I completely agree. I usually like the Economist, because it does not work under the assumption that its readers are stupid (which is true for most popular printed publications nowadays).
However there are several issues, most having to deal with international investment and banking, where the Economist is so biased it can not be trusted at all.
What do you mean "it isnt standing up too well"? You understand these are mere allegations in a lawsuit, right? Anyone can make any allegations in a lawsuit (as long as they are willing to suffer the consequences of course).
I think the export controls argument is based on a an incorrect understanding of the GPL. The gpl does not require you to show the source to everyone, only to the people that you distribute or sell the software to.
Since export controls prevent you from selling the software as much as disclosing the code, i dont see how GPLed software is as compatible with export controls as all other software.
Many people wonder why they did not just remove the sites from the webserver. The answer is not hard to come by if you think about it for a second.
Just imagine what would happen if they removed the pages and a similar story comes up on slashdot. Well, everybody will of course go to the google caches of the removed pages and say "aha you are caugh red handed!!!".
But google caches last only a limited amount of time. And once a page is placed in the robots.txt file, google stops caching it. Well guess what, i bet that right about the time the google caches expire, the webpages will disappear from the website as well.
Now it will be much harder for the ordinary person to check exactly which webpages are missing. Of course there is the internet archive, but not many people know about the internet archive... and last time i checked the archive only indexes sites by url, so searching is much harder than it is on google.
Ok, suppose what you say is true. Lets imagine the new owner does claim ownership. They will probably get the ownership after a bankruptcy sale.
Which usually means that all previous obligations connected to the software are gone. So the new owner does not have an obligation to provide support or provide the whatever keys the article mentions.
Guess what happens next -- the new owner starts extorting the users for very high fees for software the users have already payed for.
So what if they had a guarantee? Once the company is in bancruptcy all your guarantees go into the pile of claims against the debtor, and will probably end up being useless.
I swear apple zealots are the most vicious modders out there. They will just mod you down, won't even bother to refute your arguments.
People complain about "Linux zealots" but those guys do not merely mod posts they do not like down. They usually reply and explain why you are wrong.
"Microsoft zealots" are usually marketing drones (probably getting paid for being on slashdot) and they rarely mod down either. They lack the raw hatred. They just make sure they put in the required soundbytes.
The parent post is not a troll. Go ahead, mod me down now.
surely if you presume any ammount of energy mirrors will not work. But the more energy you have the more energy you dissipate on the way to the target. I am sure only a tiny fraction of the nergy required to run the laser will be delivered to the target. If a mirror can increase the energy required to destroy it, it may make the laser useless.
So mirors will definitely be a defensive strategy.
Your own link says that "photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists". I am sure that most physicists expectations would suffice for a random slashdot discussion.
how about we wait until china has about 1 hundreth of the military strength of the us, before we start being affraid of them.
or better, yet we could stop trading them if we were truly affraid of them. I cannot believe the us government considers china a threat to us security. Threats to us security do not have a most favoured trading nation status.
every couple of months slashdot runs a story that says lasers will be seen in the military in a very short time. This has been happening for several years now.
Of course thats only slashdot. If you count star wars (not the fictional movies, but the fictional defense system), lasers have been on the virge of becoming a great weapon for about twenty years now. I.E. they have been in a state of vaporware for a period almost long enough to rival that of artificial intelligense.
Of course, if you look at star wars (or sdi, as its official name was) you will very quickly understand why lasers are being touted today. Some companies developed high powered lasers for the now defunct starwars program, made a lot of money, and now would like to continue to make money based on the same technology. So they are urgently seeking a new use for lasers.
SDI cost 30 bn before it was abandoned. It is a lot of money especially back then. The whole system was expected to cost up to 1 trillion.
Now there is a new anti ballistic missile system being developed, (which is also costing many billions of dollars and has very doubtful usefullnes) but the new system is based entirely on missiles, so the lazer developers must feel left out.
Subsequently you get a lot of slashdot stories about hiow exciting lasers are, etc.
The student's paper was posted on slahsdot a day or two ago, and then bunch of people said "that guy should be sued under the dmca" and meant it as a bad joke.
Sure enough he was sued under the DMCA. I wonder if they got the idea from slashdot.
It was win when boies was on the case. If you remember thats back when many people said that being split is th ebest way microsoft can come out of the suit.
Then of course administrations changed, he quit his job, and the next justice department lost the suit on purpose. They had to use a lot of legal menuvering because they essentially had to lose after they had won. But they went through with it.
The description in slashdot may be misleading, but the way it was used by CCAGW is even more wrong. I mean wrong in the plain semantic sence.
Monopoly on software means that only a single person/organization may produce software and has nothing to do with who buys what.
The state of massachusets is not creating a monopoly on software because they are not decreeing that only a single person/organization may produce software.
I think in this case the CCAGW is much more misleading, than the slashdot story.
The only entertaining part of these listings is when Donald Trump starts complaining that all his wealth was under valued and he should so many places ahead.
Riiiight the "left wing" must surely be responsible for everything you dont like. I couldnt agree more. But i was a bit dissappointed in your post. I was epecting you to prove how it was "all Clinton's fault". Did you forget about that?
They spend a lot of money on election adds. They know that if media ownership were monopolized they would have to pay more for advertizing. Thats just one reason.
Actually the FCC is a regulatory body. And it actually derives at least part of its authority from Congress. It is supposed to be a hybride between a legislative and executive agency.
The constitutional status of these is complicated, some people say they are unconstitutional. Never the less, as things currently stand Congress does have authority over the FCC.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. I usually like the Economist, because it does not work under the assumption that its readers are stupid (which is true for most popular printed publications nowadays).
However there are several issues, most having to deal with international investment and banking, where the Economist is so biased it can not be trusted at all.
You have got to be kidding me. Have you seen the Simpsons? Have you noticed that it is animated (i.e. it is drawn by people).
Have you noticed that Fox news is not animated?
Is that a hard distinction to make? Does it confuse you?
Its pretty easy for me to differentiate between the simpson's animation, and live action but then again i am not a fox news viewer.
What do you mean "it isnt standing up too well"? You understand these are mere allegations in a lawsuit, right? Anyone can make any allegations in a lawsuit (as long as they are willing to suffer the consequences of course).
I think the export controls argument is based on a an incorrect understanding of the GPL. The gpl does not require you to show the source to everyone, only to the people that you distribute or sell the software to.
Since export controls prevent you from selling the software as much as disclosing the code, i dont see how GPLed software is as compatible with export controls as all other software.
Many people wonder why they did not just remove the sites from the webserver. The answer is not hard to come by if you think about it for a second.
... and last time i checked the archive only indexes sites by url, so searching is much harder than it is on google.
Just imagine what would happen if they removed the pages and a similar story comes up on slashdot. Well, everybody will of course go to the google caches of the removed pages and say "aha you are caugh red handed!!!".
But google caches last only a limited amount of time. And once a page is placed in the robots.txt file, google stops caching it. Well guess what, i bet that right about the time the google caches expire, the webpages will disappear from the website as well.
Now it will be much harder for the ordinary person to check exactly which webpages are missing. Of course there is the internet archive, but not many people know about the internet archive
Creating biofuel artificially would be much more efficient (in terms of biomass used) than the natural process of fossilization.
Ok, suppose what you say is true. Lets imagine the new owner does claim ownership. They will probably get the ownership after a bankruptcy sale.
Which usually means that all previous obligations connected to the software are gone. So the new owner does not have an obligation to provide support or provide the whatever keys the article mentions.
Guess what happens next -- the new owner starts extorting the users for very high fees for software the users have already payed for.
So the users are going to be screwed.
So what if they had a guarantee? Once the company is in bancruptcy all your guarantees go into the pile of claims against the debtor, and will probably end up being useless.
Who moderates this stuff?
I swear apple zealots are the most vicious modders out there. They will just mod you down, won't even bother to refute your arguments.
People complain about "Linux zealots" but those guys do not merely mod posts they do not like down. They usually reply and explain why you are wrong.
"Microsoft zealots" are usually marketing drones (probably getting paid for being on slashdot) and they rarely mod down either. They lack the raw hatred. They just make sure they put in the required soundbytes.
The parent post is not a troll. Go ahead, mod me down now.
"the vast hoardes of willing new Linux licensees" who are these people?
around 300 m/s at sea level, i think.
surely if you presume any ammount of energy mirrors will not work. But the more energy you have the more energy you dissipate on the way to the target. I am sure only a tiny fraction of the nergy required to run the laser will be delivered to the target. If a mirror can increase the energy required to destroy it, it may make the laser useless.
So mirors will definitely be a defensive strategy.
Your own link says that "photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists". I am sure that most physicists expectations would suffice for a random slashdot discussion.
how about we wait until china has about 1 hundreth of the military strength of the us, before we start being affraid of them.
or better, yet we could stop trading them if we were truly affraid of them. I cannot believe the us government considers china a threat to us security. Threats to us security do not have a most favoured trading nation status.
every couple of months slashdot runs a story that says lasers will be seen in the military in a very short time. This has been happening for several years now.
Of course thats only slashdot. If you count star wars (not the fictional movies, but the fictional defense system), lasers have been on the virge of becoming a great weapon for about twenty years now. I.E. they have been in a state of vaporware for a period almost long enough to rival that of artificial intelligense.
Of course, if you look at star wars (or sdi, as its official name was) you will very quickly understand why lasers are being touted today. Some companies developed high powered lasers for the now defunct starwars program, made a lot of money, and now would like to continue to make money based on the same technology. So they are urgently seeking a new use for lasers.
SDI cost 30 bn before it was abandoned. It is a lot of money especially back then. The whole system was expected to cost up to 1 trillion.
Now there is a new anti ballistic missile system being developed, (which is also costing many billions of dollars and has very doubtful usefullnes) but the new system is based entirely on missiles, so the lazer developers must feel left out.
Subsequently you get a lot of slashdot stories about hiow exciting lasers are, etc.
no they dont. photons have no mass.
The student's paper was posted on slahsdot a day or two ago, and then bunch of people said "that guy should be sued under the dmca" and meant it as a bad joke.
Sure enough he was sued under the DMCA. I wonder if they got the idea from slashdot.
It was win when boies was on the case. If you remember thats back when many people said that being split is th ebest way microsoft can come out of the suit.
Then of course administrations changed, he quit his job, and the next justice department lost the suit on purpose. They had to use a lot of legal menuvering because they essentially had to lose after they had won. But they went through with it.
The description in slashdot may be misleading, but the way it was used by CCAGW is even more wrong. I mean wrong in the plain semantic sence.
Monopoly on software means that only a single person/organization may produce software and has nothing to do with who buys what.
The state of massachusets is not creating a monopoly on software because they are not decreeing that only a single person/organization may produce software.
I think in this case the CCAGW is much more misleading, than the slashdot story.
Right. Lets start admiring people for their tax shelters.
The only entertaining part of these listings is when Donald Trump starts complaining that all his wealth was under valued and he should so many places ahead.
Other wise it is all quite depressing.
Riiiight the "left wing" must surely be responsible for everything you dont like. I couldnt agree more. But i was a bit dissappointed in your post. I was epecting you to prove how it was "all Clinton's fault". Did you forget about that?
They spend a lot of money on election adds. They know that if media ownership were monopolized they would have to pay more for advertizing. Thats just one reason.
Good troll. Clear channel subsidizing smooth jazz ... nice.
I was going to write an angry post accusing you for being a clearchannel PR person, but lets face it pr ppl cant be that funny.
Actually the FCC is a regulatory body. And it actually derives at least part of its authority from Congress. It is supposed to be a hybride between a legislative and executive agency.
The constitutional status of these is complicated, some people say they are unconstitutional. Never the less, as things currently stand Congress does have authority over the FCC.