I was pretty sure that I had alreay read this article, then I remembered where, I had read it from slashdot! This is the article, I guess it was only an update to an article, but it still was already on slashdot. Well, maybe it was just so important, that someone thought it warrented a revisiting.
"If you don't want spam, don't use email." What the f??? kind of logic is that?
It's the truth isn't it? If you stop using email, you will stop getting spam. However, I never said that it is the only solution to stopping spam. But it is A solution, government intervention is not. Government imposing their will on us will not succesfully thwart spam, but it will lead to less personal freedom and make it more difficult to conduct business.
Legislation is not what we need to stop spammers. The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us. There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers. Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop. Or if you don't want spam, just don't use email.
Write your Congressmen, Senator, etc. Hell, maybe even get involved directly. Bottom Line: Voice your opinion. Here is a good start, but discussing it here is not going to change anything.
You know as well as I that if he writes his congressman, all that he'll get in return is a form letter - the congressperson won't even read his letter let alone take the time to actually send him a personalized letter back (not that I blame him, I'm sure he is very busy, but thats beyond the point). And if that doesn't work you want us to get involved directly? Come on, I mean I know that it is possible to run for city board or whatever, but that takes money and a LOT of time. And, even if he does get elected to his city board, what actual changes can he make on the national level? All that you really can do is get a lot of people to express their opinion to their congressman, or elect a new one next election. Therefore, discussing issues here IS going to make changes. Probably more changes than anyhing else that he could do. Why? Because you are able to reach a lot of people - the same people that will eventually go to the polls and vote.
Or you could pay $72 to get a copy of WinME and run them natively without a subscription.
Yeah but also you don't have to reboot into windows just to play a game and you don't have to worry about your computer crashing right before you defeat the final boss. Most importantly though, you don't have to be dependant on Microsoft to use a computer (and you're taking away some of microsoft's profits!).
How long is the movie for the fourth book going to be? The Sorcerer's Stone was only 2 or 3 hundred pages if I remember correctly, and the fourth book is over 700 pages. Will we see a five hour movie? Maybe they'll have to split it into two parts? Any ideas?
Once again, this proposition is a type of law that only hurts the innocent. Te real haters out there will continue on with there hateful websites, probably on some foreign server. But you and I (or in this case, innocent European civilians) will have to watch out that they don't accidently click on a link to a site that mentions the word nazi, or else the they'll find the KGB knocking on their door.
This is really like gun laws in the US. Real criminals can get any gun that they want through the black market, but law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops just to get a gun so that they can protect their own home.
This is a little off topic from the original article, but anyway... Maybe the US should just withdraw from the UN. After WWI, there was a league of nations. however, all of the other nations didn't seem to realize that the US was the most powerful nation. Thay all wanted to do things their own way. Therefore, we withdrew from the League of Nations and it fell apart. After that, the UN formed, it was much better than the league of nations, and we had more of a say in it. Once again though, the UN doesn't seem to realize that we, the US, is the sole reason that there even is a UN. If we withdrew from it, it would probably fall apart and something even better would form.
We probably shouldn't withdraw now (especially so close after sept. 11) but if they UN keeps treating us like we are not even a world power (I'm talking a few years down the line) then maybe we should just drop out of the UN. Who need 'em any way?
If the same laws were even proposed in the U.S., people would scream bloody murder, and it's good.
The problem is, after Sept. 11, people probably wouldn't scream bloody murder. I think that Slashdot readers probably understand that free speech is necessary for a free society, but unfortunately there are a lot of dumb/ignorant people out there that think that the U.S. should be censoring speech. It really is too bad, but if you look around you, you'll see many of your own rights gradually slipping away.
Well, I doubt if anyone is going to read this other than you crazyz, but I'll post it anyways.
Except that malaria research is still far less than it would be if the government mandated it
The problem with that argument is that at first malaria research would increase when you started to mandate research. However, if we kept forcing companies to do research that is completely non-profitable than these companies would soon go out of business and we would have no one left to force to do research. The way to truly maximize malaria research in the long run is to allow private donations to fund it.
Different people would define true capitalism differently. Without IP laws, MS wouldn't exist. That would be less government. But I don't think most people who call themselves "capitalists" want to abolish copyrights. Or patents. And more government would have done something about MS. Less government is what is doing nothing about them.
You brought up a good point here, but I think that in general people associate capitalism as more Lassez-Fare (sp?). I do agree that our IP laws need to be changed. All of these government created monopolies are not true capitalism. I think that one of the best ways to "regulate" Microsoft is not by splitting it up or any other solutions that involve large government intervention. The best way is to simply change the Intellectual Property laws that protect MS.
Ok, last post for the night, I really need to get to bed soon.
Yes, and what happens when there isn't a profit to be made(e.g. malaria) because the only people infected are too poor to pay the superinflated prices drug companies desire? And what happens when it is more profitable to keep people sick and consuming your drug than to find a cure? Oops, capitalism fails. Or rather, it succeeds. It succeeds in valuing profit over human life.
Let's see, how many communist or socialist countries have contributed anything to help stop malaria? I'm pretty sure that the answer is zero. However, private citizens of the US (a mostly capitalist country) have contributed tons of money to foundations that help fight malaria. Sure, capitalism in and of itself can't be charitable, but the private citizens within a capitalist society are able to pick up where capitalism "fails". They can only do this because they have tons of extra money as a byproduct of the success of capitalism. (Therefore, you might say that capitalism never really did fail.) If a company tries to keep people sick, rather than find a cure, than some other company will just come in and develop a cure. Capitalism succeeds again.
Wow, so I guess that's why viagra is only $0.5 a pill. And why Windows XP is only $5. I think the "when you have competition..." part is the key here. And patents eliminate competition for a set period of time. That is not a free market.
You are really just arguing for capitalism. You said it yourself, windows xp, and viagra are "not a free market." True capitalism is actually less government, not more. Patent laws are a result of people trying (though i must admit, failing) to fix some of the percieved shortcomings of capitalism. And anyways, government intervention in the area of computer and medicinal recearch would not increase the output or efficency in these areas. I agree with you that our current patent laws are not the best solution. However, more government intervention is not the best answer.
Why not tell the police everything about your moving habbits? Well, because the police would be forcing you to tell them. If I don't what to tell my nosy neighbors that I am moving, I don't have to, and nothing real bad will happen. If I don't want to tell the police that I am moving, then they will seek me out, and fine or imprison me.
Sure, it may not be that bad to tell the police everything that you do, I mean if you are innocent then what have you got to hide? That is the same view that totalitarian governments take. What happens in totalitarian governments is that all power is concentrated on few individuals, and remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You should read George Orwell's 1984. It really gives a good view of what the world would be like if we allowed the government to control every aspect of our lives.
BTW, if you pay with tax dollars instead, the benefits would be that:
a) money could be directed towards the most public good, not the most profit
That's a laugh. Tell, me just who will determine what is the most public good? It will be some high up government official that doesn't give a rat's ass about some old lady that is suffering from alzheimers. Sure, the cooperations don't really give a rat's ass either, but at least they develop the drug, because it will make a profit.
b) it could actually cost less than with a corporation, because you wouldn't be paying the 40% that is just profit into stockholder's pockets
Well, no. I hate to break it to you, but capitalism is cheaper than communism. When you have competition (which you would not have in a government controlled situation), the prices of goods are driven to their marginal cost. This is usually MUCH lower than what would seem possible. Companies are forced to be efficient, and therefore the prices of goods are low.
I must iterate, capitalism is NOT a bad thing. Sure, it prodices many things that are not necessary (baldness drugs) but the things that it produces that are necessary are much more efficient than in a non-capitalist environment.
The problem is that funding fundamental reseach that does not have direct economic gain, whether through products or important patents, runs into the prisoners dilema.
Excuse me, but is research is "fundamental", it better have a direct economic gain. Otherwise, if it has no economic gain, then what is the point of researching, if not just for fun. Think about it, what is the point of just researching pure science, unless it will actually lead to something useful.
With the exception of Watson Crick Labs, the amount of fundamental and theoretical science being done in the private sector is pathetic.
Hmmm... I think that you forgot to mention pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities, computer companies, aeronautical companies (Boeing etc...) just to name a few. Sure, all of their research may not be "fundamental" science by its strictest definition, but their research does actually lead to products that are useful to all society (national defense from boeing, anthrax vaccines from phizer) If all research and development was done publically, we would find our country crumbling much like the USSR did.
Well, I don't think that many of the digital stuffs that we create are intended to last very long. The thing about digital is that it is almost meant to be temporary. If you truly want to save something for the ages, then you will probably convert it to some sort of longer lasting form and save it in the museum where it will last forever.
Otherwise, I don't think that it really matters. I mean, our culture today probably is saving many many more artifacts that will last for thousands of years than the ancient people did.
In 4,000 years, the future cultures probably won't be able to read our cd-roms or hard drives, but they definitely will be able to undrestand our culture.
Think about it, you're sitting on an airplane on a long flight. You could play a game-boy with the small screen and sub-par graphics. Or, you could pull out and N64 and start playing it. You could maybe even do some 2 or 3 player games. How cool would that be?
I don't think I would ever spend the time to actually make one of these, but it would be cool to have one.
While RAM is getting cheaper and cheaper, it also seems that Hard Drives are getting faster and faster. Now I'm not sure about all the technical details, or the exact rate at which the speed of Hard Drives is increasing, but it seems that we may someday no longer have a need for RAM. Is this right, or am I way out in left field?
If these do actually turn out to be life, then this is one of the largest discoveries that science had ever made. If there is life on Mars, then it is obvious that it is not that difficult to create life, and there is most likely life in other solar systems as well. Maybe it is more complex than this algae-type life is. This is truly amazing.
A dumb person may play chutes and ladders for fun, while a smarter person might play chess. Just because you have to be smart in order to play chess does not make chess bad.
The same is true in operating systems. Just because it is easy doesn't make it good.
I think what he is saying is that while there may be many Windows users that are smart enough to know what they are doing, there are many dumb windows users as well. This large population of dumb users allows for the virus to propogate very quickly. Whereas, although there may be some dumb Linux users, most are rather smart. Thus in the Linux world, there is not an adequate environment for virises such as this one to spread.
Windows has hundreds, if not thousands of different trojans and email viruses that have been written for it. Not every one of them gets to be as widespread as the 'I Love You' virus or Code Red, but nonetheless they exist. The fact that there exists a poorly written email virus/trojan for the Linux operating system is not a true threat and really shouldn't deter anyone from using Linux. No matter what operating system you use, the threat of malicious code will exist.
The Trojan contains self-replicating virus-like capabilities and has similarities to the Windows-based Back Orifice tool, putting Linux boxes at risk of remote control.
Ok, does anyone remember Back Orfice as being a major threat to the Windows operating system world? The only people that have the potential to be infected by this new virus are those that are dumb enough to run the program. If you get an email from someone, and there is an attached program to it, most people wouldn't run it. I don't think that this virus has any potential to be a threat because Linux users are generally smart enough to not run every program that they get sent to them.
There is one major difference: With wireless networks, the radio waves are being sent out, these people did not actually go onto anyone's property, for the most part they just recieved the radio waves that were being sent to them. Now, when they tried to see if the router had the default password on it, that was stretching it. I would be pissed off if someone tried to break into my computer, even if it were my fault that i left in insecure.
Slashdot Mirror
I was pretty sure that I had alreay read this article, then I remembered where, I had read it from slashdot! This is the article, I guess it was only an update to an article, but it still was already on slashdot. Well, maybe it was just so important, that someone thought it warrented a revisiting.
"If you don't want spam, don't use email." What the f??? kind of logic is that?
It's the truth isn't it? If you stop using email, you will stop getting spam. However, I never said that it is the only solution to stopping spam. But it is A solution, government intervention is not. Government imposing their will on us will not succesfully thwart spam, but it will lead to less personal freedom and make it more difficult to conduct business.
Legislation is not what we need to stop spammers. The real problem is that spammers actually make money off of spamming us. There are enough dumb people out there that actually buy crap from the spammers. Just quietly delete all of you spam, and when spammers stop making money then they will eventually stop. Or if you don't want spam, just don't use email.
Write your Congressmen, Senator, etc. Hell, maybe even get involved directly. Bottom Line: Voice your opinion. Here is a good start, but discussing it here is not going to change anything.
You know as well as I that if he writes his congressman, all that he'll get in return is a form letter - the congressperson won't even read his letter let alone take the time to actually send him a personalized letter back (not that I blame him, I'm sure he is very busy, but thats beyond the point). And if that doesn't work you want us to get involved directly? Come on, I mean I know that it is possible to run for city board or whatever, but that takes money and a LOT of time. And, even if he does get elected to his city board, what actual changes can he make on the national level? All that you really can do is get a lot of people to express their opinion to their congressman, or elect a new one next election. Therefore, discussing issues here IS going to make changes. Probably more changes than anyhing else that he could do. Why? Because you are able to reach a lot of people - the same people that will eventually go to the polls and vote.
Or you could pay $72 to get a copy of WinME and run them natively without a subscription.
Yeah but also you don't have to reboot into windows just to play a game and you don't have to worry about your computer crashing right before you defeat the final boss. Most importantly though, you don't have to be dependant on Microsoft to use a computer (and you're taking away some of microsoft's profits!).
How long is the movie for the fourth book going to be? The Sorcerer's Stone was only 2 or 3 hundred pages if I remember correctly, and the fourth book is over 700 pages. Will we see a five hour movie? Maybe they'll have to split it into two parts? Any ideas?
Once again, this proposition is a type of law that only hurts the innocent. Te real haters out there will continue on with there hateful websites, probably on some foreign server. But you and I (or in this case, innocent European civilians) will have to watch out that they don't accidently click on a link to a site that mentions the word nazi, or else the they'll find the KGB knocking on their door.
This is really like gun laws in the US. Real criminals can get any gun that they want through the black market, but law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops just to get a gun so that they can protect their own home.
This is a little off topic from the original article, but anyway... Maybe the US should just withdraw from the UN. After WWI, there was a league of nations. however, all of the other nations didn't seem to realize that the US was the most powerful nation. Thay all wanted to do things their own way. Therefore, we withdrew from the League of Nations and it fell apart. After that, the UN formed, it was much better than the league of nations, and we had more of a say in it. Once again though, the UN doesn't seem to realize that we, the US, is the sole reason that there even is a UN. If we withdrew from it, it would probably fall apart and something even better would form.
We probably shouldn't withdraw now (especially so close after sept. 11) but if they UN keeps treating us like we are not even a world power (I'm talking a few years down the line) then maybe we should just drop out of the UN. Who need 'em any way?
If the same laws were even proposed in the U.S., people would scream bloody murder, and it's good.
The problem is, after Sept. 11, people probably wouldn't scream bloody murder. I think that Slashdot readers probably understand that free speech is necessary for a free society, but unfortunately there are a lot of dumb/ignorant people out there that think that the U.S. should be censoring speech. It really is too bad, but if you look around you, you'll see many of your own rights gradually slipping away.
Well, I doubt if anyone is going to read this other than you crazyz, but I'll post it anyways.
Except that malaria research is still far less than it would be if the government mandated it
The problem with that argument is that at first malaria research would increase when you started to mandate research. However, if we kept forcing companies to do research that is completely non-profitable than these companies would soon go out of business and we would have no one left to force to do research. The way to truly maximize malaria research in the long run is to allow private donations to fund it.
Different people would define true capitalism differently. Without IP laws, MS wouldn't exist. That would be less government. But I don't think most people who call themselves "capitalists" want to abolish copyrights. Or patents. And more government would have done something about MS. Less government is what is doing nothing about them.
You brought up a good point here, but I think that in general people associate capitalism as more Lassez-Fare (sp?). I do agree that our IP laws need to be changed. All of these government created monopolies are not true capitalism. I think that one of the best ways to "regulate" Microsoft is not by splitting it up or any other solutions that involve large government intervention. The best way is to simply change the Intellectual Property laws that protect MS.
Ok, last post for the night, I really need to get to bed soon.
Yes, and what happens when there isn't a profit to be made(e.g. malaria) because the only people infected are too poor to pay the superinflated prices drug companies desire? And what happens when it is more profitable to keep people sick and consuming your drug than to find a cure? Oops, capitalism fails. Or rather, it succeeds. It succeeds in valuing profit over human life.
Let's see, how many communist or socialist countries have contributed anything to help stop malaria? I'm pretty sure that the answer is zero. However, private citizens of the US (a mostly capitalist country) have contributed tons of money to foundations that help fight malaria. Sure, capitalism in and of itself can't be charitable, but the private citizens within a capitalist society are able to pick up where capitalism "fails". They can only do this because they have tons of extra money as a byproduct of the success of capitalism. (Therefore, you might say that capitalism never really did fail.) If a company tries to keep people sick, rather than find a cure, than some other company will just come in and develop a cure. Capitalism succeeds again.
Wow, so I guess that's why viagra is only $0.5 a pill. And why Windows XP is only $5. I think the "when you have competition..." part is the key here. And patents eliminate competition for a set period of time. That is not a free market.
You are really just arguing for capitalism. You said it yourself, windows xp, and viagra are "not a free market." True capitalism is actually less government, not more. Patent laws are a result of people trying (though i must admit, failing) to fix some of the percieved shortcomings of capitalism. And anyways, government intervention in the area of computer and medicinal recearch would not increase the output or efficency in these areas. I agree with you that our current patent laws are not the best solution. However, more government intervention is not the best answer.
Why not tell the police everything about your moving habbits? Well, because the police would be forcing you to tell them. If I don't what to tell my nosy neighbors that I am moving, I don't have to, and nothing real bad will happen. If I don't want to tell the police that I am moving, then they will seek me out, and fine or imprison me.
Sure, it may not be that bad to tell the police everything that you do, I mean if you are innocent then what have you got to hide? That is the same view that totalitarian governments take. What happens in totalitarian governments is that all power is concentrated on few individuals, and remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You should read George Orwell's 1984. It really gives a good view of what the world would be like if we allowed the government to control every aspect of our lives.
BTW, if you pay with tax dollars instead, the benefits would be that:
a) money could be directed towards the most public good, not the most profit
That's a laugh. Tell, me just who will determine what is the most public good? It will be some high up government official that doesn't give a rat's ass about some old lady that is suffering from alzheimers. Sure, the cooperations don't really give a rat's ass either, but at least they develop the drug, because it will make a profit.
b) it could actually cost less than with a corporation, because you wouldn't be paying the 40% that is just profit into stockholder's pockets
Well, no. I hate to break it to you, but capitalism is cheaper than communism. When you have competition (which you would not have in a government controlled situation), the prices of goods are driven to their marginal cost. This is usually MUCH lower than what would seem possible. Companies are forced to be efficient, and therefore the prices of goods are low.
I must iterate, capitalism is NOT a bad thing. Sure, it prodices many things that are not necessary (baldness drugs) but the things that it produces that are necessary are much more efficient than in a non-capitalist environment.
The problem is that funding fundamental reseach that does not have direct economic gain, whether through products or important patents, runs into the prisoners dilema.
Excuse me, but is research is "fundamental", it better have a direct economic gain. Otherwise, if it has no economic gain, then what is the point of researching, if not just for fun. Think about it, what is the point of just researching pure science, unless it will actually lead to something useful.
With the exception of Watson Crick Labs, the amount of fundamental and theoretical science being done in the private sector is pathetic.
Hmmm... I think that you forgot to mention pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities, computer companies, aeronautical companies (Boeing etc...) just to name a few. Sure, all of their research may not be "fundamental" science by its strictest definition, but their research does actually lead to products that are useful to all society (national defense from boeing, anthrax vaccines from phizer) If all research and development was done publically, we would find our country crumbling much like the USSR did.
Well, I don't think that many of the digital stuffs that we create are intended to last very long. The thing about digital is that it is almost meant to be temporary. If you truly want to save something for the ages, then you will probably convert it to some sort of longer lasting form and save it in the museum where it will last forever.
Otherwise, I don't think that it really matters. I mean, our culture today probably is saving many many more artifacts that will last for thousands of years than the ancient people did.
In 4,000 years, the future cultures probably won't be able to read our cd-roms or hard drives, but they definitely will be able to undrestand our culture.
How do you add a spell checker, if you don't mind my asking?
Think about it, you're sitting on an airplane on a long flight. You could play a game-boy with the small screen and sub-par graphics. Or, you could pull out and N64 and start playing it. You could maybe even do some 2 or 3 player games. How cool would that be?
I don't think I would ever spend the time to actually make one of these, but it would be cool to have one.
While RAM is getting cheaper and cheaper, it also seems that Hard Drives are getting faster and faster. Now I'm not sure about all the technical details, or the exact rate at which the speed of Hard Drives is increasing, but it seems that we may someday no longer have a need for RAM. Is this right, or am I way out in left field?
The site you linked to doesn't work. Please repost...
If these do actually turn out to be life, then this is one of the largest discoveries that science had ever made. If there is life on Mars, then it is obvious that it is not that difficult to create life, and there is most likely life in other solar systems as well. Maybe it is more complex than this algae-type life is. This is truly amazing.
A dumb person may play chutes and ladders for fun, while a smarter person might play chess. Just because you have to be smart in order to play chess does not make chess bad.
The same is true in operating systems. Just because it is easy doesn't make it good.
I think what he is saying is that while there may be many Windows users that are smart enough to know what they are doing, there are many dumb windows users as well. This large population of dumb users allows for the virus to propogate very quickly. Whereas, although there may be some dumb Linux users, most are rather smart. Thus in the Linux world, there is not an adequate environment for virises such as this one to spread.
Windows has hundreds, if not thousands of different trojans and email viruses that have been written for it. Not every one of them gets to be as widespread as the 'I Love You' virus or Code Red, but nonetheless they exist. The fact that there exists a poorly written email virus/trojan for the Linux operating system is not a true threat and really shouldn't deter anyone from using Linux. No matter what operating system you use, the threat of malicious code will exist.
The Trojan contains self-replicating virus-like capabilities and has similarities to the Windows-based Back Orifice tool, putting Linux boxes at risk of remote control.
Ok, does anyone remember Back Orfice as being a major threat to the Windows operating system world? The only people that have the potential to be infected by this new virus are those that are dumb enough to run the program. If you get an email from someone, and there is an attached program to it, most people wouldn't run it. I don't think that this virus has any potential to be a threat because Linux users are generally smart enough to not run every program that they get sent to them.
There is one major difference: With wireless networks, the radio waves are being sent out, these people did not actually go onto anyone's property, for the most part they just recieved the radio waves that were being sent to them. Now, when they tried to see if the router had the default password on it, that was stretching it. I would be pissed off if someone tried to break into my computer, even if it were my fault that i left in insecure.