffectively," I would assert the problem is that they are ineffective. Money given to the EFF has not won victories that protected the rights of online users. They have wasted their efforts on losing cases like Grokster, trying to protect corporate interests from government regulation. Grokster wasn't about civil rights, it was about civil law, about a greedy corporation trying to preserve its ability to exploit other greedy corporations out on the "lawless frontier." It was doomed, and any sensible person surely knew that regulation would eventually come to the "electronic frontier." It was bound to happen, there was too much corporate money at stake.
So just where in this scenario do the civil rights of individuals come in? Is the EFF trying to preserve The People's "right" to use Grokster to steal music on the internet? This is why the EFF loses the big cases, they are always fighting the wrong battle, the Constitution does not enshrine the right to pirate tunes, quite the contrary it establishes Copyrights. I support copyrights, they protect me and my artworks just as well as they protect greedy robber barons like Bill Gates or the RIAA and MPAA.
A frequent problem with "niche" isue advocacy is that it cannot address larger issues due to a lack of vision. This is what has happened to the EFF. Now these issues are no longer niche issues, they cut to the fundamental issues of life, commerce, government, etc. and are more properly the turf of experienced constitutional law advocates like the ACLU. This is why the EFF failures before SCOTUS are so damaging, noone can undo these failures.
There's the problem in a nutshell. I am labeled a troll because I dare to have a different opinion. Even worse, I dared to contradict a popular internet pundit.
Action speaks louder than words. I've done nothing worse than disagree with Conventional Opinion. On the other hand Cory used private data from the BB comment registration system to "out" my sooper sekrit Sakusha identity. How do you feel about a system operator revealing private registration data because he feels like being malicious towards a registered user? Isn't that right to privacy something the EFF fights for? How would they feel when their paid advocate uses his system administration privileges to attempt to harm someone else?
The facts remain: the EFF has only been up to bat TWICE in truly significant cases, specifically, the Supreme Court. They went down in flames in both Eldred and Grokster. All the other "winning" cases are insignificant in comparison, they are trivial administrative issues, not the truly fundamental rulings that would have reshaped the legal landscape. In both cases, significant harm was caused to the "Electronic Frontier" by losing these cases. The EFF is doing more harm than good.
So go ahead and try to smash me down with ad hominem attacks, completely disregard the case I present. Because Cory dislikes me, my opinions are invalid, right? Sheesh.
Gee Cory, who is embarassed? Me, who calmly and rationally lays out their reasons (unpopular though they might be) for why I think the EFF has been ineffective, and how they are taking credit for the work of other successful groups like the ACLU; or YOU, who threatened me with violence with no provocation? Who is the troll, the identifiable slashdot account with maxed-out positive karma, or the Anonymous Coward?
I think it's YOU with the vendetta. You're notorious for acting psychotic whenever someone disagrees with you. You are not only embarassing yourself, but the EFF, and proving my point in the process. The EFF is a failure because it relies on people like YOU to fight their battles, people like you who cannot deal with their failures, people like you who cannot deal rationally with opposition. Until you realize that you learn more from your opponents than you learn from your allies, you will always be a failure.
You ask a fair question.
The problem is that the EFF doesn't know where to fight its battles. It takes on any trendy case that involves the internet, since that grabs headlines. They do not know how to pick the important battles that might preserve civil rights, their effectiveness is diluted by trying to fight battles that can not be won.
There are no such things as rights in the "electronic frontier" that are in any way separate from plain old human civil rights. The battleground is not where the EFF thinks it is. The battleground is the same place as it has always been, in the courts, in the halls of congress, etc.
What we need is an organization that has a long history of fighting for civil rights on behalf of the individuals, not corporate interests. We need an organization with a proven track record of winning these cases. We need an organization that is more interested in taking the fight to the enemy than in taking credit for the wins. We need an organization with a widespread infrastructure that is ready to ramp up operations if it could only get more funding.
We already have that organization, ironically, it is the organization that won most of the cases the EFF claims it won on its own. That organization: the ACLU.
OK, then you're Cory Doctorow, the one other person who knows my pseudonym. You really ought to know better than to try to post violent threats in a thread where you personally have a financial interest, as an employee of the EFF, and where it is so easy to identify you.
Cory, I've been trying to avoid making it personal, but let me be more explicit: the EFF is a failure because of people like YOU, publicity whores who are more interested in headlines than legal precedents. Every dime spent on your salary is money NOT spent on someone who might actually get something done: a lawyer. The reason nobody takes the EFF seriously is because they rely on people like you that can only preach to the choir, and are out of their depths when they have to persuade opponents. You are a failure and the EFF is a failure.
You can do better than that, Mark.
OK, I'll bite. Is the EFF legally named "American Library Association" or "Federal Communciations Commission?" Because I searched the PDF you cited and there was no mention of EFF.
The ALA doesn't need help from the likes of EFF, they successfully fought and won the case all on their own. But the EFF is always ready to jump in and take credit for other peoples' work.
What a load of total bullshit. The "victories" by the EFF are nothing but a list of cases where they fought for the rights of corporations to make a fast buck. Cases like JibJab.com suing to establish their right to make a buck off a Woody Guthrie song. Excuse me if I don't think this is a "victory" for the common man. Maybe the EFF should fight for something besides corporate interests.
You failed to note my criterion: cases that expanded freedom or civil rights. Any cases even REMOTELY resembling that result are cases where the EFF participation was so minimal that it was insignificant. But that doesn't stop the EFF from claiming other plaintiffs' victories (i.e. ACLU) as their own.
Broadcast flag wasn't a legal case, it was a piece of proposed legislation. There never has been a broadcast flag, so it is hardly plausible to celebrate the EFF for its continuing nonexistence.
Name one lawsuit that the EFF filed or was amicus curiae that was won in a manner that expanded freedom or civil rights. You can't do it. All their cases have failed miserably, most notably Eldred, which failed so miserably that it slammed the door on future attempts to liberate copyright. The EFF and their golden boy Lessig should give up before they screw us all permanently.
EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on. In fact, some of the cases the EFF fought most heavily have been lost in a manner that substantially weakens the EFF positions. It is my opinion that the EFF should disband before it does more damage to our civil rights.
Please don't link to files using proprietary encoding formats from Microsoft.
Yeah, that sort of lore is something I'd like to promote at the nearby "Isaac Newton Christian Academy." I don't know how they picked Newton as the guiding spirit for their little christian indoctrination school, but I'd like to go there and give the little K-8 kiddies a REAL lesson in what Newton was into.
OK, when did Bill Gates ever do good and make money at the same time?
If you want evidence, you could merely Google on a string like "Bill Gates Pharmaceutical Stocks." You could easily find a story from the Wall Street Journal that describes Gates' investments in Merck, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, etc.
There was a really good article on Siliconvalley.com that described the full extent of Gates' pharma holdings, but alas it has gone behind their new paid archives.
Watch closely where Gates is putting his money. He is slowly and quietly liquidating his MSFT stock holdings and putting the money into Big Pharmaceutical stocks. Gates is one of the biggest Big Pharma stockholders in the world. And gee, what a surprise, his "charities" (and I use that term loosely) are solely dedicated to getting the 3rd World hooked on Big Pharma products.
It appears the only monopoly more profitable than Microsoft is Pharmaceuticals.