I cringe when I see new laws being passed to limit what you can do on the internet. If you are using technology to exploit, there should be a technological solution.
Some laws are made to outlaw on the Internet that which is already illegal elsewhere. And rightly so: scamming, stealing, all those things should be as illegal on the Internet as they are in real life. This is not the US Patent office, where adding "...on the Internet" at the end suddenly turns an old thing into something new, or turns a crime into something legal. However, in some cases the law needs to be amended to take new technology into account. There are many laws that we take for granted governing telephony.
I do agree with you that bad laws are made as well: poorly drafted laws that inadvertedly curtail our freedoms while trying to achieve something good. An example: a proposed law to outlawing spam would also make legitimate mailing lists illegal. Another one: a law against music piracy (to use the common term for it) might limit what we could legally do with music that we own, such as playing it on different equipment.
Making laws to govern the Internet can be a "dark, dangerous path" indeed, beset with legislators and lobbyists who have hidden intentions. One sometimes gets suspicious that there is nothing accidental about these laws accidentally limiting our freedom. But that doesn't mean that we should not have any laws at all on principle; it means that any and all laws should pass this criterium: A law should serve the stated purpose for which is was drafted, and nothing else. No "unintentional" side effects.
"... buying IBM". That's what they used to say at Digital Equipment Corporation.
If your PHB doesn't "get it" when it comes to Linux, then he isn't going ot get "IT" full stop. And most PHB's don't.
No. It's just that Microsoft is a "safe" choice. Not safe in the sense that it guarantees continued IT services to your company, but safe in the sense that no one will hold the PHB to blame for his choice.
In the real world one would expect those 247 sued to be the biggest sharers they could find...
Of course not! They aren't really out to get all the file-sharers... they probably realise that that's a battle they cannot hope to win. What they can do is scare as many ordinary people as they can to stop them from becoming file-sharers or even downloaders. They do this by convincing them that it is a crime and that they will prosecute even the smallest file-sharer.
It's common terrorist tactics: make people believe that no place is safe. By the same token, if I were a terrorist I would make my next target not New York, not Madrid, not London and not Amsterdam, but some crowded place in a piss-ant little town somewhere in a stable but otherwise uninteresting European country. If you're terrorising people, the last thing you want is to suggest that you'll only go after the big fish.
go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.
Just stop buying from the big evil labels... but don't download their music either. It's not like there's a lot of worthwhile stuff there;-) There's plenty of independently-distributed and affordable music around, that earn the musicians a reasonable cut off the sales price, instead of the pittance they would have gotten from the big labels.
By the way, I have no problem with musicians becoming filthy rich from selling records. I do have a problem with these middlemen who have become filthy rich on the backs of musicians, and are now struggling to retain their slipping stranglehold on the industry.
This is an interesting commentary on the economic value of the two groups to society.
Society, and people or entities in it, do not reward a value voluntarily. If you give your software away for free, virtually no-one will volunteer to pay you $10 for it, even if they would have paid it if you had asked.
'cause then.. we can have the ultimate motivation for human endeavour.. profit!
I thought the ultimate motivator was sex? Just look at what kind of companies were among the first to profitably sell a service on the Internet. Hmm.... perhaps 'step 2' is selling weightless sex trips?
But seriously... this is good news; having private enterprise undertake missions to space. It'll be good to see the price of launches drop even further.
What about other carbon arrangements?
on
Buckyballs Kill Fish
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm curious to find what other carbon nano-arrangements will do to sea life (or other life for that matter). What about carbon tubes? These appear to have numerous useful applications in superstrong carbon fibers. If we build a space elevator with carbon tubes, and the cable breaks, we can expect a whole lot of this carbon stuff to end up in the ocean. I remember that earlier experiments showed that carbon tubes did not pose an environmental risk, but I've never read what these experiments actually entailed.
And no, I didn't read the article:) I do not want to register, and adding the 'partner' thing to the URL somehow doesn't work for me.
I got one of them... an extremely cool toy! But even with a beefed-up motor and battery pack, the range will be very limited and power will certainly not be sufficient to carry a serious explosive device.
The only ones you'll terrorise with this thing is your cats! Mine hate it, they hide when I fly it indoors:)
I did end up enjoying The Passion more than I thought I would.
Hmm I was rather disappointed after all the noise. The Passion is well made and rather realistic, but it is hardly controversial: we are shown the story of Christ as we already know it, blow by blow. Compare it to that other controversial movie "The Last Temptation of Christ", which was a lot more interesting and thought-provoking.
Re:Arguments in favour of manned spaceflight
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
This is a cyclic argument: manned space flight is good because it teaches us how to do manned space flight.
You're partly right... but it makes sense in light of the argument of manned space flight being too expensive. We shouldn't be put off too much by today's price tag, because by doing these missions we will learn how to do future ones more cheaply. However, if we say "manned space flight is too expensive" and not do any more missions, it will likely remain too expensive in the foreseeable future because we are not learning how to do it more cheaply. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Arguments in favour of manned spaceflight
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Mr. Weinberg argues that there is little scientific or economic value to be gained from sending people in space. I agree to some extend... there is little to be gained or learned from continuing to send up people in Space Shuttles to live in the ISS, eg. to continue doing what we have been doing for the past few decades.
However, there is much to be gained from manned missions to Mars, or from having a base on the moon. If anything, we will learn a good deal about doing manned deep space missions, and we may even learn how to do them cheaper or more efficiently. We will have to do a great many new things to accomplish these missions, which some people see as a risk. I see these not as risks, but as opportunities to push the envelope and advance the science of space flight. For too long we have been doing (relatively) safe, boring missions using proven technology like the ISS, Space Shuttle, Proton, Ariane, Soyuz and so on. All that is fine for commercial missions, but it does little to advance the science. What we need is to do new things and learn from them. I believe manned missions should be part of that, precisely because of the challenges and risks involved... one learns by doing things that are hard and untried, not by sticking with easy and safe challenges.
Lastly, mr. Weinberg refers a few times to the 'drama of people in space', as the reason why NASA and politicians are so keen on manned space flight. I see that 'drama' as a very useful spin-off: something to capture the imagination of the people, and perhaps even inspire them to pursue a career and education in aerospace or other technical vocations.
does this new law include a provision making it illegal for the recording industry to produce "copy protected" CDs?
No it doesn't, although it should. I'd like to see a law which makes 'fair use rights' into something to which we are entitled, and which the media producers shall not impede.
In the meantime, being allowed to do this is a small step forward. You're allowed to make a copy if you can... let's just hope they won't slap you with charges of cracking codes, DMCA, and other assorted laws.
If they don't want to deal with my spooge then figure out a way to hook me up with a woman who will.
Shame on you. Your elected leaders do not have a choice in this... it is the administration's GOD-GIVEN DUTY to see that you marry a suitably devout woman, and that you stay celibate before that happens (yes that also covers coralling the ole tadpole). Once you are wed, you shall have the 11 kids that your GOD demands of you. Oh, you are also required to PRAY before every meal and before going to bed, and we do expect to see you in church on Sunday. Or we'll see you in EVERLASTING DAMNATION!
(Yes, it's a joke. Sadly some people really see things exactly this way, though)
ate some of the most discusting things on the planet [...] now, nothing bothers my iron gut
I'm convinced you are on to something there. Contrast your fare with the stuff on which we rear our kids these days. Most of the food we eat is sterilised, pasturised, sanitised, and then shrink-wrapped under vacuum, transported under UV light and delivered properly cooled with not one microorganism left. The meat and produce you find on your plate has very little to do with whatever it looked like when it came off the farm. Maybe it is coincidence, but I find it suspicious that the start of the rise in the number of kids with allergy and associated problems, coincides with the start of this intense obsession with 'clean' food.
I'm sure the average windows user wouldn't want to have to play around with selecting/installing video playback software when all they want to do is playback a clip they've downloaded.
The same could be said for browsers, word processors, graphical tools, video editing software... hell, you could say the same for opererating systems: the average computer buyer doesn 't want the hassle of having to install Windows, just give him Windows right out of the box. What is that you say? There are alternatives to Windows? Well I never...
Of course it's convenient to get all of that stuff included with your operating system. But if you remember, there used to be a market for things like browsers and video playback software. That market is all but gone, thanks to Microsoft including these products with their OS. I know, there is something called Mozilla for us staunch MS-haters. But good luck trying to sell (or even give) your alternative browser to the public at large.
I don't feel too bad about MS including such things with their OS, even though I am sure producers of, say, video editing software are having nightmares about MS including that functionality with Windows in a few years time. it's hard to draw the line: sure, no one would argue against operating systems needing a decent file manager, for example. Yet people used to make a living developing and selling separate file managers, a long time ago.
What I do have a problem with, is that MS sometimes not just includes browsers and video software with the OS, but made sure that it was rather hard to install an alternative product as well. That is what they should be punished for... but this ruling doesn't really accomplish that. As far as browsers and video playback software is concerned, it's all water under the bridge, and you correctly note that it will be consumers who will be hurt by removing these from the OS. MS probably doesn't care a great deal.
I would have preferred a big fine for MS, to make it clear what is unacceptable behaviour. It has to hurt if it's to heal.
What MMO really need beside more immersion is super-servers that can host 100k + players instead of a bunch of little servers that hos 5k players. So everyone who plays a game is literally in the same world.
Actually, we need both. Together with your 'easy to use game engines', coupled with easy to adapt network systems, billing systems and server facilities, companies can create MMO games that scale up... as well as down! Especially in the MMORPG genre I see a good market for niche games that manage to capture 10k to 50k customers and can serve them profitably, rather than the next Everquest that can only survive by leeching away 150k+ customers from other MMORPGs.
also, say grandma gets infected. She is best off downloading updated definitions for her old version of symantec, and letting AV take care of it. how do you do that with no intarweb?
Grandma will get a friendly warning first, according to the article: "Fix the crap on your box asap or have your access terminated". That will give her time to get the update for her virus scanner.
Because we all know Corporations policing is a VERY GOOD THING!
It sounds scary if you put it that way...
Lets put it another way: the ISP states in their terms & conditions something like: "Subscribers are not allowed to distribute spam or worms over their connection, nor are they allowed to carry out DDOS attacks.". Doesn't sound too unreasonable, does it? Not even if the user breaks this rule unwittingly, because his computer is infected with something nasty.
A rule like this puts the responsibility for the cleanliness of the subscriber's computer firmly with that subscriber. Rightly so, since that user is in an excellent position to do something about it. It sucks being disconnected because of a worm on your machine, but the alternative is to allow the worm to continue to spread.
The only things I worry about is the accuracy of the detection mechanism used on the ISP's side, and the promptness with which they reconnect you after you fix the problem on your machine.
Slight problem: the diskette usually failed a few weeks later.
They did? All my disks were single-sided ones made double-sided, and i don't remember an unusually high failure rate. Most disks worked for years.
As for this hard-disk trick... A number of people here have already suggested a few ways by which this process may yield extra space, and all of them are bad. If you need more space, get another HD. It's not like they cost anything these days.
If I were buying a proper projector for home cinema I'd go for 1900+ but something cheap and portable to show up charts or a slideshow of my graphic work would work fine with 700.
What light output is right for you really depends on several factors. Room lighting, the screen you project on, how large that screen is, these are all factors. Also, the display technology plays a part: if you get a DLP projector, you will need to have a bulb almost twice as bright as one in an LCD projector, if you want to have an equally bright image. Sounds like bullshit, but I have seen the difference in brightness between 1200 lumen LCD and DLP projectors.
I settled on a 1200 lumen 800x600 LCD projector in the end, and I am very pleased with its performance. Sure, more lumens or more pixels is noticably nicer... but not so much more nice that I'd be willing to pay an additional $1000 for the extra quality. One very important aspect of the projector I settled on, is that it is really quiet. Bigger bulbs mean more noise, usually. It may also mean more expensive bulb replacements.
The best advise I can give to people shopping for a projector is: go to a good store... preferably to a store like the one I went to, where the salesguy takes his time with you, and where they are able to show you two projectors at once side by side, so you can compare models. Lastly... get a proper screen to display it on, rather than projecting on a white wall.
They don't seem to be denying that the goods are stolen from the bit about seeking restitution from the thief, which is pretty much an admission of guilt if that is the case
If they bought the goods in good faith and only learned of them being stolen afterwards, then they did not 'knowingly deal in stolen goods'. In that case, do they have to return the goods to the owner without compensation? Over here, buying stolen goods in good faith means that you get to keep them... the original owner will have to seek restitution from the thief.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree with you that bad laws are made as well: poorly drafted laws that inadvertedly curtail our freedoms while trying to achieve something good. An example: a proposed law to outlawing spam would also make legitimate mailing lists illegal. Another one: a law against music piracy (to use the common term for it) might limit what we could legally do with music that we own, such as playing it on different equipment.
Making laws to govern the Internet can be a "dark, dangerous path" indeed, beset with legislators and lobbyists who have hidden intentions. One sometimes gets suspicious that there is nothing accidental about these laws accidentally limiting our freedom. But that doesn't mean that we should not have any laws at all on principle; it means that any and all laws should pass this criterium: A law should serve the stated purpose for which is was drafted, and nothing else. No "unintentional" side effects.
It's common terrorist tactics: make people believe that no place is safe. By the same token, if I were a terrorist I would make my next target not New York, not Madrid, not London and not Amsterdam, but some crowded place in a piss-ant little town somewhere in a stable but otherwise uninteresting European country. If you're terrorising people, the last thing you want is to suggest that you'll only go after the big fish.
By the way, I have no problem with musicians becoming filthy rich from selling records. I do have a problem with these middlemen who have become filthy rich on the backs of musicians, and are now struggling to retain their slipping stranglehold on the industry.
But seriously... this is good news; having private enterprise undertake missions to space. It'll be good to see the price of launches drop even further.
I'm curious to find what other carbon nano-arrangements will do to sea life (or other life for that matter). What about carbon tubes? These appear to have numerous useful applications in superstrong carbon fibers. If we build a space elevator with carbon tubes, and the cable breaks, we can expect a whole lot of this carbon stuff to end up in the ocean. I remember that earlier experiments showed that carbon tubes did not pose an environmental risk, but I've never read what these experiments actually entailed.
:) I do not want to register, and adding the 'partner' thing to the URL somehow doesn't work for me.
And no, I didn't read the article
I got one of them... an extremely cool toy! But even with a beefed-up motor and battery pack, the range will be very limited and power will certainly not be sufficient to carry a serious explosive device.
:)
The only ones you'll terrorise with this thing is your cats! Mine hate it, they hide when I fly it indoors
Mr. Weinberg argues that there is little scientific or economic value to be gained from sending people in space. I agree to some extend... there is little to be gained or learned from continuing to send up people in Space Shuttles to live in the ISS, eg. to continue doing what we have been doing for the past few decades.
However, there is much to be gained from manned missions to Mars, or from having a base on the moon. If anything, we will learn a good deal about doing manned deep space missions, and we may even learn how to do them cheaper or more efficiently. We will have to do a great many new things to accomplish these missions, which some people see as a risk. I see these not as risks, but as opportunities to push the envelope and advance the science of space flight. For too long we have been doing (relatively) safe, boring missions using proven technology like the ISS, Space Shuttle, Proton, Ariane, Soyuz and so on. All that is fine for commercial missions, but it does little to advance the science. What we need is to do new things and learn from them. I believe manned missions should be part of that, precisely because of the challenges and risks involved... one learns by doing things that are hard and untried, not by sticking with easy and safe challenges.
Lastly, mr. Weinberg refers a few times to the 'drama of people in space', as the reason why NASA and politicians are so keen on manned space flight. I see that 'drama' as a very useful spin-off: something to capture the imagination of the people, and perhaps even inspire them to pursue a career and education in aerospace or other technical vocations.
In the meantime, being allowed to do this is a small step forward. You're allowed to make a copy if you can... let's just hope they won't slap you with charges of cracking codes, DMCA, and other assorted laws.
(Yes, it's a joke. Sadly some people really see things exactly this way, though)
Of course it's convenient to get all of that stuff included with your operating system. But if you remember, there used to be a market for things like browsers and video playback software. That market is all but gone, thanks to Microsoft including these products with their OS. I know, there is something called Mozilla for us staunch MS-haters. But good luck trying to sell (or even give) your alternative browser to the public at large.
I don't feel too bad about MS including such things with their OS, even though I am sure producers of, say, video editing software are having nightmares about MS including that functionality with Windows in a few years time. it's hard to draw the line: sure, no one would argue against operating systems needing a decent file manager, for example. Yet people used to make a living developing and selling separate file managers, a long time ago.
What I do have a problem with, is that MS sometimes not just includes browsers and video software with the OS, but made sure that it was rather hard to install an alternative product as well. That is what they should be punished for... but this ruling doesn't really accomplish that. As far as browsers and video playback software is concerned, it's all water under the bridge, and you correctly note that it will be consumers who will be hurt by removing these from the OS. MS probably doesn't care a great deal.
I would have preferred a big fine for MS, to make it clear what is unacceptable behaviour. It has to hurt if it's to heal.
Lets put it another way: the ISP states in their terms & conditions something like: "Subscribers are not allowed to distribute spam or worms over their connection, nor are they allowed to carry out DDOS attacks.". Doesn't sound too unreasonable, does it? Not even if the user breaks this rule unwittingly, because his computer is infected with something nasty.
A rule like this puts the responsibility for the cleanliness of the subscriber's computer firmly with that subscriber. Rightly so, since that user is in an excellent position to do something about it. It sucks being disconnected because of a worm on your machine, but the alternative is to allow the worm to continue to spread.
The only things I worry about is the accuracy of the detection mechanism used on the ISP's side, and the promptness with which they reconnect you after you fix the problem on your machine.
As for this hard-disk trick... A number of people here have already suggested a few ways by which this process may yield extra space, and all of them are bad. If you need more space, get another HD. It's not like they cost anything these days.
I settled on a 1200 lumen 800x600 LCD projector in the end, and I am very pleased with its performance. Sure, more lumens or more pixels is noticably nicer... but not so much more nice that I'd be willing to pay an additional $1000 for the extra quality. One very important aspect of the projector I settled on, is that it is really quiet. Bigger bulbs mean more noise, usually. It may also mean more expensive bulb replacements.
The best advise I can give to people shopping for a projector is: go to a good store... preferably to a store like the one I went to, where the salesguy takes his time with you, and where they are able to show you two projectors at once side by side, so you can compare models. Lastly... get a proper screen to display it on, rather than projecting on a white wall.