I think what happens a lot of the time in cases like this is an anti knee-jerk response. That is, when someone says that maybe women are intellectually inferior, we're afraid of making the knee-jerk response and call that person sexist. Instead we say "now wait a minute, maybe he has a point." But the problem with that is that this person doesn't have a point. In this case we're talking about a male economics professor who seems to think he knows more about cranial biology and psychology then his biology and psychology professor peers. To make an analogy, if an economics professor went in front of a group of professors (some of whom are biology professors) and said "We need to more closely examine the issues of evolution because it may just be that the Intelligent Design people are on to something," I don't think anyone would have any trouble writing him off as a lunatic (and rightly so). When this guy said that women may be mentally inferior to men, he was on the same scientific grounding as Pat Roberts when he says evolution is false.
Although the anti knee-jerk reaction may be better than a knee-jerk reaction, the best solution would be just to recognize sexism and idiocy when we see it. And when an economics professor says that fewer women in the math and science fields is an effect of inferior mental development, that economics professor is sexist and ignorant. No need to beat around the bush, it's a fact.
I noticed that the command-tab function finally works as expected by switching between the most often used programs rather than simpy by order placed in the dock.
Since the establishment of the Major League Baseball Players Association salaries for baseball players have soared making it the most successful union in history. My question is why, with all that music artists have to go through, is the music industry one of the only large industries to have absolutely no union whatsoever?
There's a fourth and most viable option. If somehow watermarking is not available to the public but yet necessary to have music played then small band can call the ACLU, sue, and easily win. That would be a clear violation of our rights to free speech and I have trouble thinking that any amount of RIAA lawyer could convince a judge that a small band does not have the right to record and distribute their own music.
Now for my little rant about these legislation that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to pass. I used to be an alarmist, but not so much anymore, now that I've seen the effects of past legislation. When the telecommunications companies lobbied to have the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed it was clearly short term money over long term prosperity. Since then that law has been a factor in the recent bankruptcy of Worldcom. Furthermore radios are losing listeners at such an incredible rate (because all radio stations are owned by a single company, they all lack any original or new content). Look at the bullshit copyright extension that Disney got through Congress to save the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Although this law made it possible for Disney to continue profiting off of Mickey, take a look at the state of TV and movie right now. Maybe it's just me, but with a few exceptions, it seems to suck hardcore. There are almost no good TV shows on anymore, there are few good movies made anymore, and I think this can be attributed to the inability to recycle ideas. I think if all of these laws pass to "protect" against piracy I think it may be once and for all the end to the recording industry. Record sales are already dropping (as a combination of piracy and shitty music) and the laws will only help to expedite the process. Always remember one thing, in the end, we have all the control. If we don't like a cd, then we don't have to buy it. The record industry cannot exist so long as we don't buy cds.
Although I disagree that 90% of Americans don't care about anyone but themselves, I do agree with the testament that a society that isn't shocked won't stand up to fight. Unfortunately, Mr. AC's statement that a society raised on television has nothing left to shock it is untrue. In the 1970's America was shocked by live pictures streaming in from the Vietnam war. Pictures of thousands being deported from Bosnia shocked the nation into reacting. I think the reason so few are reacting about laws like the DMCA and the Telecommunications act of 1996 is that few people see the negative long term effects of those legislation until it is too late. Fewer still congressment and legislators step forward to challenge these laws (some congressmen didn't even know what they were voting on... they just passed the law knowing that doing so would mean more bucks for the next campaign). I think now that the results from the Telecommunications act are beginning to surface (WorldCom's collapse can be contributed to the rapid and unregulated expansion that the Tel. Act allowed), maybe it will spur enough people into action to take a look at what their elected representatives are doing to their country, and then hopefully the problems will fix themselves. I have to admit, I have my doubts, but to return to the parent poster... Foreign countries have their problems too. France has recently taken dangerous leanings to the right and the rest of Europe appears to be ready to follow (even England is shifting to the right beyond America). Italy still remains among the only modern Democratic states to convict those guilty of blasphemy (a legal term not used in the United States history).
You're missing the point. In 1984 all of those monitoring devices were hidden from the public. The TVs watched people in their houses, but people were never officially told about it. Because of the internet, information about the likes of carnivore have gotten out to the public, and should its use become so prevalent as to piss off the general public, the internet can serve as grounds for people to gather and protest. In the end we live in a democratic republic and if something pisses enough people off, the people's votes will reflect that. Technology allows the information to be freely expressed so that bad things will be able to piss off the public and not be kept secret.
A lot of people are complaining that QT6 doesn't support MPEG-2 when Apple promised it would. I just thought I'd mention that the MPEG-2 support is being sold as an add on for educational customers for $19.99.
"MS *could* use it to take complete control over your PC - allowing only MS tested and approved code. But that doesn't benefit them, and so, it won't ever happen. "
Ok, lemme map out how Microsoft can easily benefit from this. In order for code to be Microsoft approved, Microsoft technicians have to scan over the source code. Obviously this will be an expensive task so Microsoft will charge for this process. A big program (like an office suite) will have significantly more code and will cost the producers of the program a big fee for the Microsoft Technicians who will go over the code and check for security vulnerablities. Then small programs (like shareware utilities, software updates, and I dunno, other small programs), because they're small and their producers probably don't have enough money to pay high fees will get either low fees or no fees. So here in this scenario they make a boat load of money for "approving code" (not something I would trust to Microsoft anyway, but that's besides the point). Then their second form of benefit is the ellimination of all GPL software. Remember that Microsoft calls the GPL cancer software and because it's open source nature it's a security vulnerablity (even though we obviously all disagree). So you say that it would not benefit, both of these things seem quite possible and I think that would give Microsoft quite a benefit.
Isn't it a settlement, and not a punishment. Typically in a settlement both parties agree upon terms. So then Microsoft does have a say in what the punishment should be. If the two cannot agree then the case goes further and the government decides punishment. Anyway, it seems a lot of people are missing that it is a settlement and that in a settlement both sides do indeed have to agree.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what happens a lot of the time in cases like this is an anti knee-jerk response. That is, when someone says that maybe women are intellectually inferior, we're afraid of making the knee-jerk response and call that person sexist. Instead we say "now wait a minute, maybe he has a point." But the problem with that is that this person doesn't have a point. In this case we're talking about a male economics professor who seems to think he knows more about cranial biology and psychology then his biology and psychology professor peers. To make an analogy, if an economics professor went in front of a group of professors (some of whom are biology professors) and said "We need to more closely examine the issues of evolution because it may just be that the Intelligent Design people are on to something," I don't think anyone would have any trouble writing him off as a lunatic (and rightly so). When this guy said that women may be mentally inferior to men, he was on the same scientific grounding as Pat Roberts when he says evolution is false.
Although the anti knee-jerk reaction may be better than a knee-jerk reaction, the best solution would be just to recognize sexism and idiocy when we see it. And when an economics professor says that fewer women in the math and science fields is an effect of inferior mental development, that economics professor is sexist and ignorant. No need to beat around the bush, it's a fact.
I noticed that the command-tab function finally works as expected by switching between the most often used programs rather than simpy by order placed in the dock.
Since the establishment of the Major League Baseball Players Association salaries for baseball players have soared making it the most successful union in history. My question is why, with all that music artists have to go through, is the music industry one of the only large industries to have absolutely no union whatsoever?
There's a fourth and most viable option. If somehow watermarking is not available to the public but yet necessary to have music played then small band can call the ACLU, sue, and easily win. That would be a clear violation of our rights to free speech and I have trouble thinking that any amount of RIAA lawyer could convince a judge that a small band does not have the right to record and distribute their own music.
Now for my little rant about these legislation that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to pass. I used to be an alarmist, but not so much anymore, now that I've seen the effects of past legislation. When the telecommunications companies lobbied to have the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed it was clearly short term money over long term prosperity. Since then that law has been a factor in the recent bankruptcy of Worldcom. Furthermore radios are losing listeners at such an incredible rate (because all radio stations are owned by a single company, they all lack any original or new content). Look at the bullshit copyright extension that Disney got through Congress to save the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Although this law made it possible for Disney to continue profiting off of Mickey, take a look at the state of TV and movie right now. Maybe it's just me, but with a few exceptions, it seems to suck hardcore. There are almost no good TV shows on anymore, there are few good movies made anymore, and I think this can be attributed to the inability to recycle ideas. I think if all of these laws pass to "protect" against piracy I think it may be once and for all the end to the recording industry. Record sales are already dropping (as a combination of piracy and shitty music) and the laws will only help to expedite the process. Always remember one thing, in the end, we have all the control. If we don't like a cd, then we don't have to buy it. The record industry cannot exist so long as we don't buy cds.
Although I disagree that 90% of Americans don't care about anyone but themselves, I do agree with the testament that a society that isn't shocked won't stand up to fight. Unfortunately, Mr. AC's statement that a society raised on television has nothing left to shock it is untrue. In the 1970's America was shocked by live pictures streaming in from the Vietnam war. Pictures of thousands being deported from Bosnia shocked the nation into reacting. I think the reason so few are reacting about laws like the DMCA and the Telecommunications act of 1996 is that few people see the negative long term effects of those legislation until it is too late. Fewer still congressment and legislators step forward to challenge these laws (some congressmen didn't even know what they were voting on... they just passed the law knowing that doing so would mean more bucks for the next campaign). I think now that the results from the Telecommunications act are beginning to surface (WorldCom's collapse can be contributed to the rapid and unregulated expansion that the Tel. Act allowed), maybe it will spur enough people into action to take a look at what their elected representatives are doing to their country, and then hopefully the problems will fix themselves. I have to admit, I have my doubts, but to return to the parent poster... Foreign countries have their problems too. France has recently taken dangerous leanings to the right and the rest of Europe appears to be ready to follow (even England is shifting to the right beyond America). Italy still remains among the only modern Democratic states to convict those guilty of blasphemy (a legal term not used in the United States history).
You're missing the point. In 1984 all of those monitoring devices were hidden from the public. The TVs watched people in their houses, but people were never officially told about it. Because of the internet, information about the likes of carnivore have gotten out to the public, and should its use become so prevalent as to piss off the general public, the internet can serve as grounds for people to gather and protest. In the end we live in a democratic republic and if something pisses enough people off, the people's votes will reflect that. Technology allows the information to be freely expressed so that bad things will be able to piss off the public and not be kept secret.
A lot of people are complaining that QT6 doesn't support MPEG-2 when Apple promised it would. I just thought I'd mention that the MPEG-2 support is being sold as an add on for educational customers for $19.99.
Isn't it a settlement, and not a punishment. Typically in a settlement both parties agree upon terms. So then Microsoft does have a say in what the punishment should be. If the two cannot agree then the case goes further and the government decides punishment. Anyway, it seems a lot of people are missing that it is a settlement and that in a settlement both sides do indeed have to agree.