It would be even harder to take over by remote control seeing as how the "wires" only connect to the stick and pedals in the cockpit. How are you going to hack that?
I think there is the ability to "own" music. You can't own the notes themselves, but you can own the presentation of them. There are many musicians who can create music, but not all have the same ability and the same interest from fans. Anybody can string a few random notes together, but to make music that people enjoy listening to is a different thing altogether.
A similar idea is that Red Hat can "own" their distribution of Linux. They don't own the basic code, but how it is put together and presented.
You can't own the number 1 or 0, but you can own a particular arrangement of 1's and 0's that create something that others can't, or haven't yet, or are not able to.
Just because it is theoretically possible that I can create a popular piece of music doesn't mean that I have actually created it yet. There is work in creation. If authors don't get compensated for that work, then they may have to stop (or reduce) that type of work and seek other work that will sustain them (music, art, code, etc).
Making something easy to copy doesn't make it easy to create.
But we needn't scrap our old notions entirely, in a rush to judgment we might regret later.
He seems very eager to throw out all tradition, all notions of property, and all way of doing things with a history of a few years old. It may be very appropriate to change how some things are done, but he seems to think that we should throw everything out. He is not only talking about laws, but philosophies and whole systems of thought.
I keep thinking about that old saying about the baby and the bathwater...
You seem to be advocating an "Everybody's doing it" argument to ignoring theft. If everyone's doing it, then it must be OK. That is not a mature way of looking at the world. I got nailed for that one as a little kid.
is those who use mp3's to pirate music. The record companies are painting all mp3 users with a broad brush as pirates since that is a better sound bite on the 6:00 news.
The pirate's actions are causing all the problems for those who want to use mp3's for their own collection, or for legitimate uses. You can whine and complain all you want, but the artist signed a contract restricting re-distribution, and you agreed to pay for that CD. You knew all along what you were getting in to. If you want to trade music around freely, then only listen to and purchase music from bands and independent labels that will allow it. If you can't find any then start your own band and allow unlimited redistribution.
Don't claim the "right" to break a contract you entered into just because you don't like it.
You can also whine and complain all you want about how much the big media companies stink. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. Don't support them. Find alternatives. They may be influential because of their size, but that doesn't force you to support them.
The big media companies don't have absolute control over music.
According to the comments in my catholic Bible, this chapter was meant to defame those two tribes, which were Israel's enemies at the time the text was written. Which means we have here a text with descriptions of perverted sex (incest) written solely to advance a political agenda of hate.
I am not Catholic, and I've never heard the commentary that this was written to defame those two tribes of people. I don't agree that it was written to "advance a political agenda of hate". I don't have a good alternate explanation at the moment either. It could be purely descriptive, or be dealing with how these women wanted something so bad (children) that they would do anything (incest) to get it.
This is censorship by bigotry, if the Netherlands has no such censorship and yet has lower crime, teenage pregnancy etc etc than almost everyone else (especially the States) then what is the point of these actions ?
The point is a point of moral principle and not of pragmatic consequences. The people who support these efforts believe that the act of looking at porn, paying for it, and supporting it is inherently wrong, NOT just that it produces "bad" consequences. In trying to convince others that porn is bad, they will usually point out bad consequences, but that is just a strategy for persuasion.
Citing the Netherlands' crime/pregnancy rates has nothing to do with the basic principle those who support the legislation are operating with. The principle is the inherent goodness/badness, and why is is good/bad.
What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten? I really shouldn't have to respect certain beliefs if I happen to just be in the same locality as you. Suppose I like to smoke, further suppose that you don't like smoking now besides that inate stupidity of smoking and the fact that I can die from cancer eventually does that give you an excuse to punch me in the face? No it dosn't.
Your example is not a good one. Utah will not be physically assaulting you for looking at porn, they will just attempt to prevent you from doing it in a public library with tax payer funded computers. It is the same thing as having a smoking and non-smoking section in a restaurant. The idea is to seperate those who want to look at porn from those who don't. Seperation is necessary since anyone can look over your shoulder and see what is on the screen. This is just like smoke drifts around and people who don't want to smoke still breathe it. A second point is that the computers and Internet connection are paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers have every right to scrutinize how their money is being spent and for what purposes.
Why should the Mormons give up their beliefs just because you don't agree and happen to be in the same locality as them?
If you use double entry to categorize your transactions, then beware! With the binary RPM, if you select the "Transfer From" field, then it goes into an infinite loop and must be killed.
The eye candy is much nicer than the Motif version.
Your editorials don't appear as often as news flashes.
Your editorials usually don't tell us anything new.
Many people criticize your writing style.
You keep asking the same questions, and advocating the same positions over and over.
Your editorials are graphically impared.
Is it too late? Do any of you read John Katz Editorials? Do you see a future for them? Is there anything they could do that would make you want to subscribe to and read them, either in hard copy or online form?
I agree that truthfullness is not the guarantee of the survival of an idea. Some people do search for truth and evaluate the worth of an idea based on it's truthfullness. However, many people evaluate ideas based on their emotions; does it make them feel good, make them look good, or agree with what they think already. In this case, truth is not as relevant.
Moral of the Emacs story? Programmers can be very stubborn -- Stallman, to be sure, is legendary for his intransigence. But Zawinski is equally difficult to deter -- indeed, it requires a special degree of chutzpah to write an entirely new version of one of the most famous programs in the free software arsenal.
From what I understand, he didn't "write a whole new version" himself, he took the existing code and modified it. That's not the same as re-writing the whole thing.
Ford thus not only makes its employees happy, but gives them a strong incentive to stay in their jobs. It gives employees' children the tools they need to compete in the 21st Century workforce. It helps develop a technologically-skilled labor pool that can communicate internally, and promotes interactivity (not readily available in most corporations) and promotes computer literacy abroad. As computing spreads overseas, it could also have broad social, cultural and political consequences. The Internet promotes freedom, education, democracy and prosperity.
If other American companies adopted Ford's model, the technological gap looming between the middle-class and underclass would begin to close. The United States workforce would become the most technologically sophisticated in the world. The high-tech workforce would expand dramatically, along with the educational, cultural, social and economic benefits of computing still unavailable to more than half the American population.
It sounds like you think a computer in every home will bring on a Utopian world. I don't think it will work out quite that way.
The computer is an information and communication tool. There has been a long history of information and communication tools that have been invented in the past like printing presses, libraries, mail, telephones, radio, etc. All of these technologies were expensive at first, therefore many could not afford them, and now even the poor have many of these technologies available to them.
Before the printing press, books were very expensive and only a few people could afford them. Katz could be writing this same essay, but substitue computer with "book" and change the timeframe back a few hundred years and the arguments and hopes would be the same.
I don't believe computers are the one great breakthrough that will bring us closer to a perfect world. It will have effects on society, but is the world significantly better off now with all our technology than it was 1000 years ago? We still struggle with the same issues of rich/poor/love/hate/law/crime/war/peace/freedom/et c that have always been there. We haven't solved them through technology yet, and we never will.
It is interesting that Ford is giving away compters, but a few years down the road, we will have the same reaction as if a company passed out free radios to their employees today.
The way you convince an industry to use a new business model is to put it in practice yourself, get stinkin' rich, take all their customers away, and the rest will take care of itself.
Your argument is heard often, which is really scary, because it is based on the false premise of infinite developer ressources.
The reason we don't have infinite choices is due to the lack of developer resources. The free market will determine which projects succeed and fail as it has always done. No amount of hot air will change the process.
I heard an engineer speak at an AIAA meeting that wrote a book about the US-Soviet space race after much research and personal interviews. He wrote a book about it. The reason we beat the Soviets to space was we spent more money.
The Soviets jumped ahead of us because their chief rocket scientist (Korolev (spelling?)) got the military interested earlier than our military thought about it. However, the manned missions were always a sideline to military applications. The Soviet military was paying for all the research and ICBM/other weapon development came first, with the leftover money available for manned missions.
The military was the main driver of the space race on both sides.
Where did you learn anti-trust law?
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 2
The cornerstone of anti-trust law -- and the idea behind a free press -- is that the individual citizen/consumer benefits from openness, choice and diversity of expression and opinion.
What ARE you talking about? You are way off base here on many levels.
Anti-trust law is not about expressions and optinions.
Spend some quality time with Google and learn more about what you are talking about. Here is some background on the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and you are not even close.
The value of a free press is not in "openness", "choice", or "diversity of opinions"
The value of a free press is closely related to free speech in the sense that one can criticize the government without fear of being jailed or killed for it. That doesn't stop people from thinking free speech/free press means we can say/print/photograph anything we want and nobody can do anything about it.
As others have pointed out, this is not a monopoly
Others have already pointed out that this is not a monopoly. There is plenty of competition and other avenues for news/entertainment.
Big != Bad There is no inherent evilness in the size of a corporation. There is no inherent evilness in corporations.
Christians have been frequently accused of being closed minded, but the irony is, those who are secular only are the ones that are more closed minded. In the search for truth, Christians are free to explore the strictly secular data and data revealed by God that are not explainable in a strictly materialistic or humanistic way. If science is your only method for searching for truth, you are specifically closing your mind to God, and you have tremendous faith that science is sufficient and can explain all given enough time/effort.
I personally thing that this is why most religions are based upon fear. Fear brings people to religion, and religion keeps people playing on that fear.
I don't know about other religions, but Christianity is not based on fear. It is based on love. Fear is a motivation for obeying God, that is, fear of his judgement. Rewards are also a motivation, obey God and he will bless you. The most mature motivation is to obey God because you love him.
I don't know any Christians that hate women because of original sin. Adam chose to sin too, so there is no excuse for men. I don't know who said blacks have no soul, but that is not Biblical. There is no assertion in the Bible that there are people created with no soul. In Acts chapter 8, God specifically commands Philip to meet an Ethiopian, who was a eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. Philip explained the book of Isaiah to him and baptized him. The Ethiopian was probably black. The Bible does not teach that we are free to hurt anyone as much as we wish. The same with gays and atheists. God commands us to love ALL people. However, Christians do not approve of the sin that people commit.
I give these examples to say that if those people claimed to do the things you cite in the name of Christianity, then they are wrong and are not representative of true Christianity.
Consider Matthew 7:15-23
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Many people claim to be acting the way they are in the name of God, but you can tell the difference in those who are exploiting God's name from those who do God's will and obey God's commands by their actions.
You advocate that we should have a worldview that says:
'we only have learned so much, and even that is suspect', because at least that can have solid foundations - even if it cannot yet give you all the answers - it can at least provide you with a likely scenerio.
How will that worldview give you a solid foundation? Your very statement says that whatever you have learned is suspect. There is no foundation at all in that worldview.
The search for the question of 'why' does not necessarily return with the baggage of fear, loathing. That is a conclusion that is not supported by your arguments. Your arguments accuse those who do evil in the name of God, and I accuse them right along with you. However, those people are not accurate representatives of Christianity.
I guess it couldn't handle it. At 2:09pm CST, it was hosed, can't connect, or get a recursive page that says "Document has moved here" with "here" being a link to itself.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be even harder to take over by remote control seeing as how the "wires" only connect to the stick and pedals in the cockpit. How are you going to hack that?
I think there is the ability to "own" music. You can't own the notes themselves, but you can own the presentation of them. There are many musicians who can create music, but not all have the same ability and the same interest from fans. Anybody can string a few random notes together, but to make music that people enjoy listening to is a different thing altogether.
A similar idea is that Red Hat can "own" their distribution of Linux. They don't own the basic code, but how it is put together and presented.
You can't own the number 1 or 0, but you can own a particular arrangement of 1's and 0's that create something that others can't, or haven't yet, or are not able to.
Just because it is theoretically possible that I can create a popular piece of music doesn't mean that I have actually created it yet. There is work in creation. If authors don't get compensated for that work, then they may have to stop (or reduce) that type of work and seek other work that will sustain them (music, art, code, etc).
Making something easy to copy doesn't make it easy to create.
I keep thinking about that old saying about the baby and the bathwater...
You seem to be advocating an "Everybody's doing it" argument to ignoring theft. If everyone's doing it, then it must be OK. That is not a mature way of looking at the world. I got nailed for that one as a little kid.
is those who use mp3's to pirate music. The record companies are painting all mp3 users with a broad brush as pirates since that is a better sound bite on the 6:00 news.
The pirate's actions are causing all the problems for those who want to use mp3's for their own collection, or for legitimate uses. You can whine and complain all you want, but the artist signed a contract restricting re-distribution, and you agreed to pay for that CD. You knew all along what you were getting in to. If you want to trade music around freely, then only listen to and purchase music from bands and independent labels that will allow it. If you can't find any then start your own band and allow unlimited redistribution.
Don't claim the "right" to break a contract you entered into just because you don't like it.
You can also whine and complain all you want about how much the big media companies stink. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. Don't support them. Find alternatives. They may be influential because of their size, but that doesn't force you to support them.
The big media companies don't have absolute control over music.
The point is a point of moral principle and not of pragmatic consequences. The people who support these efforts believe that the act of looking at porn, paying for it, and supporting it is inherently wrong, NOT just that it produces "bad" consequences. In trying to convince others that porn is bad, they will usually point out bad consequences, but that is just a strategy for persuasion.
Citing the Netherlands' crime/pregnancy rates has nothing to do with the basic principle those who support the legislation are operating with. The principle is the inherent goodness/badness, and why is is good/bad.
Your example is not a good one. Utah will not be physically assaulting you for looking at porn, they will just attempt to prevent you from doing it in a public library with tax payer funded computers. It is the same thing as having a smoking and non-smoking section in a restaurant. The idea is to seperate those who want to look at porn from those who don't. Seperation is necessary since anyone can look over your shoulder and see what is on the screen. This is just like smoke drifts around and people who don't want to smoke still breathe it. A second point is that the computers and Internet connection are paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers have every right to scrutinize how their money is being spent and for what purposes.
Why should the Mormons give up their beliefs just because you don't agree and happen to be in the same locality as them?
If you use double entry to categorize your transactions, then beware! With the binary RPM, if you select the "Transfer From" field, then it goes into an infinite loop and must be killed.
The eye candy is much nicer than the Motif version.
RoboPlant(TM) is due out in store in time for Christmas. It's much better than a plant, because its RoboPlant!!
It just sits on the table doing nothing...
BUT IT'S ROBOPLANT!
If you water it, it dies.
BUT IT'S ROBOPLANT!
If you talk to it, it does nothing...
BUT IT'S ROBOPLANT!
Gotta get 'em all!!!!!
Your editorials usually don't tell us anything new.
Many people criticize your writing style.
You keep asking the same questions, and advocating the same positions over and over.
Your editorials are graphically impared.
Is it too late? Do any of you read John Katz Editorials? Do you see a future for them? Is there anything they could do that would make you want to subscribe to and read them, either in hard copy or online form?
What do you think?
Hydrogen storage would probably be in pressure vessels. That way you don't have to spend so much money getting it cold and keeping it there.
LyX is great. I DID use it to create my Master's thesis.
I agree that truthfullness is not the guarantee of the survival of an idea. Some people do search for truth and evaluate the worth of an idea based on it's truthfullness. However, many people evaluate ideas based on their emotions; does it make them feel good, make them look good, or agree with what they think already. In this case, truth is not as relevant.
The computer is an information and communication tool. There has been a long history of information and communication tools that have been invented in the past like printing presses, libraries, mail, telephones, radio, etc. All of these technologies were expensive at first, therefore many could not afford them, and now even the poor have many of these technologies available to them.
Before the printing press, books were very expensive and only a few people could afford them. Katz could be writing this same essay, but substitue computer with "book" and change the timeframe back a few hundred years and the arguments and hopes would be the same.
I don't believe computers are the one great breakthrough that will bring us closer to a perfect world. It will have effects on society, but is the world significantly better off now with all our technology than it was 1000 years ago? We still struggle with the same issues of rich/poor/love/hate/law/crime/war/peace/freedom/et c that have always been there. We haven't solved them through technology yet, and we never will.
It is interesting that Ford is giving away compters, but a few years down the road, we will have the same reaction as if a company passed out free radios to their employees today.
The way you convince an industry to use a new business model is to put it in practice yourself, get stinkin' rich, take all their customers away, and the rest will take care of itself.
I heard an engineer speak at an AIAA meeting that wrote a book about the US-Soviet space race after much research and personal interviews. He wrote a book about it. The reason we beat the Soviets to space was we spent more money.
The Soviets jumped ahead of us because their chief rocket scientist (Korolev (spelling?)) got the military interested earlier than our military thought about it. However, the manned missions were always a sideline to military applications. The Soviet military was paying for all the research and ICBM/other weapon development came first, with the leftover money available for manned missions.
The military was the main driver of the space race on both sides.
Spend some quality time with Google and learn more about what you are talking about. Here is some background on the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and you are not even close.
The value of a free press is closely related to free speech in the sense that one can criticize the government without fear of being jailed or killed for it. That doesn't stop people from thinking free speech/free press means we can say/print/photograph anything we want and nobody can do anything about it.
Others have already pointed out that this is not a monopoly. There is plenty of competition and other avenues for news/entertainment.
Christians have been frequently accused of being closed minded, but the irony is, those who are secular only are the ones that are more closed minded. In the search for truth, Christians are free to explore the strictly secular data and data revealed by God that are not explainable in a strictly materialistic or humanistic way. If science is your only method for searching for truth, you are specifically closing your mind to God, and you have tremendous faith that science is sufficient and can explain all given enough time/effort.
I don't know any Christians that hate women because of original sin. Adam chose to sin too, so there is no excuse for men. I don't know who said blacks have no soul, but that is not Biblical. There is no assertion in the Bible that there are people created with no soul. In Acts chapter 8, God specifically commands Philip to meet an Ethiopian, who was a eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. Philip explained the book of Isaiah to him and baptized him. The Ethiopian was probably black. The Bible does not teach that we are free to hurt anyone as much as we wish. The same with gays and atheists. God commands us to love ALL people. However, Christians do not approve of the sin that people commit.
I give these examples to say that if those people claimed to do the things you cite in the name of Christianity, then they are wrong and are not representative of true Christianity.
Consider Matthew 7:15-23
Many people claim to be acting the way they are in the name of God, but you can tell the difference in those who are exploiting God's name from those who do God's will and obey God's commands by their actions.You advocate that we should have a worldview that says:
How will that worldview give you a solid foundation? Your very statement says that whatever you have learned is suspect. There is no foundation at all in that worldview.The search for the question of 'why' does not necessarily return with the baggage of fear, loathing. That is a conclusion that is not supported by your arguments. Your arguments accuse those who do evil in the name of God, and I accuse them right along with you. However, those people are not accurate representatives of Christianity.
Agreed.
I think it is psychological. Everybody expects it to go through the roof, so everyone jumps in, and it does.
I guess it couldn't handle it. At 2:09pm CST, it was hosed, can't connect, or get a recursive page that says "Document has moved here" with "here" being a link to itself.