Personally I hope that the RIAA is successful in shutting down music file swapping.
Do you really want that? One view is that the RIAA is just a businuess with a just reason to be attempting to prevent copywrite infringment. Another view is that it is an incredibly corrupt organization that exploits musicians, uses it's monopoly on the marketplace to stifle innovation, crush potential competion, promote cultural homogony, and finally subvert the copywrite laws laid down by the founding father of the USA to maintain control of it's IP for perpetuity.
I hope they die a horrible chapter11 death, so that we can move into the 21st century with a healthy and vibrant music industry. One of the US's largets exports is our culture. When our culture is comprised of nothing but crappy Brittney clones, what do you think is going to happen?
When? 10 year ago? The only report I have seen to date was when the US military found a couple of abandon empty canisters that were 'old'. Show me where this vast armory of weapons is. Where are the vehicles? Production Facilities? Engineers? How about paperwork? Anything?
The war in Iraq was about a multi-faceted effort to begin exerting influence, forcibly when necessary, in the middle east, in the hopes of stopping Panislamic radicalism in a generation or two rather than in a century or two.
Good argument, but Iraq was a secular country. My impression was that Panislamic radicalism involves islamic radicals, not secular dictators. Shooting Bin Laden and dismantiling the Taliban is a good way to put a check on Islamic radicalisim. Moderate Islamics would probably see that as retaliation for 9/11. How would they view the invasion and conquest of a major oil producing state? Or to put it another way, we haven't taken over Afganistan, and we had a much better reason to do that than conquer Iraq.
...focusing their energies on hatred of the West and the Infidel as taught by some segments of radical Islam.
...except, now that Iraq is free, the radical islamic elements, previously supressed by Saddam's internal security, can now spout their poison freely. Go look up today's CNN headline, there is a standoff beteen US forces and a small private army headed by, suprise!, a radical islamic cleric.
It's a war to ensure the continued prosperity of the Western world, and thus the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of people. What about the people of Iraq, you say? WE WANT TO HELP THEM, TOO.
No we don't. If that was the case, why weren't we invading when the Kurds were being gassed. What about when Saddam was brutally putting down the internal rebellion following the first gulf war? If we care about other people so much, why didn't we try to remove Pol Pot from Cambodia in the 70's? How about all the people in North Korea?
The fact that the people of Iraq are better off is a nice side effect. Your first statement is correct, Bush wants to preserve our stablility and ecenomic prosperity. Nothing more. Don't have any moralistic illusions that this is some sort of attempt to spread freedom to the supressed masses.
To say that Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he has friends in oil is a simplistic black and white view of the world. I think a better analysis is that the Bushes (George and Jr.) have become obsessed with the idea that middle east stability was threatened by Saddam's regime. He was a very dangerous dictator, with expansionist goals. However, Jr. is a short sighted idiot, and failed to focus on the real problem at hand: Removing the threat of growing Islamic Radicalisim.
If your background task *is* generally useful, why not doccument what it does somewhere, where I can find, and let me decide?
I understand you think that you are being helpful, but so does every other engineer who authors some hyper-osfucated TSR with a name like "RMMU.exe". And judging from some task manager listings I have seen, there is enough of you to double the population in China.
While this would be *quite* entertaining, do you really want people to be experimenting with explosives and machine guns in the garages and back yards? Knowing the sort of idiots that are out there, how long will the show run before the local/federal authorities pull the plug on the grounds that you are creating a general hazard to the community by encouraging said idiots? And what happens when a father son team kills themselves brewing up some homemade C4? Who has the money for the inevitable lawsuit that will insue? As an aside, who is going to be doing the ordinance disposal after one of you matches?
It sounds cool, but for the public good, I sure hope that this idea never sees the light of day.
I can't help but notice a remarkable similarity between this book, and Ayn Rand's book/manafesto/rant, 'Atlas Shrugged'. The primary philosophy of both seems to be that the weight of the system will eventually crush itself, so why fight it? Interesting that the Author is refering to a French government agency that has very socialistic traits, and Ayn was frothing about how lassier-faire ecenomics is the only way to save the world from decay.
ALERT! DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER! This person has uttered a Dilbert 'Pointy haired boss'-ism, and no humor or irony has been detected. Someone notify Cowboy Neil that a PHB has gained access to Slashdot, and pull the account, quick!
But as for the millions, who actually get's the money?
What money? You are talking about an 18 year old kid, with no college degree and a federal felony record. You think that this punk will be able to get anything more than a $6.50 per hour job pumping gas? He will be lucky to be able to pay rent.
There have been a lot of good suggestions, (Ripper the Weasle is particularly cute) but I have to sa that the weasel needs to be named 'Warez'. That way, if anyone ever googles his name, they go right to the good stuff...
While this is an interesting excercise in engineering/software development/physics application, is it really needed? Virtual reality is a visual representation of data, but nothing says that all your physical activites need to be directly mapped in a literal fashion.
3D shoote-em-up games are virtual reality environments, and you certainly don't see people in quake3 having problems moving around in the worlds.
Moreover, by mapping movement to walking, aren't you limiting the input to the speed that someone can actually walk? Sure you could include a speed scaling factor control, but why not map movement to something else entirely?
This may solve the problem of vertigo that some people experience, but wouldn't it be better to figure out why only some people are affected? In addition, people with phyisical disabilies might not really appreciate this 'development' very much.
For several years, I hosted my webserver out of my apartment. Now, in Seattle, the tempature doesn't get that low (Compared to the midwest or say, Siberia), but my dual 300mhz P2 server kept the place quite comfortable. In the three years I lived there, I only turned on the heat twice.
I am still running Dos 5.0, because I'm pretty sure that Dos 6.2 has a number of outstanding bugs, and a possible security hole. I figger sometime around 2007 it will be safe to make the jump. Win 3.1 should be safe move around 2011.
Again, simply because SUVs are popular and non-dangerous to each other (which isn't true...I'll get to that) doesn't mean that you have a right to endanger other people. I addressed this before.
Popular != Right.
For example, If I chose to drive a car that had whirling sawblades on the side, it may only be a menace to pedestrians, but nobody would agree that I had a right to drive it. This example is a ludicris extreme, but it makes the point.
It's also not true that driving an SUV is safer for you. Everyone else starts diving SUVs for the same reason, and the mass advantage is quickly offset when a SUV vs. SUV collision occurs. Moreover, since a SUV fram isn't massivly more reinforced when compaired to a car's, more force of impact will be applied to a similar structure, and result in more severe damage. (Disclaimer: I am not a automotive engineer, but if you can prove me wrong with evidence contrary, please do so.)
The author seems almost indignant that we have a democracy where popular things are allowed to exist. If America were a dictatorship, the author could show all those stupid SUV driving pricks a thing or two without fear of losing the next election! Stupid democracy! How elitist.
I think the point is that the popular thing to do isn't nessecarily the right thing. There were a lot of people in the South about 150 years ago, who though owning people was o.k. and they were in a democracy.
If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.
Yes, you are correct, but if the vehicle you are driving is abnormally dangerous to ME, then I can use your argument, too. Your argument is just as valid for either viewpoint, unless you are being hypocritical.
We will try to convert it, and should that fail, declare it a godless heathen and wipe it off the face of existance, like a rational god-fearing man should.
(That is IRONY, a form of HUMOR, for you idiots with the mod points...)
Your statement intrigued me. I was under the impression that military grade weapons and ordinance were pretty much off limits to people.
To be clear, when I say heavy machine guns, I am referring to.30,.50 and larger caliber fully automatic weapons, typically used for shooting holes in anything up to and including light armored vehicles. I decided to look up a class 3 to see what it said.
I figured that the ATF is probably a pretty good authority on the subject. According to the page, a class 3 covers 'curios and relics'. No real suprise there. I know someone who has some submachine guns from WW2, and I'm sure that this falls under that category.
My question is, at what stage does a person have to acuire a class 9 (dealer in destructive devices). I personally would consider a heavy machinegun a destructive device, but when I started googling for a leagal description of them, I didn't find anything very solid. At what point is something not a 'relic' and is a destructive device? (What IS a 'destructive device', legally?) If I have a WW2 bazooka is that class3 or 9. What about a old german 88mm field gun? A 500lb bomb?
I know that somewhere the line is drawn, but I am now very curious at where. What class of permit will I need to buy a Tiger tank or a old Mig with a chaingun?
Ah, but in your statement, you have just proven the point I was after.
Thou shall have the right not to be killed.
Good one. Simple. I like it.
Thou shall have the right to protect your rights with equal retaliation.
So, that means that if you try to kill me, I can can kill you to defend myself. Seems fair, but doesn't that violate the first right that you suggested, your right not to be killed? Now, you have to add to the 'laws' you have created to take care of this case if you want to avoid a paradox, creating more complexity, and thus more loopholes.
I don't know if you know who Kurt Godel was, but he was a famous Mathmatician from the early twentieth century who wrote a paper, proving that all complex systems are incomplete. It has some rather interesting implications for many fields.
I never said that banning one thing justifies banning another. I'm pointint out that there is president for doing so.
from your example, we do ban nuclear warfare research. Keep in mind that we are speaking about private individuals here. If you, as a private individual, attempt to conduct nuclear weapons research other than just reading books and running some equations, you will be investigated and probably arrested. And should that occur, I doubt that you will garner much sympathy from most people when your story hits the evening news. People accept that they aren't allowed to process plutoninum themselves, as the risks to the population at large far outweigh benefits.
The Law is a trade-off of freedoms vs. public safety. My comment was that at some point, the right to produce P2P software (or machineguns) might be overshaddowed by the illigitimate uses for said product.
People on/. go berserk over issues such as this, and mock the subject by suggestion the similar banning of things such as cars or kitchen knives, on the grounds that they can be lethal weapons when used properly. I would counter by reminding you that cars are regulated, via liscencing, and there are laws in many places about having large bladed items in public.
Finally, I want to say that I am done playing devil's advocate, and that Bennifer a menace to society, and SHOULD be banned...I think that most of/. agrees on that point.
Ah, but isn't illeagal to own heavy machine guns in most parts of the counrty? While any inanimate object is neither good nor evil, the potential misuse of such a weapon is judged to outweigh the use it posesses. Similarly, if P2P is determined to cause more woe than good, shouldn't it be similarly banned?
(Not that I actuall believe that P2P realy is bad. Orrin is a congressional whore, who creates new anti-P2P bills every week.)
...As I never requested his service. I have no finincail obligation for products and/or services that are provided unsolicied. ergo, his counter suit will fail.
Furthermore, I can file a class action lawsuit for everyone on the planet, stating that his sun is a cancerous menace to the health of everyone on the planet (and thus a public nusance), and ask that a judge fine him every day until he removes it from the solar system.
Legal onwership of an ongoing nuclear explosion is what I would refert to as a 'liability' and not an 'asset'.
Yeah, it's a great game. I just downloaded it off P2P this morning. They are getting pretty fast about posting new stuff before it's released these days...
P.S. Go up to the first orc you meet in willowriver, and say, "Lucas" to him. He has a great little easter egg speach about how Episode 3 turned out.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I hope that the RIAA is successful in shutting down music file swapping.
Do you really want that? One view is that the RIAA is just a businuess with a just reason to be attempting to prevent copywrite infringment. Another view is that it is an incredibly corrupt organization that exploits musicians, uses it's monopoly on the marketplace to stifle innovation, crush potential competion, promote cultural homogony, and finally subvert the copywrite laws laid down by the founding father of the USA to maintain control of it's IP for perpetuity.
I hope they die a horrible chapter11 death, so that we can move into the 21st century with a healthy and vibrant music industry. One of the US's largets exports is our culture. When our culture is comprised of nothing but crappy Brittney clones, what do you think is going to happen?
I would be offended too (and I'm not Christian) if Christian religious chanting were used as background music for such a game.
What a sweet idea! Hymns being chanted as you battle cyberdeamons! I'm going to start on the mod right now!
Don't worry though, I'll mention you in the credits. I wouldn't want people to play the mod an not know how to thank for the idea...
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD
...focusing their energies on hatred of the West and the Infidel as taught by some segments of radical Islam.
...except, now that Iraq is free, the radical islamic elements, previously supressed by Saddam's internal security, can now spout their poison freely. Go look up today's CNN headline, there is a standoff beteen US forces and a small private army headed by, suprise!, a radical islamic cleric.
When? 10 year ago? The only report I have seen to date was when the US military found a couple of abandon empty canisters that were 'old'. Show me where this vast armory of weapons is. Where are the vehicles? Production Facilities? Engineers? How about paperwork? Anything?
The war in Iraq was about a multi-faceted effort to begin exerting influence, forcibly when necessary, in the middle east, in the hopes of stopping Panislamic radicalism in a generation or two rather than in a century or two.
Good argument, but Iraq was a secular country. My impression was that Panislamic radicalism involves islamic radicals, not secular dictators. Shooting Bin Laden and dismantiling the Taliban is a good way to put a check on Islamic radicalisim. Moderate Islamics would probably see that as retaliation for 9/11. How would they view the invasion and conquest of a major oil producing state? Or to put it another way, we haven't taken over Afganistan, and we had a much better reason to do that than conquer Iraq.
It's a war to ensure the continued prosperity of the Western world, and thus the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of people. What about the people of Iraq, you say? WE WANT TO HELP THEM, TOO.
No we don't. If that was the case, why weren't we invading when the Kurds were being gassed. What about when Saddam was brutally putting down the internal rebellion following the first gulf war? If we care about other people so much, why didn't we try to remove Pol Pot from Cambodia in the 70's? How about all the people in North Korea?
The fact that the people of Iraq are better off is a nice side effect. Your first statement is correct, Bush wants to preserve our stablility and ecenomic prosperity. Nothing more. Don't have any moralistic illusions that this is some sort of attempt to spread freedom to the supressed masses.
To say that Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he has friends in oil is a simplistic black and white view of the world. I think a better analysis is that the Bushes (George and Jr.) have become obsessed with the idea that middle east stability was threatened by Saddam's regime. He was a very dangerous dictator, with expansionist goals. However, Jr. is a short sighted idiot, and failed to focus on the real problem at hand: Removing the threat of growing Islamic Radicalisim.
If your background task *is* generally useful, why not doccument what it does somewhere, where I can find, and let me decide?
I understand you think that you are being helpful, but so does every other engineer who authors some hyper-osfucated TSR with a name like "RMMU.exe". And judging from some task manager listings I have seen, there is enough of you to double the population in China.
While this would be *quite* entertaining, do you really want people to be experimenting with explosives and machine guns in the garages and back yards? Knowing the sort of idiots that are out there, how long will the show run before the local/federal authorities pull the plug on the grounds that you are creating a general hazard to the community by encouraging said idiots? And what happens when a father son team kills themselves brewing up some homemade C4? Who has the money for the inevitable lawsuit that will insue? As an aside, who is going to be doing the ordinance disposal after one of you matches?
It sounds cool, but for the public good, I sure hope that this idea never sees the light of day.
I can't help but notice a remarkable similarity between this book, and Ayn Rand's book/manafesto/rant, 'Atlas Shrugged'. The primary philosophy of both seems to be that the weight of the system will eventually crush itself, so why fight it? Interesting that the Author is refering to a French government agency that has very socialistic traits, and Ayn was frothing about how lassier-faire ecenomics is the only way to save the world from decay.
Work HARD = Work SMART, not Work LONG
ALERT! DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER! This person has uttered a Dilbert 'Pointy haired boss'-ism, and no humor or irony has been detected. Someone notify Cowboy Neil that a PHB has gained access to Slashdot, and pull the account, quick!
But as for the millions, who actually get's the money?
What money? You are talking about an 18 year old kid, with no college degree and a federal felony record. You think that this punk will be able to get anything more than a $6.50 per hour job pumping gas? He will be lucky to be able to pay rent.
Good luck collecting millions in restitution...
There have been a lot of good suggestions, (Ripper the Weasle is particularly cute) but I have to sa that the weasel needs to be named 'Warez'. That way, if anyone ever googles his name, they go right to the good stuff...
While this is an interesting excercise in engineering/software development/physics application, is it really needed? Virtual reality is a visual representation of data, but nothing says that all your physical activites need to be directly mapped in a literal fashion.
3D shoote-em-up games are virtual reality environments, and you certainly don't see people in quake3 having problems moving around in the worlds.
Moreover, by mapping movement to walking, aren't you limiting the input to the speed that someone can actually walk? Sure you could include a speed scaling factor control, but why not map movement to something else entirely?
This may solve the problem of vertigo that some people experience, but wouldn't it be better to figure out why only some people are affected? In addition, people with phyisical disabilies might not really appreciate this 'development' very much.
Second, since this only effects people who steal software, why should i care?
1985: "AIDS? Why do I care? Only homosexuals and junkies get it."
Your attitude is remarkably self-centered. There are a lot of problems in the world that are aggravated by shortsighted people such as yourself.
I looked up some screen shots of the 3-d effects on google, and they don't look any different than the rest of the images on my computer...
(Obligatory label of "Humor" to keep the modpoint wielding "Troll" hunting luddites at bay.)
For several years, I hosted my webserver out of my apartment. Now, in Seattle, the tempature doesn't get that low (Compared to the midwest or say, Siberia), but my dual 300mhz P2 server kept the place quite comfortable. In the three years I lived there, I only turned on the heat twice.
I am still running Dos 5.0, because I'm pretty sure that Dos 6.2 has a number of outstanding bugs, and a possible security hole. I figger sometime around 2007 it will be safe to make the jump. Win 3.1 should be safe move around 2011.
Again, simply because SUVs are popular and non-dangerous to each other (which isn't true...I'll get to that) doesn't mean that you have a right to endanger other people. I addressed this before. Popular != Right.
For example, If I chose to drive a car that had whirling sawblades on the side, it may only be a menace to pedestrians, but nobody would agree that I had a right to drive it. This example is a ludicris extreme, but it makes the point.
It's also not true that driving an SUV is safer for you. Everyone else starts diving SUVs for the same reason, and the mass advantage is quickly offset when a SUV vs. SUV collision occurs. Moreover, since a SUV fram isn't massivly more reinforced when compaired to a car's, more force of impact will be applied to a similar structure, and result in more severe damage. (Disclaimer: I am not a automotive engineer, but if you can prove me wrong with evidence contrary, please do so.)
The author seems almost indignant that we have a democracy where popular things are allowed to exist. If America were a dictatorship, the author could show all those stupid SUV driving pricks a thing or two without fear of losing the next election! Stupid democracy! How elitist.
I think the point is that the popular thing to do isn't nessecarily the right thing. There were a lot of people in the South about 150 years ago, who though owning people was o.k. and they were in a democracy.
If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.
Yes, you are correct, but if the vehicle you are driving is abnormally dangerous to ME, then I can use your argument, too. Your argument is just as valid for either viewpoint, unless you are being hypocritical.
We will try to convert it, and should that fail, declare it a godless heathen and wipe it off the face of existance, like a rational god-fearing man should.
(That is IRONY, a form of HUMOR, for you idiots with the mod points...)
Let me get this straight. Virgin, (a memeber of the RIAA, right?) is accusing Apple of being a MONOPLY?
Man, I couldn't write a better joke if I tried. Hey Virgim, how do you like them apples...
Your statement intrigued me. I was under the impression that military grade weapons and ordinance were pretty much off limits to people.
.30, .50 and larger caliber fully automatic weapons, typically used for shooting holes in anything up to and including light armored vehicles. I decided to look up a class 3 to see what it said.
# type03>(ATF page on topic)
To be clear, when I say heavy machine guns, I am referring to
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm
I figured that the ATF is probably a pretty good authority on the subject. According to the page, a class 3 covers 'curios and relics'. No real suprise there. I know someone who has some submachine guns from WW2, and I'm sure that this falls under that category.
My question is, at what stage does a person have to acuire a class 9 (dealer in destructive devices). I personally would consider a heavy machinegun a destructive device, but when I started googling for a leagal description of them, I didn't find anything very solid. At what point is something not a 'relic' and is a destructive device? (What IS a 'destructive device', legally?) If I have a WW2 bazooka is that class3 or 9. What about a old german 88mm field gun? A 500lb bomb?
I know that somewhere the line is drawn, but I am now very curious at where. What class of permit will I need to buy a Tiger tank or a old Mig with a chaingun?
Ah, but in your statement, you have just proven the point I was after.
Thou shall have the right not to be killed.
Good one. Simple. I like it.
Thou shall have the right to protect your rights with equal retaliation.
So, that means that if you try to kill me, I can can kill you to defend myself. Seems fair, but doesn't that violate the first right that you suggested, your right not to be killed? Now, you have to add to the 'laws' you have created to take care of this case if you want to avoid a paradox, creating more complexity, and thus more loopholes.
I don't know if you know who Kurt Godel was, but he was a famous Mathmatician from the early twentieth century who wrote a paper, proving that all complex systems are incomplete. It has some rather interesting implications for many fields.
GODEL SHOOTS....HE SCORES!
I never said that banning one thing justifies banning another. I'm pointint out that there is president for doing so.
/. go berserk over issues such as this, and mock the subject by suggestion the similar banning of things such as cars or kitchen knives, on the grounds that they can be lethal weapons when used properly. I would counter by reminding you that cars are regulated, via liscencing, and there are laws in many places about having large bladed items in public.
/. agrees on that point.
from your example, we do ban nuclear warfare research. Keep in mind that we are speaking about private individuals here. If you, as a private individual, attempt to conduct nuclear weapons research other than just reading books and running some equations, you will be investigated and probably arrested. And should that occur, I doubt that you will garner much sympathy from most people when your story hits the evening news. People accept that they aren't allowed to process plutoninum themselves, as the risks to the population at large far outweigh benefits.
The Law is a trade-off of freedoms vs. public safety. My comment was that at some point, the right to produce P2P software (or machineguns) might be overshaddowed by the illigitimate uses for said product.
People on
Finally, I want to say that I am done playing devil's advocate, and that Bennifer a menace to society, and SHOULD be banned...I think that most of
Ah, but isn't illeagal to own heavy machine guns in most parts of the counrty? While any inanimate object is neither good nor evil, the potential misuse of such a weapon is judged to outweigh the use it posesses. Similarly, if P2P is determined to cause more woe than good, shouldn't it be similarly banned?
(Not that I actuall believe that P2P realy is bad. Orrin is a congressional whore, who creates new anti-P2P bills every week.)
...As I never requested his service. I have no finincail obligation for products and/or services that are provided unsolicied. ergo, his counter suit will fail.
Furthermore, I can file a class action lawsuit for everyone on the planet, stating that his sun is a cancerous menace to the health of everyone on the planet (and thus a public nusance), and ask that a judge fine him every day until he removes it from the solar system.
Legal onwership of an ongoing nuclear explosion is what I would refert to as a 'liability' and not an 'asset'.
The more laws you write, the more complex the system will become, and in the process, the more loopholes that will be created.
You want to have foolproof laws? You have to stick to simple stuff like, 'Thou shall not kill'.
Yeah, it's a great game. I just downloaded it off P2P this morning. They are getting pretty fast about posting new stuff before it's released these days...
P.S. Go up to the first orc you meet in willowriver, and say, "Lucas" to him. He has a great little easter egg speach about how Episode 3 turned out.