The real path to "Universal Access" is not to get someone else, like employers, to pick up the pricetag. Such a "benefit" will be illusionary in that employers typically have a budget for what they spend on benefits. Add free/cheap access and something else will have to get removed/reduced, like insurance, or salaries.
The real way to get "Universal Access" (a misnomer, since the plans here only give access to the lower-middle class) are to build cheap computers. There isn't a damn reason in the world that someone couldn't build a $300 net-enabled computer (monitor included). The only reason we don't have such a thing is that we're all to enamered with the latest technological gee-gaw. Basic connectivity could easily be had for a $300 pc with a $19/month ISP. This is about the same cost as a TV/Cable bill. I suspect you could drive the ISP cost down if you did some sort of cut-rate thing.
Now this is not going to be the latest Voodoo graphics box with a 21" monitor on a DSL line, but then, I remember being perfectly happy, and getting lots of things done, on a 33 Mhz 486 with a 15" monitor and 28.8 modem.
Most of what we gave Russia (some of it pre-Pearl Harbor, BTW), was stuff Britain couldn't have easily used. It was mainly food (which Britain had enough of) and trucks (which Britain had neither the manpower nor land-front to use).
"Let them" have Eastern Europe is an iffy question given that the Soviets outnumbered the US/British forces by a huge margin. The Russians had twice as many battle deaths as we had living soldiers in both fronts. That should tell you something about the size of their army. And at the time, we didn't particularly have the technological superiority we would during the cold war.
You might want to look up the dates of "The Battle of Stalingrad" and "The Battle of Kursk" before you spout off about sleeping through history class. You also might want to compare the relative troop strengths of the US and Russian Armies, and the relative troop strengths of the German armies in France and Western Europe in 1944.
Jeez, read that damn post before you rant. It was only two sentences. If you'd gotten to the second one before posting, you'd have noticed that I credit RUSSIA with the allied victory.
God, I wish people would read before they post. Talk about "fucking clues"!
The best part is, you even quoted the RUSSIA DID part!
If it weren't for the good old US of A, France, Britain and the rest of Europe would have been living under Stalin. The US did not defeat the Germans. Russia did.
We just grabbed enough to keep the Russian army out of Western Europe.
You are assuming that if it were legal to copy any source code that it would be possible to copy any source code. All you have to do to see the fallacy in that is to try and imagine what a closed-source company would do in such situation: put in all sorts of security to prevent release of source code.
Sure, it might be legal for you to copy everything on my hard drive, but if my security settings are correct, you won't be able to any time soon.
You fundamentally misunderstand one of the most important parts of the GPL. If GPL were merely a defense against copyrights, it would look more like the BSD license.
The GPL is sure as hell NOT a defense against copyrights! Quite the opposite! Without the GPL, I'd be able to take a copy of GPLed software, slap a couple minor changes on, and sell the result WITHOUT releasing source code and WITHOUT compensating the original authors. Without copyright, everything becomes public domain and anyone can do anything without anything, without regard to the original author's wish. The GPL exists to prevent this, using copyrights in a very straightforward fashion. It asserts the original authors' copyright in order to prevent types of use that the original authors don't want. The only difference between more traditional copyrighted work is that the original authors don't want money and don't reject changes to the work. Other than that, it is a normal copyright.
The statement "The GPL would not be necessary without copyright law!" is completely wrong. The correct statement would be "The GPL would not be possible without copyright law!". Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.
I don't pretend to believe that trading MP3s is legal, or should be. But when there are lawsuits against companies like Napster or mp3.com it outrages me. These companies are not breaking the law, they are providing a service that can be used for good or not-good.
This is part of a larger problem in this country (The US). All too often the person/company that gets sued is not necessarily the person/company most responsible. It is far more often the person/company with the deepest pockets, or the one that is the easiest to sue. Napster is getting sued because it would be very difficult to sue the 350,000 people who are guilty of copyright infringment, and unprofitable, given that most of those 350,000 are likely poor college students with no assets.
Juries also tend to be more likely to go against a nameless/faceless corporation that can "afford it" (Actual comment from fellow jurer on a liability case I was on) then they are a real, live human being who they might feel sorry for.
This is not to say that Metallica didn't have the right to demand that Napster follow its own policies, and ban those who infringe. But I can't see how they have any real liability here.
Yes, it is so easy to complain about the evils of copyrights when you have none yourself...
I find the whole issue facinating (and the opinions of people like Larry Wall unsurprising) given that of copyright is dead, then it follows that the GPL itself, based on copyright, is also dead.
Hmmm....on my box, where I did the above, it opens the editor, just like it should.
It is my impression that Outlook "opens" the file by running the default action on it. If you set the default action to "Edit with notepad", you should be safe.
At least, it works that way on my Win2000 box, running Outlook.
Technically speaking, those weren't part of DOS. I don't recall off-hand who wrote those, but if you had a true-blue IBM system, and booted with any OS, it dumped you into the BASIC screen. It was part of ROM and definitely NOT part of DOS, or any other OS.
Since this was a proprietary IBM ROM, if you had a non-IBM PC, this instead came as software, and you'd get the boot behavior we all know if there was no OS.
My Computer -Tools -Folder Options -File Types -VBScript Script File -Advanced -Click on "Edit" in the list box -Set Default
After you do this, the default action for a VBS file is to edit it in notepad. (And you can still run it by right clicking and selecting "open" from the menu.)
"So when did the United States occupy Canda and Mexico?"
1812 and 1849 respectively.
Calling what happened in 1812 "Occupying Canada" does not correctly convey how misconceived and pointless the American attempt to do so in the war of 1812 actually was.
I just want to point out that despite all talk about "blowing up" the Earth during the cold war, we couldn't "blow up" the Moon even if we used all the nukes in the world. Make it a radioactive wasteland (as opposed to a nonradioactive one), yes, but actually destroy it? Even move its orbit? Not even slightly likely...
(By the way, isn't stealing another moon because ours is getting too far away sort of like going to Japan to steal a shnauzer because yours got into the neighbor's yard?
Slashdot Mirror
Not until everyone gets home from work, at least...
Seems to me that the answer is to develope those underdeveloped countries....
That'd be far more useful than giving what is, at best, a flashy telephone/tv to people with more pressing needs.
Someone needs to show Usenet to Jon Katz.
The real path to "Universal Access" is not to get someone else, like employers, to pick up the pricetag. Such a "benefit" will be illusionary in that employers typically have a budget for what they spend on benefits. Add free/cheap access and something else will have to get removed/reduced, like insurance, or salaries.
The real way to get "Universal Access" (a misnomer, since the plans here only give access to the lower-middle class) are to build cheap computers. There isn't a damn reason in the world that someone couldn't build a $300 net-enabled computer (monitor included). The only reason we don't have such a thing is that we're all to enamered with the latest technological gee-gaw. Basic connectivity could easily be had for a $300 pc with a $19/month ISP. This is about the same cost as a TV/Cable bill. I suspect you could drive the ISP cost down if you did some sort of cut-rate thing.
Now this is not going to be the latest Voodoo graphics box with a 21" monitor on a DSL line, but then, I remember being perfectly happy, and getting lots of things done, on a 33 Mhz 486 with a 15" monitor and 28.8 modem.
Most of what we gave Russia (some of it pre-Pearl Harbor, BTW), was stuff Britain couldn't have easily used. It was mainly food (which Britain had enough of) and trucks (which Britain had neither the manpower nor land-front to use).
"Let them" have Eastern Europe is an iffy question given that the Soviets outnumbered the US/British forces by a huge margin. The Russians had twice as many battle deaths as we had living soldiers in both fronts. That should tell you something about the size of their army. And at the time, we didn't particularly have the technological superiority we would during the cold war.
You might want to look up the dates of "The Battle of Stalingrad" and "The Battle of Kursk" before you spout off about sleeping through history class. You also might want to compare the relative troop strengths of the US and Russian Armies, and the relative troop strengths of the German armies in France and Western Europe in 1944.
Jeez, read that damn post before you rant. It was only two sentences. If you'd gotten to the second one before posting, you'd have noticed that I credit RUSSIA with the allied victory.
God, I wish people would read before they post. Talk about "fucking clues"!
The best part is, you even quoted the RUSSIA DID part!
Nazi memorabilia, neo-nazi liturature, etc. are banned in Germany and France but perfectly legal in the US.
The neo-nazi movement is stronger in Germany and France than in the US.
Coincidence? No.
If it weren't for the good old US of A, France, Britain and the rest of Europe would have been living under Stalin. The US did not defeat the Germans. Russia did.
We just grabbed enough to keep the Russian army out of Western Europe.
But you wouldn't have the source code, now would you.
That's the whole point of the GPL: freedom to have the source code. And the second copyright law dies, that freedom dies with it.
Sure, it might be legal for you to copy everything on my hard drive, but if my security settings are correct, you won't be able to any time soon.
The GPL is sure as hell NOT a defense against copyrights! Quite the opposite! Without the GPL, I'd be able to take a copy of GPLed software, slap a couple minor changes on, and sell the result WITHOUT releasing source code and WITHOUT compensating the original authors. Without copyright, everything becomes public domain and anyone can do anything without anything, without regard to the original author's wish. The GPL exists to prevent this, using copyrights in a very straightforward fashion. It asserts the original authors' copyright in order to prevent types of use that the original authors don't want. The only difference between more traditional copyrighted work is that the original authors don't want money and don't reject changes to the work. Other than that, it is a normal copyright.
The statement "The GPL would not be necessary without copyright law!" is completely wrong. The correct statement would be "The GPL would not be possible without copyright law!". Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.
Copyright law prevents that.
This is part of a larger problem in this country (The US). All too often the person/company that gets sued is not necessarily the person/company most responsible. It is far more often the person/company with the deepest pockets, or the one that is the easiest to sue. Napster is getting sued because it would be very difficult to sue the 350,000 people who are guilty of copyright infringment, and unprofitable, given that most of those 350,000 are likely poor college students with no assets.
Juries also tend to be more likely to go against a nameless/faceless corporation that can "afford it" (Actual comment from fellow jurer on a liability case I was on) then they are a real, live human being who they might feel sorry for.
This is not to say that Metallica didn't have the right to demand that Napster follow its own policies, and ban those who infringe. But I can't see how they have any real liability here.
Yes, it is so easy to complain about the evils of copyrights when you have none yourself...
I find the whole issue facinating (and the opinions of people like Larry Wall unsurprising) given that of copyright is dead, then it follows that the GPL itself, based on copyright, is also dead.
Hmmm....on my box, where I did the above, it opens the editor, just like it should.
It is my impression that Outlook "opens" the file by running the default action on it. If you set the default action to "Edit with notepad", you should be safe.
At least, it works that way on my Win2000 box, running Outlook.
Yes, but which part? Certainly not Mexico!
The Vikings discovered Nova Scotia (and perhaps Maine or even Massachusetts). Potatoes came from Central America. That's about 3000 miles off.
Technically speaking, those weren't part of DOS. I don't recall off-hand who wrote those, but if you had a true-blue IBM system, and booted with any OS, it dumped you into the BASIC screen. It was part of ROM and definitely NOT part of DOS, or any other OS.
Since this was a proprietary IBM ROM, if you had a non-IBM PC, this instead came as software, and you'd get the boot behavior we all know if there was no OS.
A less drastic action:
(For those forced to do Windows/Outlook.)
My Computer
-Tools
-Folder Options
-File Types
-VBScript Script File
-Advanced
-Click on "Edit" in the list box
-Set Default
After you do this, the default action for a VBS file is to edit it in notepad. (And you can still run it by right clicking and selecting "open" from the menu.)
Repeat for any other dangerous filetypes.
1812 and 1849 respectively.
Calling what happened in 1812 "Occupying Canada" does not correctly convey how misconceived and pointless the American attempt to do so in the war of 1812 actually was.
(By the way, isn't stealing another moon because ours is getting too far away sort of like going to Japan to steal a shnauzer because yours got into the neighbor's yard?
(Also confusing the matter: I don't think you can score anywhere near 0 IQ without being dead.