contrary to popular opinion, the big difference between lobbyists and ordinary voters isn't money (although money matters), it is access to information on a timely basis. Putting information online will have a huge impact on the legislative process.
One problem, though, is that there can be an insanely short time between when a bill comes out of committee, and when it's put up for a vote. One vile lesson that both Democrats and Republicans have learned is that members will vote on a bill (rather than abstain), even if they have only several hours to review thousands of pages.
Unless this crowd-sourcing can review bills fast enough for even well-intentioned legislators to be aware of important reasons to vote 'no', I think it will do little good.
Anyone interested in this issue should check out Read the Bill.
In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close.
You're somewhat begging the question:
1. The GPL is an "open" software license. 2. So if a program is compatible with GPL, the program is "open".
But you don't explain why the GPL's definition of "open" is the one we should accept. So I think you're begging the question regarding what "open" means.
So, large corporations like Apple, Microsoft, those in the RIAA and MPAA, etc. seem to have really hurt lots and lots of people. (And that's ignoring Union Carbide etc.)
Considering the huge number of people harmed by these corporations, I would have expected at least a few people to go postal on them and bomb / shoot-up their headquarters. But that seems to just not happen.
I'm not advocating violence - I'm just trying to understand why we're seeing none, when I would have expected at least one ruined person to want to exact revenge.
I've been prepping my sons (3.5 years and 7 months) for their first viewing of Alien/Aliens since birth by grabbing their entire face with my hand. They think its funny... at least for now.
I hope you're done having kids. Because if you ever explain that that the baby will come out of mommy's belly...
The company that sold it didn't have the rights to it in the US. The legal publisher complained and Amazon pulled the book.
Yes, but Amazon's solution to the "books" already sold may have been illegal.
For example, if they had sold a paper copy of 1984 illegally, they aren't allowed to burn down the house of anyone who purchased it. Certain actions remain illegal, despite the fact that they're address the copyright issue.
While Brown seemingly lacks the scientific and academic background needed to write such fiction, Juels has a Ph.D. in computer science from Berkeley
Does Computer Science really qualify as "science"? It seems much more like mathematics to me.
One place where CS might be considered a science is in the empirical characterization of software/computer systems. But even there, the nearly complete lack of statistical rigor shown in C.S. papers suggests a big difference between computer scientists and, for example, physicists.
And Taco bell is environmentally friendly as they use non-organic material out of which to construct their food.
There, fixed that for ya.
I used to be like you, until I realized that prescriptive grammarians have no special authority. Languages evolve. This is a well-accepted evolution. I think you need to accept that and worry about more important things in life.
What you get with a manned space program over focusing on more specific problems is side benefits which are difficult to quantify before hand.
Here's how I'm looking at it. Suppose that the benefit from some massive endeavor is the sum of its intended benefits + its unplanned benefits.
Then which do you think is more likely to pay off, in terms of that summed value: Mars exploration, or (for example) the eradication of poverty? It would take a pretty damn amazing side-benefit from a Mars trip to outweigh the benefits I'd expect from eradicating poverty, or cancer, or unsustainable environmental pollution.
Okay, fair point. But there's a middle ground between the US going bankrupt, and being able to afford to keep a fleet of F-22's ready for battle.
My point, perhaps badly stated earlier, is that our government continues to pursue reckless fiscal policies. China's continued purchasing of U.S. debt gives us more and more rope with which to hang ourselves. Unless we smarten up, we'll eventually be unable to afford maintenance on the F-22's, and they'll become inoperable.
This is the manner in which I can see China disabling all of our F-22's without firing a single bullet. And at that point, we're no longer the super-muscular opponent described in Absolut187's post.
We don't send people out there because it's easy. We do it because it's hard.
Eradicating poverty, genocide, child molestation, global climate change, and mercury in fish are also hard tasks. I suggest we rank our "hard" projects intelligently.
Slashdot Mirror
contrary to popular opinion, the big difference between lobbyists and ordinary voters isn't money (although money matters), it is access to information on a timely basis. Putting information online will have a huge impact on the legislative process.
One problem, though, is that there can be an insanely short time between when a bill comes out of committee, and when it's put up for a vote. One vile lesson that both Democrats and Republicans have learned is that members will vote on a bill (rather than abstain), even if they have only several hours to review thousands of pages.
Unless this crowd-sourcing can review bills fast enough for even well-intentioned legislators to be aware of important reasons to vote 'no', I think it will do little good.
Anyone interested in this issue should check out Read the Bill.
Okay, so my post got modded down -3 as a Troll.
If someone could explain to me why it's a troll, I'd be grateful.
You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.
Knowing Microsoft, the free blowjobs would come with a free dose of the clap.
I've told me friends to wait for Microsoft Blowjob 1.1.
You just get too many bugs with the first edition.
The main problem is that a "shack" usually connotes a cheap, run down house. Not really the image they should try to project.
(I know "clam shack", "radio shack", etc. don't really have such a connotation. I'm just talking about the word "shack" when it's used all by itself.)
In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close.
You're somewhat begging the question:
1. The GPL is an "open" software license.
2. So if a program is compatible with GPL, the program is "open".
But you don't explain why the GPL's definition of "open" is the one we should accept. So I think you're begging the question regarding what "open" means.
So, large corporations like Apple, Microsoft, those in the RIAA and MPAA, etc. seem to have really hurt lots and lots of people. (And that's ignoring Union Carbide etc.)
Considering the huge number of people harmed by these corporations, I would have expected at least a few people to go postal on them and bomb / shoot-up their headquarters. But that seems to just not happen.
I'm not advocating violence - I'm just trying to understand why we're seeing none, when I would have expected at least one ruined person to want to exact revenge.
Any ideas why?
There are stories of primates raping humans.
Who said it has to be bestiality?
I'd be skeptical of such stories, because they could plausibly be (shudder) bestiality rape erotica.
Not saying it definitely never happens, I'm just saying the wretched, amazing human imagination strikes me as the more likely cause of such stories.
How would HIV be transmitted from a gorilla to humans?
I've been prepping my sons (3.5 years and 7 months) for their first viewing of Alien/Aliens since birth by grabbing their entire face with my hand. They think its funny... at least for now.
I hope you're done having kids. Because if you ever explain that that the baby will come out of mommy's belly...
That's silly... we all know nuking them from orbit is the only way to be sure.
Heh... in the small number of my nightmares involving nukes, they were never part of the solution.
At least I had a few years without Xenomorphs showing up in my nightmare.
(IIRC, the nightmares involved having a pulse rifle that ran out of ammo.)
Funny, I would have thought the most recent ones would have involved Jean-Pierre Jeunet directing another movie. :)
Why do you think my clip was empty???
At least I had a few years without Xenomorphs showing up in my nightmare.
(IIRC, the nightmares involved having a pulse rifle that ran out of ammo.)
The company that sold it didn't have the rights to it in the US. The legal publisher complained and Amazon pulled the book.
Yes, but Amazon's solution to the "books" already sold may have been illegal.
For example, if they had sold a paper copy of 1984 illegally, they aren't allowed to burn down the house of anyone who purchased it. Certain actions remain illegal, despite the fact that they're address the copyright issue.
So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?
I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!
I actually READ TFA.
Turns out the summary was pretty accurate.
Just thought I'd mention that.
...Clippy the Action Figure!
"It looks like you're carrying a shotgu... oh dear."
While Brown seemingly lacks the scientific and academic background needed to write such fiction, Juels has a Ph.D. in computer science from Berkeley
Does Computer Science really qualify as "science"? It seems much more like mathematics to me.
One place where CS might be considered a science is in the empirical characterization of software/computer systems. But even there, the nearly complete lack of statistical rigor shown in C.S. papers suggests a big difference between computer scientists and, for example, physicists.
I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc. issues
Given Microsoft's history, his caveat seems to make the rest of his statement irrelevant.
And Taco bell is environmentally friendly as they use non-organic material out of which to construct their food.
There, fixed that for ya.
I used to be like you, until I realized that prescriptive grammarians have no special authority. Languages evolve. This is a well-accepted evolution. I think you need to accept that and worry about more important things in life.
I thought our food chain was Sun -> Corn -> Cows/Pigs/Chickens -> Cows/Pigs/Chickens -> Dinner.
We have a backup system:
??? -> Taco Bell -> Dinner.
Thank goodness. I thought it was just me who had nocturnal emissions.
Here's how I'm looking at it. Suppose that the benefit from some massive endeavor is the sum of its intended benefits + its unplanned benefits.
Then which do you think is more likely to pay off, in terms of that summed value: Mars exploration, or (for example) the eradication of poverty? It would take a pretty damn amazing side-benefit from a Mars trip to outweigh the benefits I'd expect from eradicating poverty, or cancer, or unsustainable environmental pollution.
Okay, fair point. But there's a middle ground between the US going bankrupt, and being able to afford to keep a fleet of F-22's ready for battle.
My point, perhaps badly stated earlier, is that our government continues to pursue reckless fiscal policies. China's continued purchasing of U.S. debt gives us more and more rope with which to hang ourselves. Unless we smarten up, we'll eventually be unable to afford maintenance on the F-22's, and they'll become inoperable.
This is the manner in which I can see China disabling all of our F-22's without firing a single bullet. And at that point, we're no longer the super-muscular opponent described in Absolut187's post.
We don't send people out there because it's easy. We do it because it's hard.
Eradicating poverty, genocide, child molestation, global climate change, and mercury in fish are also hard tasks. I suggest we rank our "hard" projects intelligently.