The problem is "for limited Times" is becoming "for really long times" and "to Authors and Inventors" is becoming "to Authors, Inventors and whoever can sue them out of existence".
They may not break it, but they sure are bending it.
Two meters to my right is a SparcClassic (I collect interesting computers) with 32 megs of RAM. It's not very fast (processor is in the tens of megahertz range, IIRC), but it runs a full Solaris environment with X and OpenLook and is quite capable considering its size and age.
Mind you - it runs a GUI out of those 32 megabytes and there's still space left for the OS.
There was a time when if I said I would carry an asymmetric RISC multi-processor with a multitasking operating system, 64 megabytes of RAM and a couple gigabytes of storage on my pocket and still be able to connect it to other computers around the world during a commute I would get locked up.
Imagine If I told them I would make phone calls with it.
Many of them were apprehended while shooting at US troops. I understand that while, in those situations, collecting forensic evidence can be hard, if a couple soldiers that were exchanging fire with the accused took depositions, there would be enough evidence to pursue a proper trial. That is a huge nuisance in times of war and that's why we have a simplified process in the form of the Geneva Convention
What really bothers me is this legal limbo they are in - being neither civilian criminals that should be properly tried nor enemy soldiers who should be treated in accordance to international treaties. When people start falling through the cracks of a system by the thousands, it's because the system is badly broken.
I am also bothered by what I perceive as an active effort to shove people through those cracks. That makes me believe that those cracks won't be fixed anytime soon.
"These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply"
So, what you are saying is that because Gitmo is not subject to the rule of the US constitution, those civilians who were captured have no rights under it and that because they are civilians, they have no right under the GC. So, in fact, they have no rights whatsoever. And that everything is OK because they are allowed to practice their religion and brush their teeth.
And you somehow think it's right.
Keep in mind a lot of them were captured during the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the US and whose largest offenses were being ruled a obnoxious dictator that pissed off the POTUS and who have every right not to thank the US because they were bombed back to stone age and then invaded by so called liberators. If at some point in the future some foreign power decides to invade the US and a civilian resistance movement starts, would you be OK with your fellow countrymen being held in a legal limbo? Would it be fine to torture them as long as they can practice their religion and brush their teeth?
If Gitmo is not part of the US, then what is it? Part of Cuba that has been invaded for so long that Cubans don't care anymore? Shouldn't it be under _some_ law?
And, BTW, the US Constitution applies to everyone within any part of the US territory (including embassies, planes and boats in international waters) and not only to US citizens. It's sad (not to say it betrays the legacy of your Founding Fathers) to think one can bend _this_ law to serve any purpose.
Just a thought that crossed my mind the other day (actually after watching "Idiocracy" on TV).
By making our products ad foolproof as we can aren't we inviting fools to use them? And, by doing so, aren't we removing an evolutionary pressure that prevented really dumb people from being socially functional?
The EeePC is a very inexpensive and small notebook computer.
they are entirely different beasts.
The Eee has ha UMPC screen (480x800) while the XO has much higher resolution one designed to consume less power and to be readable under direct sunlight. It also sports a next to indestructible design and mesh networking hardware. The Eee is just a low-power (and underpowered) notebook.
Not to say I don't like it. In fact, I would like to have both.
But the EeePC's technology points towards the present - there is nothing new in it except the price. The XO points towards the future. And we all know the future is a much cooler place.
It was _designed_ for the shuttle. Not only the cargo mounts are different from any other delivery mechanism, the acceleration and vibration characteristics are totally different. In order to be carried by any other vehicle, it would need an extensive redesign, rebuilding and recertification.
It's a sad thruth it needs a shuttle to deliver it.
BTW, couldn't a shuttle-compatible vehicle be designed? I assume the ARES V would have similar vibration and acceleration characteristics and could accommodate a shuttle-compatible cargo-bay if required.
If we really want to colonize space, we should stop risking lives on LEO and start risking lives and spending money for something useful. LEO has very little to offer in terms of knowledge compared to any other destination. It's even hard to think about LEO as a destination.
Chemical rockets will not be able to take humans anywhere. Current spaceships are delicate because they have to be light. That's because our engines are underpowered. A shuttle needs an overly complicated (and fragile) heat-shield in order to do atmospheric braking because its engines can't brake it.
We need better engines so we can build better and safer spacecrafts.
We won't be going anywhere interesting with those tin cans.
NASA lost Challenger's crew because nobody had the guts to postpone the launch again because it was too cold and outside the operational temperature range of the SRBs. They died because someone who does not risk his/her life thought the benefit of launching in those conditions was preferable to the damage another delay would cause to his/her career. It was considered low-risk because nobody had the stomach to give any bad news to upper management and the people who should know the ship would blow-up didn't.
Another crew was lost on Columbia because nobody ever made an assessment of the damage falling foam could do to the shuttle. In more than a hundred flights, no shuttle heat shield, as vital as it is to a successful mission, was ever inspected in orbit. Damage suffered during take-off was always considered insignificant and, so, was ignored. Had anyone considered that possibility, there would be a plan-B in place to rescue the crew and land the vehicle on automatic.
BTW, if we had a vehicle that could take a shuttle crew back from LEO it could, probably, take a shuttle crew to the ISS and back and, thus, we would not need shuttles for every mission.
The shuttle is a horrible solution. It's expensive, fragile and unreliable. The fact it exists and that it sort of works is proof of the brilliance of the people who built and operates them, but it's also proof of the shortsightedness of everyone who decides what those brilliant people should build and operate.
The same dim people who manage the bright ones are to decide which experiments should go and which will never see space.
Well... They could agree in the docking mechanisms that allowed shuttles and Soyouz spacecrafts to dock on the same ports of Mir and ISS.
While I can believe it never happened, it amazes me that they didn't think about agreeing on a standard cargo mount. It sounds so much simpler than docking ports...
How much would a shuttle-whatever cargo mount weight?
And this extends to everyone that sends things to space - a standard cargo mount could work wonders.
When you say people live between extremes you are also implying people live in the gray area between them. There is no need for only the extremes to be either black or white.
"It only seems like an oddity because you think a single name can sum up your political orientation, especially one that doesn't really define any. It is actually little more than the name of a football team that has a high player turnover rate."
That's one great definition. Where are my modpoints when I need them?
"Under GPLv2, you could create a derivative work and run a website based on it, but not share the changes since you weren't technically distributing the software. Or you could create a signed binary, and hardware that won't run it unless that binary is exactly the same. Or you could patent some procedure used, so that people can see the source code, but if they do anything with it, they violate your patent."
You still can run a web site on modified GPL3 software and not share the modifications you made. It's the AGPL3 (http://www.fsf.org/agplv3-pr) that prohibits this. GPL3 only prohibits you from bundling software and hardware in such a way you cannot change the software part, unlike the GPL2 that doesn't disallow that.
Please, read the licenses. We need more information, not disinformation. BTW, the article quoted by the GP is ancient, from before the release of GPL3.
Slashdot Mirror
"I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's the best I can think of."
It's a very good one.
Of course, it would be better not to invade the wrong country supported by lousy inteligence, but your idea is a good start.
One day we will all laugh at this.
The problem is "for limited Times" is becoming "for really long times" and "to Authors and Inventors" is becoming "to Authors, Inventors and whoever can sue them out of existence".
They may not break it, but they sure are bending it.
Two meters to my right is a SparcClassic (I collect interesting computers) with 32 megs of RAM. It's not very fast (processor is in the tens of megahertz range, IIRC), but it runs a full Solaris environment with X and OpenLook and is quite capable considering its size and age.
Mind you - it runs a GUI out of those 32 megabytes and there's still space left for the OS.
There was a time when if I said I would carry an asymmetric RISC multi-processor with a multitasking operating system, 64 megabytes of RAM and a couple gigabytes of storage on my pocket and still be able to connect it to other computers around the world during a commute I would get locked up.
Imagine If I told them I would make phone calls with it.
Many of them were apprehended while shooting at US troops. I understand that while, in those situations, collecting forensic evidence can be hard, if a couple soldiers that were exchanging fire with the accused took depositions, there would be enough evidence to pursue a proper trial. That is a huge nuisance in times of war and that's why we have a simplified process in the form of the Geneva Convention
What really bothers me is this legal limbo they are in - being neither civilian criminals that should be properly tried nor enemy soldiers who should be treated in accordance to international treaties. When people start falling through the cracks of a system by the thousands, it's because the system is badly broken.
I am also bothered by what I perceive as an active effort to shove people through those cracks. That makes me believe that those cracks won't be fixed anytime soon.
"These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply"
So, what you are saying is that because Gitmo is not subject to the rule of the US constitution, those civilians who were captured have no rights under it and that because they are civilians, they have no right under the GC. So, in fact, they have no rights whatsoever. And that everything is OK because they are allowed to practice their religion and brush their teeth.
And you somehow think it's right.
Keep in mind a lot of them were captured during the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the US and whose largest offenses were being ruled a obnoxious dictator that pissed off the POTUS and who have every right not to thank the US because they were bombed back to stone age and then invaded by so called liberators. If at some point in the future some foreign power decides to invade the US and a civilian resistance movement starts, would you be OK with your fellow countrymen being held in a legal limbo? Would it be fine to torture them as long as they can practice their religion and brush their teeth?
If Gitmo is not part of the US, then what is it? Part of Cuba that has been invaded for so long that Cubans don't care anymore? Shouldn't it be under _some_ law?
And, BTW, the US Constitution applies to everyone within any part of the US territory (including embassies, planes and boats in international waters) and not only to US citizens. It's sad (not to say it betrays the legacy of your Founding Fathers) to think one can bend _this_ law to serve any purpose.
I hope this shameful episode will end someday.
OK. But it was not designed to be used the same way we use our computers - That's not its primary design goal.
In that sense, it has as much in common to the notebook I am typing this as this notebook has with the Playstation downstairs.
Just a thought that crossed my mind the other day (actually after watching "Idiocracy" on TV).
By making our products ad foolproof as we can aren't we inviting fools to use them? And, by doing so, aren't we removing an evolutionary pressure that prevented really dumb people from being socially functional?
Are we making stupidity _less_ painful?
No, but this is Slashdot. When Bill Gates ceases to be the richest man in the world, I would expect /.ers to take notice.
"and a Mexican billionaire by the name of Carlos Slim"
Who, AFAIK, currently holds the title of the richest man in the world.
The XO is not a computer. It's a teaching tool.
The EeePC is a very inexpensive and small notebook computer.
they are entirely different beasts.
The Eee has ha UMPC screen (480x800) while the XO has much higher resolution one designed to consume less power and to be readable under direct sunlight. It also sports a next to indestructible design and mesh networking hardware. The Eee is just a low-power (and underpowered) notebook.
Not to say I don't like it. In fact, I would like to have both.
But the EeePC's technology points towards the present - there is nothing new in it except the price. The XO points towards the future. And we all know the future is a much cooler place.
It was _designed_ for the shuttle. Not only the cargo mounts are different from any other delivery mechanism, the acceleration and vibration characteristics are totally different. In order to be carried by any other vehicle, it would need an extensive redesign, rebuilding and recertification.
It's a sad thruth it needs a shuttle to deliver it.
BTW, couldn't a shuttle-compatible vehicle be designed? I assume the ARES V would have similar vibration and acceleration characteristics and could accommodate a shuttle-compatible cargo-bay if required.
Well... At least he didn't start a war with the wrong country.
If we really want to colonize space, we should stop risking lives on LEO and start risking lives and spending money for something useful. LEO has very little to offer in terms of knowledge compared to any other destination. It's even hard to think about LEO as a destination.
Chemical rockets will not be able to take humans anywhere. Current spaceships are delicate because they have to be light. That's because our engines are underpowered. A shuttle needs an overly complicated (and fragile) heat-shield in order to do atmospheric braking because its engines can't brake it.
We need better engines so we can build better and safer spacecrafts.
We won't be going anywhere interesting with those tin cans.
NASA lost Challenger's crew because nobody had the guts to postpone the launch again because it was too cold and outside the operational temperature range of the SRBs. They died because someone who does not risk his/her life thought the benefit of launching in those conditions was preferable to the damage another delay would cause to his/her career. It was considered low-risk because nobody had the stomach to give any bad news to upper management and the people who should know the ship would blow-up didn't.
Another crew was lost on Columbia because nobody ever made an assessment of the damage falling foam could do to the shuttle. In more than a hundred flights, no shuttle heat shield, as vital as it is to a successful mission, was ever inspected in orbit. Damage suffered during take-off was always considered insignificant and, so, was ignored. Had anyone considered that possibility, there would be a plan-B in place to rescue the crew and land the vehicle on automatic.
BTW, if we had a vehicle that could take a shuttle crew back from LEO it could, probably, take a shuttle crew to the ISS and back and, thus, we would not need shuttles for every mission.
The shuttle is a horrible solution. It's expensive, fragile and unreliable. The fact it exists and that it sort of works is proof of the brilliance of the people who built and operates them, but it's also proof of the shortsightedness of everyone who decides what those brilliant people should build and operate.
The same dim people who manage the bright ones are to decide which experiments should go and which will never see space.
I am not optimistic.
Well... They could agree in the docking mechanisms that allowed shuttles and Soyouz spacecrafts to dock on the same ports of Mir and ISS.
While I can believe it never happened, it amazes me that they didn't think about agreeing on a standard cargo mount. It sounds so much simpler than docking ports...
How much would a shuttle-whatever cargo mount weight?
And this extends to everyone that sends things to space - a standard cargo mount could work wonders.
I used to do a lot of Forth, but PostScript makes me turn my stomach inside out. ;-)
But OK. Out of respect for Forth, I may give it a try.
BTW, what did you build in PostScript?
I would like to add that having no faith at all is considered a big plus in a scientist.
"My boss informed one of them that he should be a garbage man."
The garbage men are very clever people. Every Dilbert fan knows that.
"But there's a reason Doctors and Lawyers cost so much. Do we really want $350/hr computer technicians?"
You bet.
As a side effect, more robust (as in "non-Windows") software will get a huge boost.
When you say people live between extremes you are also implying people live in the gray area between them. There is no need for only the extremes to be either black or white.
There is plenty of room outside the gray areas.
Another good reason why it died is that you had to program it in PostScript.
Programming in PostScript is as much fun as programming in Brainfuck.
+1 funny. Really.
;-)
It's not every moderator that can appreciate the more subtle ones.
AC even tried to help, putting a reference to Pagemaker... It would be more obvious if he used FrontPage as an example
BTW, why not PSML, a markup language based on PostScript?
Life isn't. Conduct standards should be.
GP is right. If we decide to draw the line between shades of gray, where should we draw it?
"It only seems like an oddity because you think a single name can sum up your political orientation, especially one that doesn't really define any. It is actually little more than the name of a football team that has a high player turnover rate."
That's one great definition. Where are my modpoints when I need them?
"Under GPLv2, you could create a derivative work and run a website based on it, but not share the changes since you weren't technically distributing the software. Or you could create a signed binary, and hardware that won't run it unless that binary is exactly the same. Or you could patent some procedure used, so that people can see the source code, but if they do anything with it, they violate your patent."
You still can run a web site on modified GPL3 software and not share the modifications you made. It's the AGPL3 (http://www.fsf.org/agplv3-pr) that prohibits this. GPL3 only prohibits you from bundling software and hardware in such a way you cannot change the software part, unlike the GPL2 that doesn't disallow that.
Please, read the licenses. We need more information, not disinformation. BTW, the article quoted by the GP is ancient, from before the release of GPL3.