Darwin's Radio is a poor book with a purely bogus concept of what evolution is.
The central conceit of the book is that the evolution from Neanderthal to human was designed into the genome, in the 'junk' DNA, and set to express itself at some pre-set (designed) time. The story revolves around a further designed evolution from human to a new (and presumably 'better') species.
The central point is that the 'junk' is designed. That's not evolution, but some variant of creationism. It's also implausible crap.
Taken purely as art, the book isn't much good either -- the basic plot is that the evolution of the 'over-man' will occasion much Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's not worth wasting time on.
The discovery of another habitable world might spell salvation to the three bitterly competing power blocs of the resource-starved 21st century; but when their representatives arrive on Jem, with its multiple intelligent species, they discover instead the perfect situation into which to export their rivalries. Subtitled, with savage irony, 'The Making of a Utopia', Jem is one of Frederik Pohl's most powerful novels.
I lifted the above blurb from http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/books/n2019_1.ht m; what's below is mine:
Jem's a searingly depressing novel that pulls no punches; it ends without allowing the reader any hope that "things will get better" or that "it's not so bad". Humans are de-humanized and so are sentient alien species, all in the name of corporate profits sometimes fig-leafed as national security concerns.
It's been 10 or 15 years since I read it; I've uncharacteristically never re-read it. It was that powerful, and that depressing.
Good link, but you're mising the point: the link describes how Microsoft will currently allow you to manage auto updates. It's not a contract that constrains them from changing how them manage updates in the future.
The EULA is a contract, and by agreeing to it, you agree that Microsoft may, at Microsoft's discretion, alter software on your computer without notice.
The point is not that they are doing that now. the point is that by accepting the EULA, you agree they may do it at any time in the future.
If you are doing something wrong (stealing music, stealing software), then, sure, you'll feel MS is out to get you. Otherwise, you'll realize that MS has no beef and is simply making empty threats.
What if I'm just doing something unpopular but legal, and I'm worried I might be harmed it if it became known?
What if I were: an Athiest? a Mormon? a Communist? gay? a Branch Dravidian? a civil rights activist? a member of the Ku Klux Klan? a Seventh-Day Adventist? a Catholic? Irish? a union organizer? a Darwinist?
All of the above are legal, but unpopular enough to have been persecuted at one time or another by American society or the American government.
Indeed, members of at least half of these groups have been killed by mobs or corporate thugs or government lackeys for their membership in these groups. Members of all of these groups have been economically persecuted -- denied jobs or loans -- for being members of these groups.
A member of one of these groups might well have material on his computer indicative of such membership, and might well be defensive about what's on his hard drive without ever having engaged in illegal activity. Defensive because he doesn't want to by lynched, ostracized, or driven out of town by the right-thinking mob.
And it's his right, and it's our right, to be secure in the privacy of that information. To secure those rights, the U.S. founding fathers pledged their lives, liberty and sacred honor.
It is our birthright, and you, Esau, would trade it for a mess of pottage and a service pack.
A. InkSaver uses patent pending technology to analyze and control printer data. InkSaver uses advanced algorithms, optimizing printer data so that less ink is laid down on the page and you save money every time you print.
Well, that answers all my questions.
Lemme see: Q. How does Bresenham's Algorithm work?
A. Bresenham's Algorithm uses technology to analyze and control line data. It uses an advanced algorithm, optimzing line data so that less floating point is used everytime you draw a line.
The biggest problem is that you are expected to read and comprehend this enormous legal document so you can, say, play solitaire.
I was installing some software for a friend. When we got to the click-through on one, I stopped, and suggested she read the whole thing. She just clicked through without reading it.
Then she advised me that the best way to not be bound by the license, were I ever to be sued, was to be able to state under oath that I'd never read the whole thing, and had just clicked "Next".
She works for the U.S. House of Representatives. As a lawyer on one of the technology committees.
She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights.
Perhaps Russ Nelson (or anyone else, hint, hint) could let us know what these precedents are.
Without that information, if it's free software we're talking about, it's awfully hard to steal what's already free, and I don't think that the good folks at cygwin are checking to see if I'm running their code on my PC.
So I assume the precedents involve somebody taking GPL'd or similar code and using it in commercial products, or using in in products for which they're unwilling to release the source. (For a question about this, see below)
It's conceivable that this has in fact happended through more or less honest mistakes, as well as through malicious intent. Imagine that Joe Hacker gets his hands on some GPL'd code, modifies it, and posts it on his web site (or on usenet, even more likely) without also posting the license, or with just a link to the license. So Jack Corporate guy sees it, doesn't realize the code is GPL'd, and (pun intended) incorporates Joe Hacker's code in BigCorp.com's latest commercial, closed-source offfering.
So the original coder realizes that the crufty algorithm used in BigCorp's program is his, and he or the Free Software Foundation sues BigCorp, asking that BigCorp make the source -- all of it, including stuff that didn't proceed from the GPL'sd code -- available as per the terms of the GPL license.
Now, either Joe Hacker, the modifier, made the GPL license available or he did not. If he did, he made it available in some less than conscpicuous way, and BigCorp its programmer Jack Corporate say they never saw it. Or, worse, Joe Hacker never made the license availble, becuase he never read the GPL license, because he was just doing some monor mods. And so now BigCorp argues that as far as it knew, the code was in the public domain.
Again, their needs be no malicious intent, only carelessness. Having a click-through license would give the lawyer for the FSF a chance to say, "But surely you saw the license when you installed the original software?"
The problem, of course, is that Joe Hacker woulg have seen it, but Jack Corporate still would not have seen it, as it was Joe who posted the modified copy without the license.
Perhaps the best solution isn't click-through, but putting the license (or, more tolerably, some reference to it, on each and every source file. On the other hand, isn't this already standard with GPL'd code? (This is why I'm interested in those precedents Mr. Nelson mentioned.)
Oh, and the question I mentioned above is actually at least two questions: my understanding is that using any GPL'd code in a product means that all that product's code must be made available, not just the GPL'd part, to anyone who receives a binary. But what if I limit binary distribution to my own corporation or group? Can you -- outside my corporation or group -- still sue me to get my source? What if I port GPL'd code to another programming language? Is the ported code considered GPL'd?
The only time that someone needs an overview of a project is the first time they check it out. If that person is too lazy to click two links to get a general overview, then I don't think it's the open source home page that has the problem.
Well, OK.
But you do see that this is the problem your typical Windows user has with open source, right? That it's too complicated, too obscure, too concerned with "in-crowd" obfuscation and jargonizing, and not anywhere as user-friendly as Microsoft's talking paper-clip?
No way I'm going to devote hours and hours to a project, just to see it languish without users because I can't point to a crisp, clear, informative homepage.
But if you have other agendas, like showing the in-crowd how cool and terse your documentation can be, so be it. Whatever floats your boat, it's all good.
All the congressman would use the money for is to buy votes; why not give him the votes directly?
I'm assuming you're in the IT field, and you get those offers for free or very cheap subscriptions to IT publications, even stuff as mass market as Wired? You get those offers because it's worth the magazine taking a loss to you on the cost of the magazine just to get your eyes on the advertisements in the magazine.
So why not just send you the magazine, rather than send the offer and make you respond to it to get the magazine?
Because they want to be sure they've really got your attention: without that attention, you're not going to be be looking at, and buying from, the ads.
It's the same with politicians: saying I'm in a demographic with X numberm of members doesn't impress them much. Sure, some of those people will vote, but will they remember to vote for the right candiddate? Or will other issues have captured their attention on Election Day?
On the other hand, if you've cut a check to Candidate X, you're much more likely to support him, and to remember to vote for him. Both because you've actually had to write his name ("Committee to re-elect Jones") on the check, and because you now have co-joined your interests with him: you've put your money into the effort, and and people don't like seeing something they've put money into, fail.
There's a greater pyschological pressure on you now to actually vote for him, because to do otherwise would mean admitting, if only to yourself, that you wasted your money, made a poor choice. And nobody likes to admit they made a poor choice on an important issue. And there's a a greater pyschological pressure to follow through; after all, you've invested the money, might as well make investment of time by going to the voting booth.
Politicians implictly understand that most people forget, by the time Election Day rolls around, all the heated anouncements they made about how "Y is the most important issue to me, and I'll vote against Candidate X if he doesn't support issue Y". They also implicity know that once you've committed money, you're on board unless they really do go against you on a hot button issue.
So the money's important, but as much as for its pyschological meaning to the giver as for its utility to the receiver. The money's an indication that you're really serious, and kvetching with your beer buddies.
How is it any different....we'd hand them a business card....
That's precisely how it's different: you let them know it was your business (presumably; you didn't say you handed the onlookers a business card while claiming you'd gotten it as a customer), and that let them know that you were naturally biased in favor of your own product.
It's pretending they're customers rather than shills that offends: if my friend buys product X, and tells me it's excellent, I assume my friend isn't being remunerated to do so, so I trust that's his real opinion. That's why we don't call acquaintances who sell Amway or Tupperware "friends".
No, the OP has a good point. Too many open source home pages start with a change log. Nice for people already in the know, but I've wasted too much time clicking around for some summary of what the project's all about.
If they're going to all this trouble, why not just hire some sluts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "actresses" to wear low cut blouses with the phone strategically stuffed into their cleavage? Displaying a photo of herself in the all-together?
Pairs of "leaners" in bars! "If you were cool enough to buy this phone, you could get my number on the pretex of playing battleship while buyiing me drinks from across the bar!" Giggle, giggle. "And then you could use the phone to take pictures of me flashing my tits in forfeit for losing at battleship!" Giggle, giggle.
I wonder how much Mr. Brillaint PR Man got paid for this stunning idea?
Ever read the ccdb developer's license? Basically, it says that if you use ccdb in your product, you are contractually obligated not to use any other source of information about cd content.
In other words, "if you want to use us, we get to be a monopoly". Your application can't even offer the end user an option to select between using ccdb and some other cd databse.
Sorry. Even Microsoft doesn't require a developer to use only its API if he uses any part of Microsoft's API.
Screw ccdb: I'll type in the song names before I'll use a service that tries to arrogate itself to monopoly status, especially when they rely on end users to do the actual data entry.
Why would a US politician care if I (a Canadian) complained about something?
A US politican won't. A Canadian one will. But since a lot of patent issues are covered by international treaties, a little right thinking Canadian input might do some good here in the States.
That's agood point, Milo, but it doesn't go far enough.
Non-Virginians need to show their appreciation of Boucher the old fashioned way: with cash.
Want Boucher to succeed? Send the guy's campaign fund some cash. In fact, send enough that other politicians sit up and take notice.
In fact, send a copy of your cancelled check to your own representative. Let him (or her) know why you respect Boucher enough to part with your beer money. And let him (or her) know that you vote, and are capable of sending an equal amount of money to your representative or to his (or her) opponent.
Send a copy of that letter to ten of your like-minded friends, and exhort them to do what you've just done.
So? What are you waiting for? Send that check, and send those letters. Now. Before the cops come to confisticate your computer. Before the RIAA sends a million to Boucher's opponent. Before Fritz Hollings or Joe Biden get their bills passed. Now.
Slashdot Mirror
I always figured the real main problem is that there's very little gain for anyone to revive some cretin from the past
You're right as far as you go, but you must consider that in the future, Man will have wiped out most animal life on Earth.
But the kiddies will still want to go to zoos....
"Welcome to the year 3000, corpsicle! You'll be living in this diorama we call 'Mogadishu: The Years of Filth and Famine'!"
no.
Darwin's Radio is a poor book with a purely bogus concept of what evolution is.
The central conceit of the book is that the evolution from Neanderthal to human was designed into the genome, in the 'junk' DNA, and set to express itself at some pre-set (designed) time. The story revolves around a further designed evolution from human to a new (and presumably 'better') species.
The central point is that the 'junk' is designed. That's not evolution, but some variant of creationism. It's also implausible crap.
Taken purely as art, the book isn't much good either -- the basic plot is that the evolution of the 'over-man' will occasion much Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's not worth wasting time on.
Jem
t m; what's below is mine:
(1979)
A novel by
Frederik Pohl
Awards
Nebula (nominee)
Hugo (nominee)
The discovery of another habitable world might spell salvation to the three bitterly competing power blocs of the resource-starved 21st century; but when their representatives arrive on Jem, with its multiple intelligent species, they discover instead the perfect situation into which to export their rivalries. Subtitled, with savage irony, 'The Making of a Utopia', Jem is one of Frederik Pohl's most powerful novels.
I lifted the above blurb from http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/books/n2019_1.h
Jem's a searingly depressing novel that pulls no punches; it ends without allowing the reader any hope that "things will get better" or that "it's not so bad". Humans are de-humanized and so are sentient alien species, all in the name of corporate profits sometimes fig-leafed as national security concerns.
It's been 10 or 15 years since I read it; I've uncharacteristically never re-read it. It was that powerful, and that depressing.
Good link, but you're mising the point: the link describes how Microsoft will currently allow you to manage auto updates. It's not a contract that constrains them from changing how them manage updates in the future.
The EULA is a contract, and by agreeing to it, you agree that Microsoft may, at Microsoft's discretion, alter software on your computer without notice.
The point is not that they are doing that now. the point is that by accepting the EULA, you agree they may do it at any time in the future.
If you are doing something wrong (stealing music, stealing software), then, sure, you'll feel MS is out to get you. Otherwise, you'll realize that MS has no beef and is simply making empty threats.
What if I'm just doing something unpopular but legal, and I'm worried I might be harmed it if it became known?
What if I were:
an Athiest?
a Mormon?
a Communist?
gay?
a Branch Dravidian?
a civil rights activist?
a member of the Ku Klux Klan?
a Seventh-Day Adventist?
a Catholic?
Irish?
a union organizer?
a Darwinist?
All of the above are legal, but unpopular enough to have been persecuted at one time or another by American society or the American government.
Indeed, members of at least half of these groups have been killed by mobs or corporate thugs or government lackeys for their membership in these groups. Members of all of these groups have been economically persecuted -- denied jobs or loans -- for being members of these groups.
A member of one of these groups might well have material on his computer indicative of such membership, and might well be defensive about what's on his hard drive without ever having engaged in illegal activity. Defensive because he doesn't want to by lynched, ostracized, or driven out of town by the right-thinking mob.
And it's his right, and it's our right, to be secure in the privacy of that information. To secure those rights, the U.S. founding fathers pledged their lives, liberty and sacred honor.
It is our birthright, and you, Esau, would trade it for a mess of pottage and a service pack.
Lemme see:
Q. How does Bresenham's Algorithm work?
A. Bresenham's Algorithm uses technology to analyze and control line data. It uses an advanced algorithm, optimzing line data so that less floating point is used everytime you draw a line.
Oh, that answered my question.
Don't call it a FAQ when it's a press release!
or there is some strange natural process
It's merely a pedantic quibble, but life is a
strange natural process.
Unless, of course, you're a creationist (or, same thing, a proponent of "Intelligent Design" theories).
Gee, and I bet when you were a kiddie you always wished you could be tough enough to be a bully.
So log in as Anonymous Coward and NAME NAMES!
We can't boycott unless we know the ISP's name.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be patronizing, just funny.
A long, long, time ago I worked as a editor, and errors like "masterbate" and "grammer" and "your write" just jump out at me.
The biggest problem is that you are expected to read and comprehend this enormous legal document so you can, say, play solitaire.
I was installing some software for a friend. When we got to the click-through on one, I stopped, and suggested she read the whole thing. She just clicked through without reading it.
Then she advised me that the best way to not be bound by the license, were I ever to be sued, was to be able to state under oath that I'd never read the whole thing, and had just clicked "Next".
She works for the U.S. House of Representatives. As a lawyer on one of the technology committees.
What if I have a child click through?
"Uh, yeah, lady, I was jus' givin' your kid some candy so he'd come home wif' me and uh, do some clickin' on my PC."
"Wha? No. I an't no pervert, lady, we ain't talkin' pr0n, really, I'm jus' installin' some dat click-wrap software. Hones' I am.
I found that not masterbating at all for a few weeks helped me to get the incentive to get laid.
I found that not mastUrbating at all for a few weeks made me unable to spell correctly.
(But then I always mastUrbate by spelling out the names of my exes, as if holding my manhood were a pen.)
She said yes, because of various legal precedents. We consulted a few people and yes, it looks like a license without click-wrap is weaker at protecting your rights.
Perhaps Russ Nelson (or anyone else, hint, hint) could let us know what these precedents are.
Without that information, if it's free software we're talking about, it's awfully hard to steal what's already free, and I don't think that the good folks at cygwin are checking to see if I'm running their code on my PC.
So I assume the precedents involve somebody taking GPL'd or similar code and using it in commercial products, or using in in products for which they're unwilling to release the source. (For a question about this, see below)
It's conceivable that this has in fact happended through more or less honest mistakes, as well as through malicious intent. Imagine that Joe Hacker gets his hands on some GPL'd code, modifies it, and posts it on his web site (or on usenet, even more likely) without also posting the license, or with just a link to the license. So Jack Corporate guy sees it, doesn't realize the code is GPL'd, and (pun intended) incorporates Joe Hacker's code in BigCorp.com's latest commercial, closed-source offfering.
So the original coder realizes that the crufty algorithm used in BigCorp's program is his, and he or the Free Software Foundation sues BigCorp, asking that BigCorp make the source -- all of it, including stuff that didn't proceed from the GPL'sd code -- available as per the terms of the GPL license.
Now, either Joe Hacker, the modifier, made the GPL license available or he did not. If he did, he made it available in some less than conscpicuous way, and BigCorp its programmer Jack Corporate say they never saw it. Or, worse, Joe Hacker never made the license availble, becuase he never read the GPL license, because he was just doing some monor mods. And so now BigCorp argues that as far as it knew, the code was in the public domain.
Again, their needs be no malicious intent, only carelessness. Having a click-through license would give the lawyer for the FSF a chance to say, "But surely you saw the license when you installed the original software?"
The problem, of course, is that Joe Hacker woulg have seen it, but Jack Corporate still would not have seen it, as it was Joe who posted the modified copy without the license.
Perhaps the best solution isn't click-through, but putting the license (or, more tolerably, some reference to it, on each and every source file. On the other hand, isn't this already standard with GPL'd code? (This is why I'm interested in those precedents Mr. Nelson mentioned.)
Oh, and the question I mentioned above is actually at least two questions: my understanding is that using any GPL'd code in a product means that all that product's code must be made available, not just the GPL'd part, to anyone who receives a binary. But what if I limit binary distribution to my own corporation or group? Can you -- outside my corporation or group -- still sue me to get my source? What if I port GPL'd code to another programming language? Is the ported code considered GPL'd?
Rediculous profit? Is that when you have massive losses? (Sorry, bad accounting joke.)
No, Running Dog Capitalist, clearly he is a Communist and a Vangaurd of the Proletariat.
Ultraviolet T-Shirt Contest!
The only time that someone needs an overview of a project is the first time they check it out. If that person is too lazy to click two links to get a general overview, then I don't think it's the open source home page that has the problem.
Well, OK.
But you do see that this is the problem your typical Windows user has with open source, right? That it's too complicated, too obscure, too concerned with "in-crowd" obfuscation and jargonizing, and not anywhere as user-friendly as Microsoft's talking paper-clip?
No way I'm going to devote hours and hours to a project, just to see it languish without users because I can't point to a crisp, clear, informative homepage.
But if you have other agendas, like showing the in-crowd how cool and terse your documentation can be, so be it. Whatever floats your boat, it's all good.
All the congressman would use the money for is to buy votes; why not give him the votes directly?
I'm assuming you're in the IT field, and you get those offers for free or very cheap subscriptions to IT publications, even stuff as mass market as Wired? You get those offers because it's worth the magazine taking a loss to you on the cost of the magazine just to get your eyes on the advertisements in the magazine.
So why not just send you the magazine, rather than send the offer and make you respond to it to get the magazine?
Because they want to be sure they've really got your attention: without that attention, you're not going to be be looking at, and buying from, the ads.
It's the same with politicians: saying I'm in a demographic with X numberm of members doesn't impress them much. Sure, some of those people will vote, but will they remember to vote for the right candiddate? Or will other issues have captured their attention on Election Day?
On the other hand, if you've cut a check to Candidate X, you're much more likely to support him, and to remember to vote for him. Both because you've actually had to write his name ("Committee to re-elect Jones") on the check, and because you now have co-joined your interests with him: you've put your money into the effort, and and people don't like seeing something they've put money into, fail.
There's a greater pyschological pressure on you now to actually vote for him, because to do otherwise would mean admitting, if only to yourself, that you wasted your money, made a poor choice. And nobody likes to admit they made a poor choice on an important issue. And there's a a greater pyschological pressure to follow through; after all, you've invested the money, might as well make investment of time by going to the voting booth.
Politicians implictly understand that most people forget, by the time Election Day rolls around, all the heated anouncements they made about how "Y is the most important issue to me, and I'll vote against Candidate X if he doesn't support issue Y". They also implicity know that once you've committed money, you're on board unless they really do go against you on a hot button issue.
So the money's important, but as much as for its pyschological meaning to the giver as for its utility to the receiver. The money's an indication that you're really serious, and kvetching with your beer buddies.
How is it any different....we'd hand them a business card....
That's precisely how it's different: you let them know it was your business (presumably; you didn't say you handed the onlookers a business card while claiming you'd gotten it as a customer), and that let them know that you were naturally biased in favor of your own product.
It's pretending they're customers rather than shills that offends: if my friend buys product X, and tells me it's excellent, I assume my friend isn't being remunerated to do so, so I trust that's his real opinion. That's why we don't call acquaintances who sell Amway or Tupperware "friends".
No, the OP has a good point. Too many open source home pages start with a change log. Nice for people already in the know, but I've wasted too much time clicking around for some summary of what the project's all about.
Hey babay, I'll give ya $50 more than Erickson if you come back to my place and we can take a few pictures with that phone!
If they're going to all this trouble, why not just hire some sluts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "actresses" to wear low cut blouses with the phone strategically stuffed into their cleavage? Displaying a photo of herself in the all-together?
Pairs of "leaners" in bars! "If you were cool enough to buy this phone, you could get my number on the pretex of playing battleship while buyiing me drinks from across the bar!" Giggle, giggle. "And then you could use the phone to take pictures of me flashing my tits in forfeit for losing at battleship!" Giggle, giggle.
I wonder how much Mr. Brillaint PR Man got paid for this stunning idea?
Ever read the ccdb developer's license? Basically, it says that if you use ccdb in your product, you are contractually obligated not to use any other source of information about cd content.
In other words, "if you want to use us, we get to be a monopoly". Your application can't even offer the end user an option to select between using ccdb and some other cd databse.
Sorry. Even Microsoft doesn't require a developer to use only its API if he uses any part of Microsoft's API.
Screw ccdb: I'll type in the song names before I'll use a service that tries to arrogate itself to monopoly status, especially when they rely on end users to do the actual data entry.
Why would a US politician care if I (a Canadian) complained about something?
A US politican won't. A Canadian one will. But since a lot of patent issues are covered by international treaties, a little right thinking Canadian input might do some good here in the States.
That's agood point, Milo, but it doesn't go far enough.
Non-Virginians need to show their appreciation of Boucher the old fashioned way: with cash.
Want Boucher to succeed? Send the guy's campaign fund some cash. In fact, send enough that other politicians sit up and take notice.
In fact, send a copy of your cancelled check to your own representative. Let him (or her) know why you respect Boucher enough to part with your beer money. And let him (or her) know that you vote, and are capable of sending an equal amount of money to your representative or to his (or her) opponent.
Send a copy of that letter to ten of your like-minded friends, and exhort them to do what you've just done.
So? What are you waiting for? Send that check, and send those letters. Now. Before the cops come to confisticate your computer. Before the RIAA sends a million to Boucher's opponent. Before Fritz Hollings or Joe Biden get their bills passed. Now.