I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're analogy holds up. Any "gay bashing violence" that happens is isolated, as opposed to organized lynchings and the displacement of the Native Americans. I think it's demeaning to minority groups which have truly suffered to compare "gay rights" to basic civil rights: voting, education, buying a home, freedom from physical violence, etc. I think the hatred may be as real, but I don't think the consequences are comparable.
There are legal mechanisms, though awkward, for effectuating nearly every right that a married couple has -- short of joint tax returns (living wills, powers of attorney, trusts, etc.). I don't think homosexuals should have to jump through those hoops, but I think "gay marriage" is largely a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. It's not the federal government's business, and states were gradually beginning to recognize at least civil unions. Now, it's a national issue that people are apparently up in arms about. I think the media is as much to blame as extremist whackos, and I would bet everything I own that no politician (including Bush, who has in fact stated that he's not against civil unions) expects the amendment to pass. It's election year politics, pure and simple, and as such should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar.
At the risk of being trolled, I'll respond. Do you have any idea what it takes to change the Constitution? I won't even get into your apparent belief that just mentioning God somehow violates a document written when religion wasn't a questions, but rather a simple a fact of life. To amend the Constitution, like the DOMA, takes a 2/3 majority of congress (house and senate each) just to begin the process. The president has no role, other than the obvous one of suggesting that his fellow party members follow along. Once the amendment gets a 2/3 majority in congress (or application by 2/3 of the states' legislatures), it's considered proposed. Once it's been proposed, a full 3/4 of the states must approve it.
So that begs the question, how can a president who actually lost the popular vote, facing a very evenly divided country, push through an amendment? The answer is, he can't. It's a election year politics, pure and simple. Everybody that is not running around in circles, panicked, knows that it's not going to be ratified (including Bush & co.). It's a sop to the religious right, nothing more and nothing less.
The PATRIOT Act is a hideous piece of legislation, but parts are already being attacked as unconstitutional. The DMCA, passed by the previous administration, probably violates the Constitution even worse (copyright is granted, and limited, in the body of the Constitution, while the Patriot Act violates 4th Amendment rights) and it too is being slowly picked apart by the courts.
As for just ignoring the Constitution, or doing away with it, you probably aren't aware that anyone who takes an oath of office, including the military, swears an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution -- not the president or any other part of the government. No the Constitution can't defend itself, but with everyone and their grandmother watching, how is anyone going to tamper with it? It's not all powerful or foolproof, and people have been debating what it means since it was written, but at the same time it is a powerful shield. You're right in that it won't protect anyone if everyone just sits back and takes it for granted, but not everyone is. The kind of hysterical panic that the Left is in now is just like the hysterical panic the Right was in under the Clinton administration. Everyone runs around yelling that the sky is falling, with absolutely no sense of perspective.
Read some history. Learn how things actually work. Then, if you still believe that everything is bad and the world is going to end, do something about it. Or, at the very least, you'll have some idea of what you're griping about, and make intelligent commments instead of ranting hysterically.
You really should read some history -- and I mean that literally, not snidely. It can be depressing in some ways, but it's also refreshing to realize that although the world may be going to hell, it's been headed that way for a long, long time and it hasn't got there yet. If anything, the downward slide is probably less steep than it used to be. Up until about a hundred years ago, the US was your basic 3rd-world country, with all that means for human rights and corruption.
Every generation sees the problems as worse than their idealized version of how things used to be. Not saying that things are good right now, but looking back the modern concept of free speech has been alive less than a hundred years, and the modern incarnation of the 4th Amendment rights (search & siezure, Miranda warnings, etc.) are younger than that. Eighty or ninety years ago, the police could legally torture a confession out of you.
Not that it changes the way things are, or the fact that they could and should be better, but a little perspective makes you realize that things aren't quite as bad or hopeless as you might think. And politicians have also been the same throughout history, with a few exceptions. At least now we know when they're lying and can hold their feet to the fire much more easily than our predecessors.
It's because that's how they make their money. They sell the printers at cost or even a loss, and then make you pay out your nose for proprietary ink. Much, much more profitable in the long run (i.e., one-time greater profit of $100 from one printer versus greater yearly profit of $100-$200 from ink for that printer).
It's called the Constitution. If you really are frightened, you should try giving it a read. The checks and balances put in place to limit the actions of the government also limit what any majority can do, even if there were ever such a thing as direct elections. If you don't understand how the federal government is structured, we elect a president, we elect representatives, and judges are appointed by the president and approved (or not) by the representatives. There is no structure or mechanism for direct elections at the federal level, and I'm not sure where they'd fit in even if there were.
Now, the state level is another story -- especially if you live somewhere with idiotic laws like California. Referedums (i.e., direct democracy) are possible at the state level, and probably not a good idea except for very, very limited purposes. However, even if a measure wins with 90% of the vote, that does not mean it will become law. It still must pass the test of being constitutional. If the measure violates either the state or federal consitution, it is invalid and unenforceable. And at the federal level, judges are appointed for life and so are largely immune to political pressure. The US Constitution, and most state constitutions, provide protections to the minority and very strict controls on how anything can be taken by the government.
So while I agree that majority rule often == mob rule, and is something to be worried about, I have no idea how you equate electronic voting with what you call "complete democracy." Since the founding of the colonies, there has been direct elections at the local level, with representative democracy for the larger political units. Whether the ballots are made of pulped wood or ones and zeroes does not change the structure of government in the least.
And I am really confused by your statement regarding "the majority or the form of democracy our country has taken on in the last 100 years or so." One, I don't think the structure of our democracy has changed greatly in the last 100 years, but even more importantly I think the issues you claim to be worried about were worse 100 years ago than they could ever get today. Slavery and the horrendous treatment of the Native Americans, of the working class, and of every ethnic minority (e.g., Italian, Irish, Chinese, Africans, etc.) were possible 100 years ago, but are not today.
The real problem with electronic voting is the ease in which it can be manipulated without anyone ever knowing, not some imaginary bogy of mob rule.
RTFA -- he specifically states that the they avoided giving the terrorists any kind of racial/ethnic identity in order to "take the high road" (so they could be Canadian, after all). And he did not condemn violence in video games, he condemned pointless violence -- i.e., putting the player in the position of comitting violent acts for their own sake rather than some just end.
Disagree with him all you want -- I do -- but next time actually look at the facts instead of making a knee-jerk emotional response.
I actually considered plunking down the cash for StarOffice for the very reason that it was compatible with WordPerfect formats. However, I downloaded the trial version, and while the filter worked wonderfully in Windows, it does not exist in Linux. I thought it might be a bug, but it's right there on the Sun site (albeit rather hidden) that the Linux version does not include the WP filter.
My office uses exclusively WP, so if I do any work at home I pretty well have to do it in plain text and format it when I'm back in the office -- which is a pain in the ass, because my work involves a great deal of writing. KOffice and Abiword both import WP files pretty well, but if you try to open them back up in WP later all sorts of interesting things have happened to the formatting (i.e., suddenly it's a table instead of text, the meta data identifies the document as having been written in German instead of English, etc.).
That said, I'm a long-time WP user (after switching from WordStar back in the day) and to me everything else is a poor substitute and often pure torture to use (especially Word, but not exclusively). WP just works, works well, is more intuitive, and allows finer grained control than any other word processor I've used.
Tens of millions is quite low number. Many diseases have killed more in the short timespan.
Name one -- you're either trolling or on crack (or both, I suppose). Even the "Black Death" took about five years to kill about 25 million, and that was over 600 years ago and before the concept of sanitation was regarded as a good thing.
That said, I think the dangers of this are exaggerated. No doubt it would be a catastrophe if it were to escape the lab, but life is a lot more resilient than it is usually given credit for. Creating "a virus that could kill tens of millions if it got out of the lab" is a catchy line in an article (or a cheesy plot for a movie), but there is absolutely no basis for it. I think any benefit that comes from this sort of research far outweighs the hypothetical dangers.
Absolutely not. You can't do it now, and your should not be able to. For one thing, it would probably cease to be legally binding as soon as you could revoke it at will. Even more importantly, though, can you imagine if everyone had the right to revoke their license just because they didn't like someone? It'd be utter chaos. Now, if someone is breaking the rules that's another matter. But to be able to revoke simply because "you fundamentally disagree" with someone? You know how many fundamental disagreements take place within the community, don't you -- just look at all the forks. Open source is about making the code available, not a popularity contest.
Nobody's stressed out by indoor plumbing or electric light.
You are obviously not a homeowner. If your computer freezes up, you can restart it. If your pipes freeze . . . well, it can get real messy and real expensive, real fast.
On a more serious note, anything and everything can be a cause of stress. Asking whether technology causes more stress than it relieves is ridiculous. For every example of a way it causes or relieves stress, someone can come up with a counter-example. Stress has more to do with your lifestyle and mindset then with the tools you use. If someone is stressed out a computer crashing, they likely would have been just as stressed by the keys on their typewriter jamming or the carbon paper not lining up correctly. Technology may have an effect on how we live, but I think the only real differences in stress are not the levels but the sources (e.g., worrying about making a rent payment instead of whether the crops will fail and there'll be enough to put up for next winter).
If crackers never find exploits except for by comparing patched and unpatched versions, why the hell do they release security patches then? Seems like they've got their security problems licked -- no patches, no exploits. What could be simpler.
Also liked this quote, from the end of the article: "Almost all attacks against our software are against the legacy systems," he said.
"If you want more secure software, upgrade." Hmmm.
This is both a blessing and a curse. I agree that it is nice to share, but at the same time it is nice to let one slip quietly, which is much more difficult without the padding of a regular seat.
He's a genius! This is actually a clever critique of the very dangers of closed source software, just disguised as a moronic attack on open source.
Open source advocates rightfully maintain that the sheer number of eyes looking at the source tends to rapidly find and repair problems as well as inefficiencies--and that those same eyes would find and repair maliciously inserted code as well. Unfortunately, the model breaks down as soon as the core group involved in a project or distribution decides to corrupt the source, because they simply won't make the corrupted version public.
I mean, this can't actually be an argument that closed developed by a "core group" that "won't make the corrupted version public" is more trustworthy than open development where anyone can see the code. Right? Right?
The group hopes to raise $40 million -- its estimate for restoring the gantry and then erecting it somewhere on Kennedy Space Center grounds. The most likely site is the KSC Visitors Complex, according to preliminary society plans.
Golly. I can't imagine what it would be like if anybody actually RTFA!! Nobody is asking NASA to foot the bill for the preservation. They are simply trying to get a stay of execution for the LUT to give them time to raise funds.
"Oh, but it's old and useless. They should just get rid of it, and maybe keep a chunk for a museum." Sure. It's nice to know people have some historical perspective. Pyramids? Pah, they're just taking up space. Sistine Chapel? Just take a picture and junk the original. It's too much bother keeping it in good shape. Textbooks are so much more engaging than actually getting a chance to physically see a piece of history, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
laptop version of my sister
[insert sexual innuendo or crude comment here]
configure it with WinXP
You're new here, aren't you?
I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're analogy holds up. Any "gay bashing violence" that happens is isolated, as opposed to organized lynchings and the displacement of the Native Americans. I think it's demeaning to minority groups which have truly suffered to compare "gay rights" to basic civil rights: voting, education, buying a home, freedom from physical violence, etc. I think the hatred may be as real, but I don't think the consequences are comparable.
There are legal mechanisms, though awkward, for effectuating nearly every right that a married couple has -- short of joint tax returns (living wills, powers of attorney, trusts, etc.). I don't think homosexuals should have to jump through those hoops, but I think "gay marriage" is largely a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. It's not the federal government's business, and states were gradually beginning to recognize at least civil unions. Now, it's a national issue that people are apparently up in arms about. I think the media is as much to blame as extremist whackos, and I would bet everything I own that no politician (including Bush, who has in fact stated that he's not against civil unions) expects the amendment to pass. It's election year politics, pure and simple, and as such should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar.
At the risk of being trolled, I'll respond. Do you have any idea what it takes to change the Constitution? I won't even get into your apparent belief that just mentioning God somehow violates a document written when religion wasn't a questions, but rather a simple a fact of life. To amend the Constitution, like the DOMA, takes a 2/3 majority of congress (house and senate each) just to begin the process. The president has no role, other than the obvous one of suggesting that his fellow party members follow along. Once the amendment gets a 2/3 majority in congress (or application by 2/3 of the states' legislatures), it's considered proposed. Once it's been proposed, a full 3/4 of the states must approve it.
So that begs the question, how can a president who actually lost the popular vote, facing a very evenly divided country, push through an amendment? The answer is, he can't. It's a election year politics, pure and simple. Everybody that is not running around in circles, panicked, knows that it's not going to be ratified (including Bush & co.). It's a sop to the religious right, nothing more and nothing less.
The PATRIOT Act is a hideous piece of legislation, but parts are already being attacked as unconstitutional. The DMCA, passed by the previous administration, probably violates the Constitution even worse (copyright is granted, and limited, in the body of the Constitution, while the Patriot Act violates 4th Amendment rights) and it too is being slowly picked apart by the courts.
As for just ignoring the Constitution, or doing away with it, you probably aren't aware that anyone who takes an oath of office, including the military, swears an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution -- not the president or any other part of the government. No the Constitution can't defend itself, but with everyone and their grandmother watching, how is anyone going to tamper with it? It's not all powerful or foolproof, and people have been debating what it means since it was written, but at the same time it is a powerful shield. You're right in that it won't protect anyone if everyone just sits back and takes it for granted, but not everyone is. The kind of hysterical panic that the Left is in now is just like the hysterical panic the Right was in under the Clinton administration. Everyone runs around yelling that the sky is falling, with absolutely no sense of perspective.
Read some history. Learn how things actually work. Then, if you still believe that everything is bad and the world is going to end, do something about it. Or, at the very least, you'll have some idea of what you're griping about, and make intelligent commments instead of ranting hysterically.
You really should read some history -- and I mean that literally, not snidely. It can be depressing in some ways, but it's also refreshing to realize that although the world may be going to hell, it's been headed that way for a long, long time and it hasn't got there yet. If anything, the downward slide is probably less steep than it used to be. Up until about a hundred years ago, the US was your basic 3rd-world country, with all that means for human rights and corruption.
Every generation sees the problems as worse than their idealized version of how things used to be. Not saying that things are good right now, but looking back the modern concept of free speech has been alive less than a hundred years, and the modern incarnation of the 4th Amendment rights (search & siezure, Miranda warnings, etc.) are younger than that. Eighty or ninety years ago, the police could legally torture a confession out of you.
Not that it changes the way things are, or the fact that they could and should be better, but a little perspective makes you realize that things aren't quite as bad or hopeless as you might think. And politicians have also been the same throughout history, with a few exceptions. At least now we know when they're lying and can hold their feet to the fire much more easily than our predecessors.
It's because that's how they make their money. They sell the printers at cost or even a loss, and then make you pay out your nose for proprietary ink. Much, much more profitable in the long run (i.e., one-time greater profit of $100 from one printer versus greater yearly profit of $100-$200 from ink for that printer).
It's called the Constitution. If you really are frightened, you should try giving it a read. The checks and balances put in place to limit the actions of the government also limit what any majority can do, even if there were ever such a thing as direct elections. If you don't understand how the federal government is structured, we elect a president, we elect representatives, and judges are appointed by the president and approved (or not) by the representatives. There is no structure or mechanism for direct elections at the federal level, and I'm not sure where they'd fit in even if there were.
Now, the state level is another story -- especially if you live somewhere with idiotic laws like California. Referedums (i.e., direct democracy) are possible at the state level, and probably not a good idea except for very, very limited purposes. However, even if a measure wins with 90% of the vote, that does not mean it will become law. It still must pass the test of being constitutional. If the measure violates either the state or federal consitution, it is invalid and unenforceable. And at the federal level, judges are appointed for life and so are largely immune to political pressure. The US Constitution, and most state constitutions, provide protections to the minority and very strict controls on how anything can be taken by the government.
So while I agree that majority rule often == mob rule, and is something to be worried about, I have no idea how you equate electronic voting with what you call "complete democracy." Since the founding of the colonies, there has been direct elections at the local level, with representative democracy for the larger political units. Whether the ballots are made of pulped wood or ones and zeroes does not change the structure of government in the least.
And I am really confused by your statement regarding "the majority or the form of democracy our country has taken on in the last 100 years or so." One, I don't think the structure of our democracy has changed greatly in the last 100 years, but even more importantly I think the issues you claim to be worried about were worse 100 years ago than they could ever get today. Slavery and the horrendous treatment of the Native Americans, of the working class, and of every ethnic minority (e.g., Italian, Irish, Chinese, Africans, etc.) were possible 100 years ago, but are not today.
The real problem with electronic voting is the ease in which it can be manipulated without anyone ever knowing, not some imaginary bogy of mob rule.
RTFA -- he specifically states that the they avoided giving the terrorists any kind of racial/ethnic identity in order to "take the high road" (so they could be Canadian, after all). And he did not condemn violence in video games, he condemned pointless violence -- i.e., putting the player in the position of comitting violent acts for their own sake rather than some just end.
Disagree with him all you want -- I do -- but next time actually look at the facts instead of making a knee-jerk emotional response.
I actually considered plunking down the cash for StarOffice for the very reason that it was compatible with WordPerfect formats. However, I downloaded the trial version, and while the filter worked wonderfully in Windows, it does not exist in Linux. I thought it might be a bug, but it's right there on the Sun site (albeit rather hidden) that the Linux version does not include the WP filter.
My office uses exclusively WP, so if I do any work at home I pretty well have to do it in plain text and format it when I'm back in the office -- which is a pain in the ass, because my work involves a great deal of writing. KOffice and Abiword both import WP files pretty well, but if you try to open them back up in WP later all sorts of interesting things have happened to the formatting (i.e., suddenly it's a table instead of text, the meta data identifies the document as having been written in German instead of English, etc.).
That said, I'm a long-time WP user (after switching from WordStar back in the day) and to me everything else is a poor substitute and often pure torture to use (especially Word, but not exclusively). WP just works, works well, is more intuitive, and allows finer grained control than any other word processor I've used.
I think the number you are looking for is 20 million, but point well taken. Still, to say that "tens of millions is low" is preposterous.
Tens of millions is quite low number. Many diseases have killed more in the short timespan.
Name one -- you're either trolling or on crack (or both, I suppose). Even the "Black Death" took about five years to kill about 25 million, and that was over 600 years ago and before the concept of sanitation was regarded as a good thing.
This make anyone else think of Stephen King's The Stand ?
That said, I think the dangers of this are exaggerated. No doubt it would be a catastrophe if it were to escape the lab, but life is a lot more resilient than it is usually given credit for. Creating "a virus that could kill tens of millions if it got out of the lab" is a catchy line in an article (or a cheesy plot for a movie), but there is absolutely no basis for it. I think any benefit that comes from this sort of research far outweighs the hypothetical dangers.
Absolutely not. You can't do it now, and your should not be able to. For one thing, it would probably cease to be legally binding as soon as you could revoke it at will. Even more importantly, though, can you imagine if everyone had the right to revoke their license just because they didn't like someone? It'd be utter chaos. Now, if someone is breaking the rules that's another matter. But to be able to revoke simply because "you fundamentally disagree" with someone? You know how many fundamental disagreements take place within the community, don't you -- just look at all the forks. Open source is about making the code available, not a popularity contest.
Nobody's stressed out by indoor plumbing or electric light.
You are obviously not a homeowner. If your computer freezes up, you can restart it. If your pipes freeze . . . well, it can get real messy and real expensive, real fast.
On a more serious note, anything and everything can be a cause of stress. Asking whether technology causes more stress than it relieves is ridiculous. For every example of a way it causes or relieves stress, someone can come up with a counter-example. Stress has more to do with your lifestyle and mindset then with the tools you use. If someone is stressed out a computer crashing, they likely would have been just as stressed by the keys on their typewriter jamming or the carbon paper not lining up correctly. Technology may have an effect on how we live, but I think the only real differences in stress are not the levels but the sources (e.g., worrying about making a rent payment instead of whether the crops will fail and there'll be enough to put up for next winter).
If crackers never find exploits except for by comparing patched and unpatched versions, why the hell do they release security patches then? Seems like they've got their security problems licked -- no patches, no exploits. What could be simpler.
Also liked this quote, from the end of the article:
"Almost all attacks against our software are against the legacy systems," he said.
"If you want more secure software, upgrade."
Hmmm.
This is both a blessing and a curse. I agree that it is nice to share, but at the same time it is nice to let one slip quietly, which is much more difficult without the padding of a regular seat.
You were right the first. Peanuts aren't nuts, they're legumes.
He's a genius! This is actually a clever critique of the very dangers of closed source software, just disguised as a moronic attack on open source.
Open source advocates rightfully maintain that the sheer number of eyes looking at the source tends to rapidly find and repair problems as well as inefficiencies--and that those same eyes would find and repair maliciously inserted code as well. Unfortunately, the model breaks down as soon as the core group involved in a project or distribution decides to corrupt the source, because they simply won't make the corrupted version public.
I mean, this can't actually be an argument that closed developed by a "core group" that "won't make the corrupted version public" is more trustworthy than open development where anyone can see the code. Right? Right?
Welcome to Acme! Press 1 for- .>
Hey, fsck you, you computerized piece of sh!t!!
Transferring to an operator now. .
Sweet!!
SSH? Don't be fool. Every real cracker knows you use telnet.
From the article:
The group hopes to raise $40 million -- its estimate for restoring the gantry and then erecting it somewhere on Kennedy Space Center grounds. The most likely site is the KSC Visitors Complex, according to preliminary society plans.
Golly. I can't imagine what it would be like if anybody actually RTFA!! Nobody is asking NASA to foot the bill for the preservation. They are simply trying to get a stay of execution for the LUT to give them time to raise funds.
"Oh, but it's old and useless. They should just get rid of it, and maybe keep a chunk for a museum." Sure. It's nice to know people have some historical perspective. Pyramids? Pah, they're just taking up space. Sistine Chapel? Just take a picture and junk the original. It's too much bother keeping it in good shape. Textbooks are so much more engaging than actually getting a chance to physically see a piece of history, after all.
RTFA. It's an evironmental issue, not a space issue (no pun intended . . . well, okay, maybe a little bit).
There's just over 2000 signatures on their petition. If there aren't ten times that many by lunch, I'm going to lose all faith in Slashdot.
Hmm. Now that you mention it, maybe it isn't such a bad idea after all. (But you forgot the ???? and Profit! lines in your list.)