Personally, I think Ashcroft and Bush are christian fundamentalist fascists, as opposed to conservative republicans.
I agree with you on this point. I do not support Bush or Ashcroft. I also would not support Gore or his administration.
There IS some legislation that makes things better for us.
Yeah, I know that. I merely think that we are expecting the government to do too much. We are expecting them to fix all our problems, so we don't have to. This hands-off approach will only hurt us in the long run. Politicians will pass laws that benefit the people who give them the money, and I we (voters) sit back and expect them to do the right thing, it will turn out poorly.
The LP wants no compromise...
This is merely a political stance. One of the more effective ways to change something moderately, is to appear to go all out. That way, when a compromise is reached (which it must be) it is closer to the actual goal. While I have not spoken with any Libertarian Party leaders, I imagine that this is a possible explanation for their incredibly conservative stance on the issues.
However, I don't want these republicans writing their fundamentalist religion into our laws. I'm afraid that by the time all these nutcases are done the US Code is going to look more like the Bible than the new international version does. If prayer in schools ever becomes mandatory...
I have yet to hear of any attempts to write religion into the US laws. If you could direct me to examples of this, I would appreciate it. The only government action involving religion that I have seen is, what seems to be, a small attack on a person's rights to profess their faith in public. While I do not advocate that people go around forcing their religion on others, I do think people should be permitted to worship the way they see fit. Including "Under God" in the pledge, accomodates more than religion. It also accomodates atheists and agnostics. They might not have a "god" per say, but they do have a system of morals and values that can be seen as a "god."
Don't tell me that government programs are wasteful.
At the risk of sounding like a "cold-hearted asshole" (which I was recently called by another poster), I do not feel that the most effective ways of solving problems is through government involvement. American society functioned just fine in the pre-FDR and pre-Depression days without Income tax and the "New Deal" programs. Therefore, it is naive to think that the only way to deal with these problems is to bring in Uncle Sam.
Another way to look at this is to recognize that the "New Deal" programs instituted by FDR during the depression weren't meant to be permenant. They were meant to help the US survive the depression. Even the creators of these programs recognized that government programs aren't the most effective way of dealing with the problems of society.
It would be pointless of me to attack these programs without offering my ideas on substitues or remedys. I personally think that since the US worked fine before these programs were instituted, we should go back to providing a similar type of care for those who need it.
The best care for people comes from the community, not the government. The community is better able to see what is the best for the person. A common argument against this is that people don't care enough to provide for those around them. They point to the current lack of donations as evidence that people are too cold-hearted to give. I feel that some of this apathy towards giving results from these government programs. I know people who look at welfare, social security, etc. and say "why should I have to donate? The government is taking that money out of my paycheck and helping people with it. I don't need to give." If we were to reduce or eliminate these government programs, donations would increase.
Another problem with these programs is their efficiency. The fact that the government is involved means that beaurocray is also in the mix. This means that some of the collected money is wasted in paying for the government overhead. Another problem with these programs (mostly Social Security) is that, when compared to other options, they are a rip-off for the taxpayers. Social Security returns about 1.5% over your lifetime. However, if one was to take the same amount of money and put it in the stock market (for a long term investment), it would return 12-15%. (This figure includes recessions, and is the average return over a 40 year period.
A question for you - Should I be forced to put my money into a program, when I could put it else where and be benefitted more?
This post is getting pretty long, so I will simply say that I am against affirmative action because it means that more qualified people are denied opportunities because they aren't a minority. I can't say much in opposition to the wheat example, except to say that I consider myself a capitalist, and as such, I don't think we should subsidise products to ensure that we have an advantage (this means I am also against international trade tarrifs).
No, I attempt to insult you because I think you're a naive asshole kid.
It is truly disappointing to see that people try and reinforce their arguments with insults. It gives one's arguments much more credibility if one doesn't resort to insulting the other person. It also takes the objectiveness of the argument away. I would prefer to carry on an argument/discussion without having to deal with insults (that don't relate to the discussion) being tossed around. Also, insulting someone isn't going to change their mind, and it could indicate the the person doing the insulting is immature (I am not saying you are immature, I know you feel strongly about this, but that is my rule of thumb for dealing with people who toss insults in the middle of a discussion)
I am truly interested in hearing your feelings on my statements, and I look forward to reading them.
Spending money on ensuring that everyone can go to a hospital when they need it, HOW IS THAT PISSING AWAY MONEY??
True, these programs aim to ensure that everyone has equal access to medical care. Unfortunately when it comes to reality, this isn't the case. Programs such as this provide equality, but the equality level is sub-par when compared to other medical systems. Also, these systems suffer due to the large amouts of beaurocracy that is inherently involved.
Uhm, do you actually know what communism is?
Yes, it is a system of government in which the goverment intrudes into the daily lives of people in order to provide equality. This intrusion coupled with the system of government rules and laws, stifles innovation (because who wants to work hard when the government takese 75% of what you make?), and encourages corruption.
We are currently doing quite well in the area of corruption, and we are well on our way (thanks to both the democrats and republicans) to the 75% taxation.
YOU are one of those conservative youngsters.
Yes, I do consider myself a conservative. However, you must remember that conservativism is not fascism (a bunch of people have these confused in this discussion). I agree with the policies of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/issues/). That is the type of conservative I am, not a fascist.
Let's see what happens when your right to travel interstate is taken away because only terrorists and the military have to travel that far. Or when some cop runs your plates, connects to the national database of offenses, and sees that one time you set the high school bathroom trash can on fire, and decides to beat you and jail you as a possible offender. Or when the government disperses anti-war protestors at gunpoint ala the Italian Fascists.
These are all terrible things, however, they are not conservativism. They are fascism. I am not a fascist, I am a conservative. To see the kinds of things that I support, please visit the libertarian party website here: http://www.lp.org/issues/
You have no foresight and thus I conclude that you are a college student...
I do have forsight. I have enough forsight to see that if our country continues spending outrageous amounts of money on goverment programs that should be privatized, we are going to be seriously harmed. Government doesn't, and can't, know what is best for people. Government involvement in our lives can only harm us. By limited our freedoms to do with our money as we please (social security, welface, etc.) we are not able to effectively run our own lives.
True, I am a college student. But the fact that I am conservative and support the libertarian policies listed above, sets me apart from the vast majority of college students.
...whose parents were yuppie scum.
You obviously have no actual argument, since you are forced to resort to feeble attempts at insults.
why are there so many young people that are so conservative these days?
So many young people are conservative today because they don't want their money pissed away by more liberal politicians who view government involvement as the only solution to many problems.
Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism
I would prefer this to a state that gradually declines into communism through over-taxation, an excess of government programs, and an oppressive government.
Rasterman is probably one of the better examples of a skilled to-the-metal coder you're going to find.
I was in no way saying that I doubt his coding skill. I was merely pointing out that it is possible that the demonstration metioned earlier could be flawed because he wrote the conversion code as well as the assembly code. There might be similarities between the generated code and his code, because his gcc code/library is probably programmed to think they same way he does.
This isn't a bad thing of course. I don't think it is bad that the code thinks like he does. I was merely trying to say that it might be a better demonstration if his code generation was compared with a different programmer's code.
he was talking about his new canvas library called evas (emphasis added)
It spat out line for line what he had spent hours writing.
I am not meaning to be a troll or anything, but it could be that this library is biased towards his coding style since he wrote it, and as such, it might end up with the same result. I would be more interested to see if his library came up with the same assembly as another person's code. And then see a speed comparison of the two.
in the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter
While this reasoning is completely valid. They are not proposing simply injecting antimatter into a combustion chamber. The point is that they will use antimatter in combination with matter (similar to the way they use both oxygen and nitrogen in today's spacecraft). That way the inject matter and the inject antimatter ahihilate each other, causing a large release of energy which propels the spacecraft forward.
The issue of cell phones in cars is somewhat serious. I know a couple people who have been involved in accidents because they were talking on their cell phones and didn't have time to react. A person who is holding their phone up to their ear is more occupied and so is less likely to be able to respond in a timely fashon.
Some form of headsets are a good idea. They require less attention to the phone and allow the driver to simply talk without worrying about holding the phone up. However, even those cheap $20 ones work just fine for this purpose.
Using bluetooth for this makes bluetooth seem like an answer searching for a question. Using bluetooth would just be using hype to sell super-expensive headsets. I think those cheap one will suffice.
Of course... I don't need any sort of headset. I am an excellent driver and I can concentrate on the road without a headset...
Add cost of the two CDs, and the box... and remember you do not get book. It is same price than in the shop, maybe more, if you count quality issues.
Well, yes. But many people I know don't care about those items. They would be satisfied with just the music. And they, I imagine, are the ones that are targeted by this company.
What we want is the option of being completely secure or completely anonymous. Neither task is a simple one.
This is very true. Neither of them will be easy to attain. However, given the choice between the two, I would pick anonymity. I think that out of the two, it would be easier to remain anonymous than to have total security. Total security, for all practical purposes, is impossible. It is impossible to ensure that all the people who are watching us are doing the best job with the best intentions. The 'human factor' must be considered.
Even if we do get a great amount of security at the cost of our anonymity, it the 'security' would most likely end up being worse than if everyone was anonymous or even worse than it is now. This flaw in security would result from the fact that someone who wanted to commit some crime, would find it easier to collect a large amount of information about a large number of people. The huge databases required on the path to 'total security' would facillitate this possibility.
However, with anonymity comes separation. If we remain mostly anonymous, it is harder for criminals to get information on us. Law enforcement would still be able to protect us, as stated in the comment by gpinzone, because they don't need to know anything about me, for example, to catch a criminal that stole my car or something.
As an example from my personal life, I try and buy most of the things I get using cash. This is because of the simple fact that cash is anonymous. People can find out that I withdrew $40 from my bank account. But they can't find out what I spent the money on. That means I have the freedom to buy what I want without worrying about someone databasing what I buy. The database of things I buy could be used for something that is only annoying, like targeted advertising, or for something else, like planning a robbery.
To sumarize, I feel we should strive for anonymity because it is safer and it doesn't compromise the ability of Law Enforcement to deal with criminals.
seems cheaper to the US economy than forcing every business in the US to redesign their web site.
Actually, you would be surprised how much more it would cost for any govenment program. Every govenment program comes with a great amout of overhead. In most types of government, watchers are required. And then watchers are appointed to watch the watchers. Eventually, a couple levels of watching develops. This is one of the reasons why welfare doesn't work so well.
Another problem with a government program is logistical. How would you allow these people access to the readers? Would the readers come to the houses? That would create an even greater expense and would also bring up safety and liability issues.
Or would the blind go to the readers? This would be hard to do because of the problems some of the blind have getting out and about.
If a program is used, usability issues would come up. It would be difficult for a user to communicate with the reader on the other end. And it would make it difficult for the blind person to chose which portion of the page he wants to see.
You are basically contradicting yourself, you say on one had you dont think p2p has any legit uses and then in the same sentance you say that it does, make up your mind.
Do you mean the italicized text? That is a quote from the previous post that I was responding to.
If that is not what you were refering to, please elaborate because I don't see what you are refering to.
I am so sick of plp blaming technology instead of human reasoning.
Me too. That is why I was saying that P2P had legitimate uses.
notice "such as FurthurNET and the like". Again you fucking morons need to learn to read and comprehend. It's an essential ability.
Actually, I did read and comprehend. I recognized that he limited his list of "legal" P2P programs to ones he used. I also recognized that he implied that KaZaA was not a worthwhile/legal P2P program. I was merely pointing out that I feel that every P2P network is valid and has legal uses. And I provided an example to correspond to my position on the issue.
While I agree that P2P have little use outside of illegal activities
I know for a fact that this simply not true. I am currently a memeber of an industrial band. The only place people have heard my music is from downloading it off of P2P networks. I do have a siteon mp3.com (Mendeleev's Machine). However, very few people have visited it. I have gotten more exposure on P2P networks by sending messages to people (on KaZaA) or by chatting to people (DirectConnect). I am able to tell them about my band and they download it and give it a try.
P2P has given me a free method of distributing my music. And I currently don't care much if others download my music. I would not be receiving any money anyways. I am making music because I like it and I want to let others listen to my creations. P2P gives me an easy method to do so.
When CDs first became widespread, I remember that they were priced at around $12. Maybe $14 for the most popular artists. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a CD for an artist I had only heard of.
However, now that CD prices have risen drastically (over $19 USD in some cases), I have found that it can be a serious financial investment to explore new artists. This method of making more money made me less likely to try new artists. At least until P2P became widespread.
P2P was very good for me. It enabled me to hear artists that I might be interested in and then listen to a few of their songs to see if I like them. I have found that I have started purchasing many more CDs now that I can hear the artists before I buy.
For example, in the last month, I have purchased CDs from Funker Vogt, Peter Murphy, PIG, Kidneythieves, and 16 Volt. All of these artists I first heard from downloading a song or two off of KazaA or DC++. I know for a fact that if I hadn't heard the songs, I wouldn't have purchased the CDs.
The price issues have limited my options relating to hearing new artists. I am more wary to spend $18 USD on somone I have never heard of.
I personally am not in favor of biometric protection devices. Even if they are 100% effective and never make mistakes reading, I do not feel that they are a wise choice.
Bruce Schneider wrote a good column about biometrics here. I don't like the fact that some biometrics are very easy to steal. This means that once someone discovers your biometric "password" they can use it anywhere because you can't change your password.
So I personally would be wary about having too much faith in such a device./p
neurostar
Coding an linux interface for cheap entertainment gadget which is produced by a company which is well known for their insecure future perspectives ?
One could argue that this "cheap entertanment gadget" is superior to the current offerings on the market. ( I for one feel that is true). In addition, Apple has been around for quite some time. It is doubtful that they are just going to disappear anytime soon.
Their switch campaign has been working somewhat well. And I do believe that they are slowly regaining market share. If I wasn't such a poor college student, I would be using a MAC right now.
Won't it be better to code much more useful stuff like education applications or scientific libraries?... But instead these guy waste their time with such not very useful music player things.
True, scientific code would be more beneficial to one area of society. But people do need to be entertained. Also, the people who code programs such as this do it because they want to have the ability to have a certain functionality or use a certain piece of hardware. Thanfully, they have the freedom to pursue the projects they feel would be a meaningful contribution
I am happy that such a program has been written. The main reason I haven't purchased an iPod is because it was only supported on a mac. But now that other options are available, I will be more likely to buy one.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think Ashcroft and Bush are christian fundamentalist fascists, as opposed to conservative republicans.
I agree with you on this point. I do not support Bush or Ashcroft. I also would not support Gore or his administration.
There IS some legislation that makes things better for us.
Yeah, I know that. I merely think that we are expecting the government to do too much. We are expecting them to fix all our problems, so we don't have to. This hands-off approach will only hurt us in the long run. Politicians will pass laws that benefit the people who give them the money, and I we (voters) sit back and expect them to do the right thing, it will turn out poorly.
The LP wants no compromise...
This is merely a political stance. One of the more effective ways to change something moderately, is to appear to go all out. That way, when a compromise is reached (which it must be) it is closer to the actual goal. While I have not spoken with any Libertarian Party leaders, I imagine that this is a possible explanation for their incredibly conservative stance on the issues.
However, I don't want these republicans writing their fundamentalist religion into our laws. I'm afraid that by the time all these nutcases are done the US Code is going to look more like the Bible than the new international version does. If prayer in schools ever becomes mandatory...
I have yet to hear of any attempts to write religion into the US laws. If you could direct me to examples of this, I would appreciate it. The only government action involving religion that I have seen is, what seems to be, a small attack on a person's rights to profess their faith in public. While I do not advocate that people go around forcing their religion on others, I do think people should be permitted to worship the way they see fit. Including "Under God" in the pledge, accomodates more than religion. It also accomodates atheists and agnostics. They might not have a "god" per say, but they do have a system of morals and values that can be seen as a "god."
Don't tell me that government programs are wasteful.
At the risk of sounding like a "cold-hearted asshole" (which I was recently called by another poster), I do not feel that the most effective ways of solving problems is through government involvement. American society functioned just fine in the pre-FDR and pre-Depression days without Income tax and the "New Deal" programs. Therefore, it is naive to think that the only way to deal with these problems is to bring in Uncle Sam.
Another way to look at this is to recognize that the "New Deal" programs instituted by FDR during the depression weren't meant to be permenant. They were meant to help the US survive the depression. Even the creators of these programs recognized that government programs aren't the most effective way of dealing with the problems of society.
It would be pointless of me to attack these programs without offering my ideas on substitues or remedys. I personally think that since the US worked fine before these programs were instituted, we should go back to providing a similar type of care for those who need it.
The best care for people comes from the community, not the government. The community is better able to see what is the best for the person. A common argument against this is that people don't care enough to provide for those around them. They point to the current lack of donations as evidence that people are too cold-hearted to give. I feel that some of this apathy towards giving results from these government programs. I know people who look at welfare, social security, etc. and say "why should I have to donate? The government is taking that money out of my paycheck and helping people with it. I don't need to give." If we were to reduce or eliminate these government programs, donations would increase.
Another problem with these programs is their efficiency. The fact that the government is involved means that beaurocray is also in the mix. This means that some of the collected money is wasted in paying for the government overhead. Another problem with these programs (mostly Social Security) is that, when compared to other options, they are a rip-off for the taxpayers. Social Security returns about 1.5% over your lifetime. However, if one was to take the same amount of money and put it in the stock market (for a long term investment), it would return 12-15%. (This figure includes recessions, and is the average return over a 40 year period.
A question for you - Should I be forced to put my money into a program, when I could put it else where and be benefitted more?
This post is getting pretty long, so I will simply say that I am against affirmative action because it means that more qualified people are denied opportunities because they aren't a minority. I can't say much in opposition to the wheat example, except to say that I consider myself a capitalist, and as such, I don't think we should subsidise products to ensure that we have an advantage (this means I am also against international trade tarrifs).
No, I attempt to insult you because I think you're a naive asshole kid.
It is truly disappointing to see that people try and reinforce their arguments with insults. It gives one's arguments much more credibility if one doesn't resort to insulting the other person. It also takes the objectiveness of the argument away. I would prefer to carry on an argument/discussion without having to deal with insults (that don't relate to the discussion) being tossed around. Also, insulting someone isn't going to change their mind, and it could indicate the the person doing the insulting is immature (I am not saying you are immature, I know you feel strongly about this, but that is my rule of thumb for dealing with people who toss insults in the middle of a discussion)
I am truly interested in hearing your feelings on my statements, and I look forward to reading them.
neurostarSpending money on ensuring that everyone can go to a hospital when they need it, HOW IS THAT PISSING AWAY MONEY??
True, these programs aim to ensure that everyone has equal access to medical care. Unfortunately when it comes to reality, this isn't the case. Programs such as this provide equality, but the equality level is sub-par when compared to other medical systems. Also, these systems suffer due to the large amouts of beaurocracy that is inherently involved.
Uhm, do you actually know what communism is?
Yes, it is a system of government in which the goverment intrudes into the daily lives of people in order to provide equality. This intrusion coupled with the system of government rules and laws, stifles innovation (because who wants to work hard when the government takese 75% of what you make?), and encourages corruption.We are currently doing quite well in the area of corruption, and we are well on our way (thanks to both the democrats and republicans) to the 75% taxation.
YOU are one of those conservative youngsters.
Yes, I do consider myself a conservative. However, you must remember that conservativism is not fascism (a bunch of people have these confused in this discussion). I agree with the policies of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/issues/). That is the type of conservative I am, not a fascist.
neurostarLet's see what happens when your right to travel interstate is taken away because only terrorists and the military have to travel that far. Or when some cop runs your plates, connects to the national database of offenses, and sees that one time you set the high school bathroom trash can on fire, and decides to beat you and jail you as a possible offender. Or when the government disperses anti-war protestors at gunpoint ala the Italian Fascists.
These are all terrible things, however, they are not conservativism. They are fascism. I am not a fascist, I am a conservative. To see the kinds of things that I support, please visit the libertarian party website here: http://www.lp.org/issues/
You have no foresight and thus I conclude that you are a college student...
I do have forsight. I have enough forsight to see that if our country continues spending outrageous amounts of money on goverment programs that should be privatized, we are going to be seriously harmed. Government doesn't, and can't, know what is best for people. Government involvement in our lives can only harm us. By limited our freedoms to do with our money as we please (social security, welface, etc.) we are not able to effectively run our own lives.
True, I am a college student. But the fact that I am conservative and support the libertarian policies listed above, sets me apart from the vast majority of college students.
You obviously have no actual argument, since you are forced to resort to feeble attempts at insults.
neurostarwhy are there so many young people that are so conservative these days?
So many young people are conservative today because they don't want their money pissed away by more liberal politicians who view government involvement as the only solution to many problems.
Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism
I would prefer this to a state that gradually declines into communism through over-taxation, an excess of government programs, and an oppressive government.
neurostarRasterman is probably one of the better examples of a skilled to-the-metal coder you're going to find.
I was in no way saying that I doubt his coding skill. I was merely pointing out that it is possible that the demonstration metioned earlier could be flawed because he wrote the conversion code as well as the assembly code. There might be similarities between the generated code and his code, because his gcc code/library is probably programmed to think they same way he does.
This isn't a bad thing of course. I don't think it is bad that the code thinks like he does. I was merely trying to say that it might be a better demonstration if his code generation was compared with a different programmer's code.
neurostarNo, It refers to gcc, meaning gcc, when given C as the input, spit out the same assembly he had just written by hand.
Yes, I understand that.
My point was that, because he designed the library that converted it, as well as wrote the code he was comparing it to, there might be some bias.
neurostarhe was talking about his new canvas library called evas (emphasis added)
It spat out line for line what he had spent hours writing.
I am not meaning to be a troll or anything, but it could be that this library is biased towards his coding style since he wrote it, and as such, it might end up with the same result. I would be more interested to see if his library came up with the same assembly as another person's code. And then see a speed comparison of the two.
neurostarin the case of antimatter propellant, instead of a reactive force, the propellant will just annhilate the surrounding matter
While this reasoning is completely valid. They are not proposing simply injecting antimatter into a combustion chamber. The point is that they will use antimatter in combination with matter (similar to the way they use both oxygen and nitrogen in today's spacecraft). That way the inject matter and the inject antimatter ahihilate each other, causing a large release of energy which propels the spacecraft forward.
neurostarNOTE: That sounds a bit too much like a troll or sarcasm.
Yup. It was Sarcasm.
I really, really, really hope you were being sarcastic
Yeah, I was. I was just trying to make a joke. Oh well.
If you were, please ignore/forgive my tirade.
No problem, I am glad someone cares enough to point something out like you just did. It will probably help the people that are too dumb to be careful.
neurostarother ones will show up, hey doing backflips whilst driving is even more dangerous, who'd have though it?
Actually, recent studies have shown that when done correctly, backflips while driving pose no actual risk...
:)
neurostarThe issue of cell phones in cars is somewhat serious. I know a couple people who have been involved in accidents because they were talking on their cell phones and didn't have time to react. A person who is holding their phone up to their ear is more occupied and so is less likely to be able to respond in a timely fashon.
Some form of headsets are a good idea. They require less attention to the phone and allow the driver to simply talk without worrying about holding the phone up. However, even those cheap $20 ones work just fine for this purpose.
Using bluetooth for this makes bluetooth seem like an answer searching for a question. Using bluetooth would just be using hype to sell super-expensive headsets. I think those cheap one will suffice.
Of course... I don't need any sort of headset. I am an excellent driver and I can concentrate on the road without a headset...
neurostarAdd cost of the two CDs, and the box... and remember you do not get book. It is same price than in the shop, maybe more, if you count quality issues.
Well, yes. But many people I know don't care about those items. They would be satisfied with just the music. And they, I imagine, are the ones that are targeted by this company.
neurostarMetallica S&M would run over $20 on this.
Metallica's S&M CD is a 2 CD set. It retails for $25.
$ .99 * 21 songs = $20.79
You save $4.21!
neurostarActually you don't necessarily...
Just vote Libertarian
neurostarWhat we want is the option of being completely secure or completely anonymous. Neither task is a simple one.
This is very true. Neither of them will be easy to attain. However, given the choice between the two, I would pick anonymity. I think that out of the two, it would be easier to remain anonymous than to have total security. Total security, for all practical purposes, is impossible. It is impossible to ensure that all the people who are watching us are doing the best job with the best intentions. The 'human factor' must be considered.
Even if we do get a great amount of security at the cost of our anonymity, it the 'security' would most likely end up being worse than if everyone was anonymous or even worse than it is now. This flaw in security would result from the fact that someone who wanted to commit some crime, would find it easier to collect a large amount of information about a large number of people. The huge databases required on the path to 'total security' would facillitate this possibility.
However, with anonymity comes separation. If we remain mostly anonymous, it is harder for criminals to get information on us. Law enforcement would still be able to protect us, as stated in the comment by gpinzone, because they don't need to know anything about me, for example, to catch a criminal that stole my car or something.
As an example from my personal life, I try and buy most of the things I get using cash. This is because of the simple fact that cash is anonymous. People can find out that I withdrew $40 from my bank account. But they can't find out what I spent the money on. That means I have the freedom to buy what I want without worrying about someone databasing what I buy. The database of things I buy could be used for something that is only annoying, like targeted advertising, or for something else, like planning a robbery.
To sumarize, I feel we should strive for anonymity because it is safer and it doesn't compromise the ability of Law Enforcement to deal with criminals.
neurostarHere is the link to the roadmap: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/phoenix-ro admap.html
neurostarActually, you would be surprised how much more it would cost for any govenment program. Every govenment program comes with a great amout of overhead. In most types of government, watchers are required. And then watchers are appointed to watch the watchers. Eventually, a couple levels of watching develops. This is one of the reasons why welfare doesn't work so well.
Another problem with a government program is logistical. How would you allow these people access to the readers? Would the readers come to the houses? That would create an even greater expense and would also bring up safety and liability issues.
Or would the blind go to the readers? This would be hard to do because of the problems some of the blind have getting out and about.
If a program is used, usability issues would come up. It would be difficult for a user to communicate with the reader on the other end. And it would make it difficult for the blind person to chose which portion of the page he wants to see.
neurostarDo you mean the italicized text? That is a quote from the previous post that I was responding to.
If that is not what you were refering to, please elaborate because I don't see what you are refering to.
I am so sick of plp blaming technology instead of human reasoning.
Me too. That is why I was saying that P2P had legitimate uses.
neurostarActually, I did read and comprehend. I recognized that he limited his list of "legal" P2P programs to ones he used. I also recognized that he implied that KaZaA was not a worthwhile/legal P2P program. I was merely pointing out that I feel that every P2P network is valid and has legal uses. And I provided an example to correspond to my position on the issue.
neurostarI know for a fact that this simply not true. I am currently a memeber of an industrial band. The only place people have heard my music is from downloading it off of P2P networks. I do have a siteon mp3.com (Mendeleev's Machine). However, very few people have visited it. I have gotten more exposure on P2P networks by sending messages to people (on KaZaA) or by chatting to people (DirectConnect). I am able to tell them about my band and they download it and give it a try.
P2P has given me a free method of distributing my music. And I currently don't care much if others download my music. I would not be receiving any money anyways. I am making music because I like it and I want to let others listen to my creations. P2P gives me an easy method to do so.
neurostarWhen CDs first became widespread, I remember that they were priced at around $12. Maybe $14 for the most popular artists. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a CD for an artist I had only heard of.
However, now that CD prices have risen drastically (over $19 USD in some cases), I have found that it can be a serious financial investment to explore new artists. This method of making more money made me less likely to try new artists. At least until P2P became widespread.
P2P was very good for me. It enabled me to hear artists that I might be interested in and then listen to a few of their songs to see if I like them. I have found that I have started purchasing many more CDs now that I can hear the artists before I buy.
For example, in the last month, I have purchased CDs from Funker Vogt, Peter Murphy, PIG, Kidneythieves, and 16 Volt. All of these artists I first heard from downloading a song or two off of KazaA or DC++. I know for a fact that if I hadn't heard the songs, I wouldn't have purchased the CDs.
The price issues have limited my options relating to hearing new artists. I am more wary to spend $18 USD on somone I have never heard of.
neurostarI personally am not in favor of biometric protection devices. Even if they are 100% effective and never make mistakes reading, I do not feel that they are a wise choice.
Bruce Schneider wrote a good column about biometrics here. I don't like the fact that some biometrics are very easy to steal. This means that once someone discovers your biometric "password" they can use it anywhere because you can't change your password.
So I personally would be wary about having too much faith in such a device. /p
neurostar
Coding an linux interface for cheap entertainment gadget which is produced by a company which is well known for their insecure future perspectives ?
One could argue that this "cheap entertanment gadget" is superior to the current offerings on the market. ( I for one feel that is true). In addition, Apple has been around for quite some time. It is doubtful that they are just going to disappear anytime soon.
Their switch campaign has been working somewhat well. And I do believe that they are slowly regaining market share. If I wasn't such a poor college student, I would be using a MAC right now.
Won't it be better to code much more useful stuff like education applications or scientific libraries? ... But instead these guy waste their time with such not very useful music player things.
True, scientific code would be more beneficial to one area of society. But people do need to be entertained. Also, the people who code programs such as this do it because they want to have the ability to have a certain functionality or use a certain piece of hardware. Thanfully, they have the freedom to pursue the projects they feel would be a meaningful contribution
I am happy that such a program has been written. The main reason I haven't purchased an iPod is because it was only supported on a mac. But now that other options are available, I will be more likely to buy one.
neurostarAnd besides, no 'criminals' who do filesharing posess the creativity necessary to craft their own music or art.
(Apologies to those who miss the sarcasm)