What would you rather it be called then? Since he wasn't given the password, it was unauthorized access (meaning he had to circumvent some security measures). Besides, what is brute forcing it but more guesses that are less educated? Unless you mean that in order to hack something you have to take advantage of an exploit, but that's not really as useful a definition.
Um... Most schools I'm aware of still teach at least one of the ones you listed, and most 2. The others usually show up on a list of books for something like a book report as homework across a break. The problem is far from a lack of education. It's a mix of stupid 'journalism' and apathy.
Just look at this year. You can't turn on the damn TV or open a newspaper or magazine, etc. without hearing about the presidential race. Every four years it's always the same old "get out the vote" BS, and the other three (and their primaries) are barely even reported, let alone discussed. People (that aren't totally out of it) know that congress passes the laws, and the laws are what actually affect you, but they just never seem to realize that means their congressmen matter, even more than the president. Sure, if, say, Jesus were to show up and appoint someone to the presidency who knew what the hell was going on and actually cared about the people and their rights, then the veto power could be used for some good, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.
The other problem is that people don't understand that the law isn't "The Law". They never realize that it's not some ancient black tome with gold letters that's been the sitting at SCOTUS for 200 years, but rather that it is a living reflection of their will. Most people just think that congress passes laws and they have to obey them. It's pathetic really, and primarily the result of the centralization of power at the federal level. (And at the state level for those powers the constitution expressly forbids the federal government from having. I'm looking at you drinking age!)
It used to be that the most power rested with the local government and the people would get together and decide how they wanted their community to run. That is why schools are run by local governments. They were set up by the community to teach kids what they thought they should know. Now we see massive pressure from the states to teach a precise curriculum and even more regulations on top of those. (e.g. public school is so damn expensive now because they are required to educate _everyone_ because it's apparently important to force children who are medically retarded through the same mold as those that aren't). Things like these make people feel powerless. The further up the power goes, the less their vote counts, and the more beholden to the higher-ups for funding for the regulations that are forced upon them (e.g. see above).
I was visiting a friend a couple months back and he warned me about a school zone (15MPH speed limit for those who don't know) they had just put in. Nothing on that road had changed in 20+ years, including the fact that it had no sidewalks, nor anything but forest opposite the school. But for some reason the township had recently declared it a school zone and stationed a police officer there. The result being high school students being hit with tickets for $200+ for going only 25MPH or so on a road that normal 35MPH. Nobody liked it, so I hold him to get together with a group of people and tell the commissioners something to the effect of "This is our community and if we don't want a school zone with camped out officer then we better not have one, and sure as hell better not be paying for one". I don't know if that ever happened, but regardless, it hasn't changed.
I've gone a bit far off the path, but the point is these are all things that reasonably intelligent (i.e. not on Jaywalking) people _know_, they just don't _understand_. The challenge is actually getting them to realize that _they_ are the solution and voting for the best turd sandwich every four years is not.
But here's the real question: do you think either candidate actually cares? Of course McCain is saying that; it appeals to his base. Obama's base, on the other hand, doesn't care, so why would he risk offending people by saying it?
Remember that the president has no direct presence in the law making process other than the veto, which is only very rarely used. The can, and do, set the mood of the government and push through things they care about. But if they don't give a damn, they just sign the paper. From what I've seen of these candidates and the others before them, they really just don't know or care about the issues that we discuss on a daily basis here at slashdot. I just can't believe that either one is going to do but just sign whatever bill hits their desk because things like health care and gas prices are the only things that the populous cares about.
It turns out that you browser will store all the information needed to recreate the web pages you visit! Not just a screenshot! This critical flaw appears to have present for years in all known browsers! The end is near!
Seriously? Come on. I know./ likes to post anything related to the iPhone, especially if it involves "spying", but this is pretty uninteresting. Security is traded for speed and features on a daily basis, including places where do so presents a major risk (*cough*Outlook). This is really not too surprising since it trades at most a little privacy in exchange for a neat effect; what would you expect Apple's iCandy to do?
There's that minor difference between recording that information for simple personal use and recording in for use as evidence in a court of law. Otherwise, there would be no need for PI licenses since, after all, a PI is only recording publicly available information like where you go and what you say.
While what you say is true in the general case, it is not necessarily true. In particular, when the courts rule it to be in the greater good (INIAL, so I'm not sure the specific criteria) they can suspend free speech rights. Also, of course, contracts are frequently used to limit speech on certain subjects, though of course those can only impose civil penalties and must be agreed to by both parties.
So, while the gag orders very likely do not fit within those limitations, they do pose one very real problem: how do you challenge them without violating them? If you just want to take the hit, you can always just ignore it, but you'll almost certainly be in federal prison for a couple years before hearing the first verdict with regards to the constitutionality of the order. And furthermore if you were successful challenging them, do you really want to be on the NSA and FSI's shit list?
Finally, there is no evidence (I am aware of) that these orders are so bad. If the NSA was targeting, say, 10 people, I'm pretty sure most people would agree that would be pretty fair and fall within the realm of a standard investigation (in which case the gag orders would be seen as fair). The real problem is that the providers aren't even allowed to say "chill out it's only a handful of people". And that, I suppose, is the big problem.
I'm surprised someone with a materials engineering background hasn't heard of it, but Beryllium Oxide would be the other big thermal conductor/electrical insulator. It's a little more popular than diamond since you can actually sinter it into large objects. However, like most beryllium based things it is rather pricey.
I think the OP's best bet is to coat the mobo with a CVD diamond film and hope that the liquid cooling keeps the temperature down low enough the film doesn't crack.
> That assumes tax rates have a direct relationship to anything other than what those imposing the taxes decide upon.
Um... sure. But how do you think they come to decide on the tax rates exactly?
It's not like politicians _like_ raising taxes*. What they do like however, is spending money. If there isn't enough money for what they want, they raise taxes. That's just how it works. This is all politicians, too. The only difference is what they think is worth spending money on.
*There are some things they do like taxing. Most recently we can look at gas, where increasing the price via taxation is very appealing to 'greens' as the higher the price, the more incentive for alternatives.
> It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not. We all want cleaner air.
That's true, but global warming isn't about cleaner air. Global warming is the y2k of this decade. It's about creating a problem/minor panic and a cause that can generate new markets and flow megabucks for things that just aren't worth it.
Carbon credits? Seriously? What's that got to do with cleaner air. I know someone who has a tree (hardwood) farm. But now, instead of just burning capitol for their upkeep, he can sell carbon credits to offset the emissions of Al Gore's private jet. And we've got all sorts of money flowing into this corn ethanol crap and all it's doing is raising food prices _and_ emissions because getting ethanol to break even is hard enough without using such a bad source. And how about nuclear power? If this was about cleaner air, than that would be a _fantastic_ way of cleaning up the air, at the cost of some difficulties of waste storage. (Which, I would point out, could be vastly reduced if we were to build some recycling plants, but one thing at a time.)
The list goes on. I _wish_ global warming was about cleaner air. I want cleaner air. What I don't want, however, is all this BS about trying to find some sort of magic bullet of greenness that will solve the "Global Warming Crisis".
> Given that glass beer bottles cost a few cents each, a square meter of glass probably takes no more than a few dozen kWh....
This isn't beer bottle glass though. Beer bottles are generally blown out of recycled glass, while panel glass is produced by floating clear glass (generally not recycled) floated on molten zinc. Point being that the process is considerably more energy intensive than an equivalent number of beer bottles.
Now, they probably could get away with cheap recycled glass (i.e. brown, like beer bottles) and use a low power continuous vapor deposition system if/when these get mass produced, but in their current state I'd wouldn't be surprised if the break-even point is around 1.5 years.
Maybe it's just late and I glazed over something, but it seems like he missed the primary difference between the two licenses: WHO the license is free for. With BSD code, it's the developer; developers can do just about anything they want with your code. For the GPL, it's the end user; they are guaranteed to be able to modify/update/fix any incarnation of your code*.
Certainly there will always be the (rather pointless) philosophical question of which is more 'free', but what's the point? They're both pretty darn free, but take their freedom in different directions. Why not just choose the one that fits your vision of your project best, and understand that other licenses have their merits too?
*For those keeping track, this was the primary purpose of the GPL3. It ensures that GPLed software on protected devices can be updated.
While filtering obscene material isn't so legally unreasonable (since it's not considered protected speech, as you mentioned), it is _economically_ unreasonable. After all, the FCC is asking a company to: a) Pay them for the spectrum b) Provide free internet c) Filter content
While 'a' and 'b' aren't so outrageous, they do make the enterprise somewhat risky. (Think of it this way: the government will sell you land as long as you'll build and run a public library, though you only need to lease the books.) However, they're also asking that the company filter the internet. That means hardware cost and significant liability. If you are required to filter the net and something sneaks by, that's grounds for a lawsuit that would quickly become class action. And, of course, you'd have violated your agreement with the FCC and would risk them revoking your license.
> Any useful reactor is going to produce prodigious amounts of radiation, neutron and gamma.
Actually, the listed process is H-2 + H-2 -> He-4, this doesn't release a neutron. Gammas are (generally) released when a nucleus rearranges itself. For something the size of He-4 this isn't always necessary.
> Thirdly, remember thermodynamic efficiency.
For what, exactly? This is a nuclear process and has nothing to do with heat engines. Unless, of course, you're referring to the generator turbine, but that's not really what we're discussing. Finally, "cold" fusion (as often attempted) isn't exactly cold; when warm is about 15000C the 'cold' ain't exactly the freezing point of water.
Let's just suppose he is right; we just get rid of TV. Now what? He acts like removing TV will cause all the time that was devoted to it to be channeled into more productive things, like Wikipedia. Which isn't even to say society would benefit from that at all. Do we really even want the legions of people with IQ 100 to have more time on their hands? Which isn't to say slow people don't have value, but they aren't really capable of advancing society much.
Besides, TV _is_ dieing. But it's being replaced by gossip blogs and video games. Things like WoW eat more hours than TV, and the people wasting time on them are usually the ones that could make valuable contributions to things like Wikipedia and FOSS.
So let's then take away TV, games, YouTube, blogs, and all that stuff. And what will people do with their extra time? Drink gin. These people aren't wasting time because of TV; they're wasting it because they _want_ to. And taking away their 'fun' will simply cause them to waste time some other way.
> the reason that is it not (some value here)mc^2 is because c is a natural constant with a non-integer value, and all the "non-roundness" > that seems to amaze you is contained in > this constants. Another example of a fundamental constant is pi. Is it really so amazing that > the ratio of circumference to diameter is exactly pi and not 2.143243*pi ?
Of course not, because, as you say, one simply needs to redefine pi. But that example doesn't really capture the point.
The fact is that energy, mass, and c were all defined _before_ the e=mc^2 bit was discovered. Of course we could always define things to work out, but we _didn't_. To map it our for you:
c - The speed of light. This is a constant. m - The constant of inertia OR gravity for some matter. (That's an interesting point there.) e - Energy. Derived from mass, distance and acceleration.
That's where those measurements came from. The fact that the kinetic energy of a mass is so similar to the inherit energy of the matter in the mass is quite interesting.
Finally, it's not as if every formula works out so well. There are all sorts of constants around. Graviational, Coulomb's, etc. So I wouldn't call it proof of God, but it is kind of interesting.
> And a nuke is STILL generally quite a large affair. There is no 'briefcase' nuke, the smallest I've heard about > is the size of a large & somewhat oddly shaped suitcase.
You are aware that there's more to a nuke than enough material to make a critical mass, right?
> The biggest danger from a 'dirty bomb' remains the panic it would cause. More people would die from trampling than the radiation.
You can believe this if you want, but it's a load of crap. I'm not going to say that there's no fear-mongering about radiation, because there certainly is. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't present a very serious danger if not properly contained. If a dirty bomb goes off almost everyone breathing within the blast area will develop lung cancer, and anyone who tries to live in the affected area will be all but guaranteed to develop some kind of cancer as well.
A dirty bomb certainly won't kill as many people as a nuke, and in that capacity you are correct: it's about fear. But the reason it's scary is because it _is_ an effective weapon, and much easier to make than an actual nuke.
>... a full-on nuclear weapon exploded at altitude didn't render Hiroshima uninhabitable.
That's because the decay products of a nuke ave very unstable and tend to be mostly gone in about two weeks. The fact that the longer lasting stuff is vaporized and spread throughout the city helps too. A dirty bomb, on the other hand, would spread a long-ish half life* material in a smaller area. It'd probably also have more material to begin with since a nuke uses very high purity stuff.
*The longer the half-life of a material is, the less radiation it puts out. So the sweet spot would be something like 5-10 years, I'd think.
> Clearly you dont know what "search incident to arrest" means. It really is one of the most egregious laws on the books.
Clearly you don't see that's nothing to do with what I said. You're saying that they can make a warrentless but still valid search. Yes it sucks, but it's go nothing to do with the iPhone, data, or computers at all. If you had letters or notebooks searching them would be (legally) identical to searching your computer. Sure, a computer can more easily have illegal content without your knowledge than your notebooks, but that's not really the point. Or is it?
Regardless, digital stuff and real stuff aren't being treated differently.
There's a lot of discussion about stuff like this, but it's meaningless. The fact of the matter is, until the law or the courts say otherwise, your data is protected under the fourth amendment. Oh sure, law enforcement _wants_ to be able to search your data without a warrant, but they also would like to search your house and your car and just about anything else without a warrant too.
For now, there _is_ an expectation of privacy for your data, and until a law says otherwise you can expect that the results of a warrantless search to be thrown out. And if they aren't, you can appeal it up to the supreme court, at which point _they'll_ thrown them out. Period. There is no argument that can be made, even to people that don't understand computers, that makes computers any different than (paper) notebooks. Hell, there are even laws against computer trespassing. That law all but explicitly says that computers have an expectation of privacy.
Finally, here's the other thing to keep in mind: How are they getting you iPhone/laptop anyway. Even if there's no expectation of privacy for the data, there is (usually) for where it's physically sitting. It's not like a cop can walk up to your house and say: "Hi, I'm here to search you computers without a warrant". If they did, you don't have to let them in.
The GPL isn't, and never was, about developer freedom; it's about end user freedom. TrollTech understands this very well. If you want freedom as a developer then you'll have to pay them for it. That's their business model. They'll let you have their library for free if you give your software away for free as well. Otherwise you pay. Switching to the GPL 3 just furthers this policy.
While the concept of replication as a method of teleportation is interesting philosophically, it doesn't really solve the major issue:
> The quantum state of a living creature is pretty formidable.
That's really the difficulty: reading and writing all the states of all the atoms/particles with enough accuracy to keep something alive is quite likely impossible. I would say the best (most likely possible) method of teleportation would be more like warping space so that something ends up in a different location without actually moving.
This is talking about using an animal embryo to create and harvest cells. The key here is that the embryo itself is animal. Humans have been creating and destroying animal life for ages and only very care so long as the animals don't suffer. The reason why people are against using human embryos is because we'd then be staring to create and destroy _human_ life for research, which is a very different thing. (Of course that's only if you view creating human embryos as creating human life, but many people do.)
It certainly does appear that attempted to. And indeed if that's what he was being charged with, then he probably would be found guilty (as well he should be I suppose). HOWEVER, he is not being charged with _attempted_ infringement; he is being charged with _actual_ infringement. The EFF is just saying that unless the RIAA can _prove_ that the infringement happened, the guy shouldn't be found guilty of infringement. Seems reasonable to me. If we need a law against "attempted copyright infringement" then so be it, but people shouldn't be ruled guilty of infringement just because we don't have one.
> They did NOT argue that someone ripping a copy of the CD to the computer was unauthorized - it was the placement of a copy in the share folder for Kazaa.
Well, they actually did say that to a degree, but more to the point, the "making available" bit is the problem here. While anyone putting songs in a shared folder probably intends to share them, that's not necessarily the case. Many people used to share their entire hard disk, often causing data they didn't want to share to be publicly available.* Now supposing they _did_ intend to share it, intent is only rarely a crime and usually requires is a major burden of proof. If you claim that your "My CDs" folder was automatically shared by Kazaa, then that pretty much kills the case.
*Many identity thieves would seach programs like limewire for soc numbers and the like and were quite successful.
> In essence, if you don't share, we (probably) don't care.
There is a major difference between something being legal, and something being illegal but generally not prosecuted. You may say the precedent that ripping your CDs is a copyright violation is only used to make cases against file sharers, and you may be right. But still that means they now only have to prove you ripped a CD in order win their cases. This would open the door for suing pretty much anyone whether they really were sharing files or not. After all, pretty much everyone that has a computer and a CD has ripped it.
> To lower power consumption/size/weight of laptops?
Perhaps, but a quick search on newegg says that the largest laptop hard drive is 320GB. Also, most laptops these days ship with a 80GB drive. So this would offer more than twice the current max storage and more than 10 times the common amount! I would have to say that at that point it's really just because they can. If it was just for improving laptops it'd be around 256GB so you could still have a huge solid state disk, but at a quarter of the price (though still completely unaffordable I imagine).
Slashdot Mirror
What would you rather it be called then? Since he wasn't given the password, it was unauthorized access (meaning he had to circumvent some security measures). Besides, what is brute forcing it but more guesses that are less educated? Unless you mean that in order to hack something you have to take advantage of an exploit, but that's not really as useful a definition.
Um... Most schools I'm aware of still teach at least one of the ones you listed, and most 2. The others usually show up on a list of books for something like a book report as homework across a break. The problem is far from a lack of education. It's a mix of stupid 'journalism' and apathy.
Just look at this year. You can't turn on the damn TV or open a newspaper or magazine, etc. without hearing about the presidential race. Every four years it's always the same old "get out the vote" BS, and the other three (and their primaries) are barely even reported, let alone discussed. People (that aren't totally out of it) know that congress passes the laws, and the laws are what actually affect you, but they just never seem to realize that means their congressmen matter, even more than the president. Sure, if, say, Jesus were to show up and appoint someone to the presidency who knew what the hell was going on and actually cared about the people and their rights, then the veto power could be used for some good, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.
The other problem is that people don't understand that the law isn't "The Law". They never realize that it's not some ancient black tome with gold letters that's been the sitting at SCOTUS for 200 years, but rather that it is a living reflection of their will. Most people just think that congress passes laws and they have to obey them. It's pathetic really, and primarily the result of the centralization of power at the federal level. (And at the state level for those powers the constitution expressly forbids the federal government from having. I'm looking at you drinking age!)
It used to be that the most power rested with the local government and the people would get together and decide how they wanted their community to run. That is why schools are run by local governments. They were set up by the community to teach kids what they thought they should know. Now we see massive pressure from the states to teach a precise curriculum and even more regulations on top of those. (e.g. public school is so damn expensive now because they are required to educate _everyone_ because it's apparently important to force children who are medically retarded through the same mold as those that aren't). Things like these make people feel powerless. The further up the power goes, the less their vote counts, and the more beholden to the higher-ups for funding for the regulations that are forced upon them (e.g. see above).
I was visiting a friend a couple months back and he warned me about a school zone (15MPH speed limit for those who don't know) they had just put in. Nothing on that road had changed in 20+ years, including the fact that it had no sidewalks, nor anything but forest opposite the school. But for some reason the township had recently declared it a school zone and stationed a police officer there. The result being high school students being hit with tickets for $200+ for going only 25MPH or so on a road that normal 35MPH. Nobody liked it, so I hold him to get together with a group of people and tell the commissioners something to the effect of "This is our community and if we don't want a school zone with camped out officer then we better not have one, and sure as hell better not be paying for one". I don't know if that ever happened, but regardless, it hasn't changed.
I've gone a bit far off the path, but the point is these are all things that reasonably intelligent (i.e. not on Jaywalking) people _know_, they just don't _understand_. The challenge is actually getting them to realize that _they_ are the solution and voting for the best turd sandwich every four years is not.
But here's the real question: do you think either candidate actually cares? Of course McCain is saying that; it appeals to his base. Obama's base, on the other hand, doesn't care, so why would he risk offending people by saying it?
Remember that the president has no direct presence in the law making process other than the veto, which is only very rarely used. The can, and do, set the mood of the government and push through things they care about. But if they don't give a damn, they just sign the paper. From what I've seen of these candidates and the others before them, they really just don't know or care about the issues that we discuss on a daily basis here at slashdot. I just can't believe that either one is going to do but just sign whatever bill hits their desk because things like health care and gas prices are the only things that the populous cares about.
(Linus 2012!)
It turns out that you browser will store all the information needed to recreate the web pages you visit! Not just a screenshot! This critical flaw appears to have present for years in all known browsers! The end is near!
Seriously? Come on. I know ./ likes to post anything related to the iPhone, especially if it involves "spying", but this is pretty uninteresting. Security is traded for speed and features on a daily basis, including places where do so presents a major risk (*cough*Outlook). This is really not too surprising since it trades at most a little privacy in exchange for a neat effect; what would you expect Apple's iCandy to do?
There's that minor difference between recording that information for simple personal use and recording in for use as evidence in a court of law. Otherwise, there would be no need for PI licenses since, after all, a PI is only recording publicly available information like where you go and what you say.
But of course we all already knew this...
While what you say is true in the general case, it is not necessarily true. In particular, when the courts rule it to be in the greater good (INIAL, so I'm not sure the specific criteria) they can suspend free speech rights. Also, of course, contracts are frequently used to limit speech on certain subjects, though of course those can only impose civil penalties and must be agreed to by both parties.
So, while the gag orders very likely do not fit within those limitations, they do pose one very real problem: how do you challenge them without violating them? If you just want to take the hit, you can always just ignore it, but you'll almost certainly be in federal prison for a couple years before hearing the first verdict with regards to the constitutionality of the order. And furthermore if you were successful challenging them, do you really want to be on the NSA and FSI's shit list?
Finally, there is no evidence (I am aware of) that these orders are so bad. If the NSA was targeting, say, 10 people, I'm pretty sure most people would agree that would be pretty fair and fall within the realm of a standard investigation (in which case the gag orders would be seen as fair). The real problem is that the providers aren't even allowed to say "chill out it's only a handful of people". And that, I suppose, is the big problem.
I'm surprised someone with a materials engineering background hasn't heard of it, but Beryllium Oxide would be the other big thermal conductor/electrical insulator. It's a little more popular than diamond since you can actually sinter it into large objects. However, like most beryllium based things it is rather pricey.
I think the OP's best bet is to coat the mobo with a CVD diamond film and hope that the liquid cooling keeps the temperature down low enough the film doesn't crack.
> That assumes tax rates have a direct relationship to anything other than what those imposing the taxes decide upon.
Um... sure. But how do you think they come to decide on the tax rates exactly?
It's not like politicians _like_ raising taxes*. What they do like however, is spending money. If there isn't enough money for what they want, they raise taxes. That's just how it works. This is all politicians, too. The only difference is what they think is worth spending money on.
*There are some things they do like taxing. Most recently we can look at gas, where increasing the price via taxation is very appealing to 'greens' as the higher the price, the more incentive for alternatives.
> It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not. We all want cleaner air.
That's true, but global warming isn't about cleaner air. Global warming is the y2k of this decade. It's about creating a problem/minor panic and a cause that can generate new markets and flow megabucks for things that just aren't worth it.
Carbon credits? Seriously? What's that got to do with cleaner air. I know someone who has a tree (hardwood) farm. But now, instead of just burning capitol for their upkeep, he can sell carbon credits to offset the emissions of Al Gore's private jet. And we've got all sorts of money flowing into this corn ethanol crap and all it's doing is raising food prices _and_ emissions because getting ethanol to break even is hard enough without using such a bad source. And how about nuclear power? If this was about cleaner air, than that would be a _fantastic_ way of cleaning up the air, at the cost of some difficulties of waste storage. (Which, I would point out, could be vastly reduced if we were to build some recycling plants, but one thing at a time.)
The list goes on. I _wish_ global warming was about cleaner air. I want cleaner air. What I don't want, however, is all this BS about trying to find some sort of magic bullet of greenness that will solve the "Global Warming Crisis".
> Given that glass beer bottles cost a few cents each, a square meter of glass probably takes no more than a few dozen kWh....
This isn't beer bottle glass though. Beer bottles are generally blown out of recycled glass, while panel glass is produced by floating clear glass (generally not recycled) floated on molten zinc. Point being that the process is considerably more energy intensive than an equivalent number of beer bottles.
Now, they probably could get away with cheap recycled glass (i.e. brown, like beer bottles) and use a low power continuous vapor deposition system if/when these get mass produced, but in their current state I'd wouldn't be surprised if the break-even point is around 1.5 years.
Maybe it's just late and I glazed over something, but it seems like he missed the primary difference between the two licenses: WHO the license is free for. With BSD code, it's the developer; developers can do just about anything they want with your code. For the GPL, it's the end user; they are guaranteed to be able to modify/update/fix any incarnation of your code*.
Certainly there will always be the (rather pointless) philosophical question of which is more 'free', but what's the point? They're both pretty darn free, but take their freedom in different directions. Why not just choose the one that fits your vision of your project best, and understand that other licenses have their merits too?
*For those keeping track, this was the primary purpose of the GPL3. It ensures that GPLed software on protected devices can be updated.
While filtering obscene material isn't so legally unreasonable (since it's not considered protected speech, as you mentioned), it is _economically_ unreasonable. After all, the FCC is asking a company to:
a) Pay them for the spectrum
b) Provide free internet
c) Filter content
While 'a' and 'b' aren't so outrageous, they do make the enterprise somewhat risky. (Think of it this way: the government will sell you land as long as you'll build and run a public library, though you only need to lease the books.) However, they're also asking that the company filter the internet. That means hardware cost and significant liability. If you are required to filter the net and something sneaks by, that's grounds for a lawsuit that would quickly become class action. And, of course, you'd have violated your agreement with the FCC and would risk them revoking your license.
Sign me up...
> Any useful reactor is going to produce prodigious amounts of radiation, neutron and gamma.
Actually, the listed process is H-2 + H-2 -> He-4, this doesn't release a neutron. Gammas are (generally) released when a nucleus rearranges itself. For something the size of He-4 this isn't always necessary.
> Thirdly, remember thermodynamic efficiency.
For what, exactly? This is a nuclear process and has nothing to do with heat engines. Unless, of course, you're referring to the generator turbine, but that's not really what we're discussing. Finally, "cold" fusion (as often attempted) isn't exactly cold; when warm is about 15000C the 'cold' ain't exactly the freezing point of water.
Let's just suppose he is right; we just get rid of TV. Now what? He acts like removing TV will cause all the time that was devoted to it to be channeled into more productive things, like Wikipedia. Which isn't even to say society would benefit from that at all. Do we really even want the legions of people with IQ 100 to have more time on their hands? Which isn't to say slow people don't have value, but they aren't really capable of advancing society much.
Besides, TV _is_ dieing. But it's being replaced by gossip blogs and video games. Things like WoW eat more hours than TV, and the people wasting time on them are usually the ones that could make valuable contributions to things like Wikipedia and FOSS.
So let's then take away TV, games, YouTube, blogs, and all that stuff. And what will people do with their extra time? Drink gin. These people aren't wasting time because of TV; they're wasting it because they _want_ to. And taking away their 'fun' will simply cause them to waste time some other way.
> the reason that is it not (some value here)mc^2 is because c is a natural constant with a non-integer value, and all the "non-roundness"
> that seems to amaze you is contained in > this constants. Another example of a fundamental constant is pi. Is it really so amazing that
> the ratio of circumference to diameter is exactly pi and not 2.143243*pi ?
Of course not, because, as you say, one simply needs to redefine pi. But that example doesn't really capture the point.
The fact is that energy, mass, and c were all defined _before_ the e=mc^2 bit was discovered. Of course we could always define things to work out, but we _didn't_. To map it our for you:
c - The speed of light. This is a constant.
m - The constant of inertia OR gravity for some matter. (That's an interesting point there.)
e - Energy. Derived from mass, distance and acceleration.
That's where those measurements came from. The fact that the kinetic energy of a mass is so similar to the inherit energy of the matter in the mass is quite interesting.
Finally, it's not as if every formula works out so well. There are all sorts of constants around. Graviational, Coulomb's, etc. So I wouldn't call it proof of God, but it is kind of interesting.
> And a nuke is STILL generally quite a large affair. There is no 'briefcase' nuke, the smallest I've heard about
> is the size of a large & somewhat oddly shaped suitcase.
You are aware that there's more to a nuke than enough material to make a critical mass, right?
> The biggest danger from a 'dirty bomb' remains the panic it would cause. More people would die from trampling than the radiation.
You can believe this if you want, but it's a load of crap. I'm not going to say that there's no fear-mongering about radiation, because there certainly is. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't present a very serious danger if not properly contained. If a dirty bomb goes off almost everyone breathing within the blast area will develop lung cancer, and anyone who tries to live in the affected area will be all but guaranteed to develop some kind of cancer as well.
A dirty bomb certainly won't kill as many people as a nuke, and in that capacity you are correct: it's about fear. But the reason it's scary is because it _is_ an effective weapon, and much easier to make than an actual nuke.
> ... a full-on nuclear weapon exploded at altitude didn't render Hiroshima uninhabitable.
That's because the decay products of a nuke ave very unstable and tend to be mostly gone in about two weeks. The fact that the longer lasting stuff is vaporized and spread throughout the city helps too. A dirty bomb, on the other hand, would spread a long-ish half life* material in a smaller area. It'd probably also have more material to begin with since a nuke uses very high purity stuff.
*The longer the half-life of a material is, the less radiation it puts out. So the sweet spot would be something like 5-10 years, I'd think.
> Clearly you dont know what "search incident to arrest" means. It really is one of the most egregious laws on the books.
Clearly you don't see that's nothing to do with what I said. You're saying that they can make a warrentless but still valid search. Yes it sucks, but it's go nothing to do with the iPhone, data, or computers at all. If you had letters or notebooks searching them would be (legally) identical to searching your computer. Sure, a computer can more easily have illegal content without your knowledge than your notebooks, but that's not really the point. Or is it?
Regardless, digital stuff and real stuff aren't being treated differently.
There's a lot of discussion about stuff like this, but it's meaningless. The fact of the matter is, until the law or the courts say otherwise, your data is protected under the fourth amendment. Oh sure, law enforcement _wants_ to be able to search your data without a warrant, but they also would like to search your house and your car and just about anything else without a warrant too.
For now, there _is_ an expectation of privacy for your data, and until a law says otherwise you can expect that the results of a warrantless search to be thrown out. And if they aren't, you can appeal it up to the supreme court, at which point _they'll_ thrown them out. Period. There is no argument that can be made, even to people that don't understand computers, that makes computers any different than (paper) notebooks. Hell, there are even laws against computer trespassing. That law all but explicitly says that computers have an expectation of privacy.
Finally, here's the other thing to keep in mind: How are they getting you iPhone/laptop anyway. Even if there's no expectation of privacy for the data, there is (usually) for where it's physically sitting. It's not like a cop can walk up to your house and say: "Hi, I'm here to search you computers without a warrant". If they did, you don't have to let them in.
The GPL isn't, and never was, about developer freedom; it's about end user freedom. TrollTech understands this very well. If you want freedom as a developer then you'll have to pay them for it. That's their business model. They'll let you have their library for free if you give your software away for free as well. Otherwise you pay. Switching to the GPL 3 just furthers this policy.
While the concept of replication as a method of teleportation is interesting philosophically, it doesn't really solve the major issue:
> The quantum state of a living creature is pretty formidable.
That's really the difficulty: reading and writing all the states of all the atoms/particles with enough accuracy to keep something alive is quite likely impossible. I would say the best (most likely possible) method of teleportation would be more like warping space so that something ends up in a different location without actually moving.
This is talking about using an animal embryo to create and harvest cells. The key here is that the embryo itself is animal. Humans have been creating and destroying animal life for ages and only very care so long as the animals don't suffer. The reason why people are against using human embryos is because we'd then be staring to create and destroy _human_ life for research, which is a very different thing. (Of course that's only if you view creating human embryos as creating human life, but many people do.)
It certainly does appear that attempted to. And indeed if that's what he was being charged with, then he probably would be found guilty (as well he should be I suppose). HOWEVER, he is not being charged with _attempted_ infringement; he is being charged with _actual_ infringement. The EFF is just saying that unless the RIAA can _prove_ that the infringement happened, the guy shouldn't be found guilty of infringement. Seems reasonable to me. If we need a law against "attempted copyright infringement" then so be it, but people shouldn't be ruled guilty of infringement just because we don't have one.
> They did NOT argue that someone ripping a copy of the CD to the computer was unauthorized - it was the placement of a copy in the share folder for Kazaa.
Well, they actually did say that to a degree, but more to the point, the "making available" bit is the problem here. While anyone putting songs in a shared folder probably intends to share them, that's not necessarily the case. Many people used to share their entire hard disk, often causing data they didn't want to share to be publicly available.* Now supposing they _did_ intend to share it, intent is only rarely a crime and usually requires is a major burden of proof. If you claim that your "My CDs" folder was automatically shared by Kazaa, then that pretty much kills the case.
*Many identity thieves would seach programs like limewire for soc numbers and the like and were quite successful.
> In essence, if you don't share, we (probably) don't care.
There is a major difference between something being legal, and something being illegal but generally not prosecuted. You may say the precedent that ripping your CDs is a copyright violation is only used to make cases against file sharers, and you may be right. But still that means they now only have to prove you ripped a CD in order win their cases. This would open the door for suing pretty much anyone whether they really were sharing files or not. After all, pretty much everyone that has a computer and a CD has ripped it.
> To lower power consumption/size/weight of laptops?
Perhaps, but a quick search on newegg says that the largest laptop hard drive is 320GB. Also, most laptops these days ship with a 80GB drive. So this would offer more than twice the current max storage and more than 10 times the common amount! I would have to say that at that point it's really just because they can. If it was just for improving laptops it'd be around 256GB so you could still have a huge solid state disk, but at a quarter of the price (though still completely unaffordable I imagine).