I guess it would have helped if I RTFA, as I surely see your point now.
What they're doing is pretty damn evil, not to mention stupid.
But what makes this even worse, is that this will cast a dark shadow over the whole idea of genetic engineering of crops, when then public blames the process, rather than the users.
What I want to know is can they possibly claim as the causative product of this toxicity.
Certainly it cannot be the modification process itself, since it uses natural enzymes.
Certainly it cannot be the carbohydrates and fats that cannot have changed.
Certainly it cannot be the proteins that were not altered.
^ What are they claiming is the cause of the toxicity? There has to be a biochemical basis for it, and while they can scream to the press and be believed by the sheep of the general population, I can hardly see a scientific basis for it.
It just seems to me that Greenpeace is following the formula of the religions - find something that is mysterious and unsettling to the average person, vilify it, then profit.
Genetic engineering is not a panacea, but nor is it a boogieman. Genetically modified foods still contain the same amino acids in their proteins as all the other foods, so unless you modify their biochemistry to an extent where they'll produce real toxins, they will be digested just the same.
It's good to know that RIAA and MPAA are willing to expend so much energy and money to educate our public officials. After all, we wouldn't want any extra freedoms to slip under the door.
Before I answer, I wanted to specify that I am talking about Ubuntu 6.10
<quote>if Linux has become as 'user friendly' as Windows then fair enough, but I reckon even this isnt good enough.</quote> After setup is completed, I think Linux is MORE user friendly than Windows. Actually, a couple of people at work who I've introduced to it, say it reminds them of a Mac that has everything they liked in PCs.
<quote>The average punter out there find windows pretty problematic, most would find Linux a nightmare, even a Mac would be hard enough.</quote>
For writing letters, reading emails, browsing the web, listening to music, and burning CDs and DVDs, Linux is more intuitive than windows... or Mac for that matter. However, the lowest of the low will always fail no matter what. In any case, if people as conservative and technologically averse as my parents could use Linux with no problems, then it's certainly capable of being used in the mainstream.
<quote>I am a parent, and I only consider using Linux where I have to - if at all - so far certainly not as a desktop</quote> When was the last time you tried it?
[quote]1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)[/quote]
Really? Tell that to my parents. The learning curve was so "bad" that not only did they accept Linux nearly instantly, but it has now been almost a month, and I haven't heard a complaint, nor request for help.
The next change is Microsoft's privacy policy will allow them to view, copy, alter, or delete any and all data located on a computer running any Microsoft software.
I just wonder why Windows doesn't just phone home the entire contents of the user's drive... and then realize that the only reason that hasn't happened yet, is because storage of this data would be expensive for Microsoft.
Where is the logic here - the company was ordered to pay $200'000 to Verizon, which already charged their customers $XXX for these text messages. So under the guise of "protecting their customers" they just made another wad of cash. I'll eat my shorts if they credit their customers for this.
I think finding ways around this is all well and good, but the question is why is our society moving so intently towards a system when the citizens NEED to do it, in order to feel safe.
I have said on several occasions, that we will find ourselves in trouble, when technology finally allows for constant surveillance of every member of society everywhere, all the time. Given historical and current precedents, it's logical to assume that once such capacity exists, it will be rapidly implemented.
I have this cold chill down my spine, telling me that perhaps Hitler was right about the 1000-year-Reich, but was just off by a few decades. After all, total surveillance will finally allow the government to fulfill what seems to be its chief purpose anyway - maintaining the status quo indefinitely.
I meant aesthetics due to the geometry and size of the bulbs. For instance, my parents have a chandelier that has candle-type incadescents, that are both slimmer and physically smaller than any CFLs I've found so far, especially ones that are not outright spirals.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for CFLs - the only incadescent bulb I own is inside my microwave, but I am also fairly tolerant of people's preferences.
I think that a total ban, as all total bans, is really arrogant and short-sighted. After all, there are many decorative lights that will look simply horrendous with incadescent light bulbs. Aesthetics are important, and forcing people to make their households less appealing isn't going to help anyone live a better life.
Instead of a ban, let's create an economic pressure. Tax the incadescent light bulbs, so that they are significantly more expensive than compact fluorescents, and use the money for conservation. This way, the shift will be natural, and the people who prefer/need incadescent bulbs, can still purchase them, albeit at 10X+ the current price.
You're absolutely right, especially in your analysis of the emerging DRM-centered philosophy of ownership. This is just a further continuation of the philosophy of leasing housing, transportation, and now - images, sounds, and ideas. In the end, all this means is that we will find ourselves yet again in a society where a microscopic fraction of the population owns everything, and by withdrawing the permission to use their "property" can effectively crush anyone they please. Considering that US was built on the concept of protecting the citizens against just that, it is ironic that we're leading the way in demolishing the very concepts that we fought so hard to sustain (granted, with a huge measure of hypocrisy, but nonetheless...).
And I hope you won't mind if I infringe on your intellectual property a little, and use the phrase "intellectual sharecropping". It's a very eloquent way of putting it.
It's terrible, but that's exactly what any jobs that matter and pay well are turning into. For doctors, lawyers, research scientists, as well as many programmers, finance professionals, and others, working 60-80 hours per week is not an indication of dedication to work, but a necessity.
Myspace is not liable for this any more than the phone company is liable for the prank and threatening phone calls. I don't know about the rest of the/. community, but I am dead tired of the continuous attempts to impose liability on the carrier for the content. This goes to the very core of undermining the openness and freedom of the internet, as a neutral medium for communication and sharing of information. Verdict for the plaintiff would have been a horrible precedent.
It's not that it's lost its halo, it's just that it has realized its usefulness. The fact that companies make money off open-source technologies doesn't mean that open-source is bad. Anyone who thinks that is doing the entire open-source community a great disservice.
We don't live in a utopian communist state. Progress is driven by self-interest, and I am happy that companies make money using open-source technologies, because it not only affirms the essential role of OSS in the marketplace, but also provides incentive for support and adoption of OSS by those who were previously skeptical.
I disagree. I think that they've seen what happened to their MPAA buddies when they spent countless millions developing DRM for HD-DVD and BluRay, only to see them broken before the sales got off the ground.
I always had a sense that while the RIAA execs had the information about the uselessness of DRM all along, their greed and anger was too great for them to admit it to anyone, especially themselves. But this recent fiasco, along with a very high profile essay by Jobs might have just been enough to jolt them into realizing that the reason that they're losing money, is because they're failing at their primary business model - music distribution.
They got so caught in copyright protection that for awhile it seemed like this was their primary focus. It was almost clear that the RIAA lawsuits were becoming a profitable side-business in the form of outright racketeering and extortion.
But perhaps the decreasing sales of CDs in the context of a flourishing DVD business, and very healthy iTMS sales, they've finally come to their senses.
The goal of RIAA is to distribute music at a price to the consumer. So that's what they should be doing. If the labels got together, and opened an online music shop with non-DRM custom-format/bitrate downloads from 96kbps to uncompressed, a-la-AllOfMP3, they'd make a killing!
So perhaps long-term greed reinforced by reality and logic has finally triumphed over old-school throat-ripping greed...
The best place to put this chip: the forearm. It's worked well for identification purposes before, and considering that ultimately it'll be used for the same reasons now, there's no real reason to put it anywhere else.
Maybe also couple it with a fashion accessory - like a pattern on the chest of various pieces of clothing, consisting of two intertwined triangles, lighted in yellow LEDs, when a person with a certain boolean tag in their chip puts it on.
They're already unveiling a website? It seems as if to the RIAA, these lawsuits are becoming not just a tool to scare their clients into submission, but rather a business model in and of itself. A "$1000 discount?" being offered to clients of certain ISPs?! What's next, 2-for-1 specials? How long are we going to sit quietly, while the RIAA unrolls a new wave of ecommerce - information superhighway robbery...
I blame the judges and the prosecution for the same reason I blame every member of the SS for the atrocities they committed upon the Jewish population during WWII.
Just because the law exists, doesn't mean those who execute it are absolved of the responsibility. Ultimately, the responsibility for any action rests with the person who engages in it.
This is clearly a case of not just prosecutorial misconduct, but malicious prosecution of the worst kind. The majority brief actually included a part where they justified continuing this charade because these pictures MIGHT harm this couple in the future. The gall of the two judges who wrote this opinion is incomprehensible, and their hypocrisy borders on sadism. I mean, it seems as if they view the mere possibility of this picture surfacing as being more damaging to these kids than being labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?
I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick, somebody make a few thousand clones of this report.
I guess it would have helped if I RTFA, as I surely see your point now.
What they're doing is pretty damn evil, not to mention stupid.
But what makes this even worse, is that this will cast a dark shadow over the whole idea of genetic engineering of crops, when then public blames the process, rather than the users.
What I want to know is can they possibly claim as the causative product of this toxicity.
Certainly it cannot be the modification process itself, since it uses natural enzymes.
Certainly it cannot be the carbohydrates and fats that cannot have changed.
Certainly it cannot be the proteins that were not altered.
^ What are they claiming is the cause of the toxicity? There has to be a biochemical basis for it, and while they can scream to the press and be believed by the sheep of the general population, I can hardly see a scientific basis for it.
It just seems to me that Greenpeace is following the formula of the religions - find something that is mysterious and unsettling to the average person, vilify it, then profit.
Genetic engineering is not a panacea, but nor is it a boogieman. Genetically modified foods still contain the same amino acids in their proteins as all the other foods, so unless you modify their biochemistry to an extent where they'll produce real toxins, they will be digested just the same.
It's good to know that RIAA and MPAA are willing to expend so much energy and money to educate our public officials. After all, we wouldn't want any extra freedoms to slip under the door.
Before I answer, I wanted to specify that I am talking about Ubuntu 6.10
<quote>if Linux has become as 'user friendly' as Windows then fair enough, but I reckon even this isnt good enough.</quote>
After setup is completed, I think Linux is MORE user friendly than Windows. Actually, a couple of people at work who I've introduced to it, say it reminds them of a Mac that has everything they liked in PCs.
<quote>The average punter out there find windows pretty problematic, most would find Linux a nightmare, even a Mac would be hard enough.</quote>
For writing letters, reading emails, browsing the web, listening to music, and burning CDs and DVDs, Linux is more intuitive than windows... or Mac for that matter. However, the lowest of the low will always fail no matter what. In any case, if people as conservative and technologically averse as my parents could use Linux with no problems, then it's certainly capable of being used in the mainstream.
<quote>I am a parent, and I only consider using Linux where I have to - if at all - so far certainly not as a desktop</quote>
When was the last time you tried it?
[quote]1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)[/quote]
Really? Tell that to my parents. The learning curve was so "bad" that not only did they accept Linux nearly instantly, but it has now been almost a month, and I haven't heard a complaint, nor request for help.
Seriously... I hope they're not holding their breath.
The next change is Microsoft's privacy policy will allow them to view, copy, alter, or delete any and all data located on a computer running any Microsoft software.
I just wonder why Windows doesn't just phone home the entire contents of the user's drive... and then realize that the only reason that hasn't happened yet, is because storage of this data would be expensive for Microsoft.
Exactly.
Where is the logic here - the company was ordered to pay $200'000 to Verizon, which already charged their customers $XXX for these text messages. So under the guise of "protecting their customers" they just made another wad of cash. I'll eat my shorts if they credit their customers for this.
I think finding ways around this is all well and good, but the question is why is our society moving so intently towards a system when the citizens NEED to do it, in order to feel safe.
I have said on several occasions, that we will find ourselves in trouble, when technology finally allows for constant surveillance of every member of society everywhere, all the time. Given historical and current precedents, it's logical to assume that once such capacity exists, it will be rapidly implemented.
I have this cold chill down my spine, telling me that perhaps Hitler was right about the 1000-year-Reich, but was just off by a few decades. After all, total surveillance will finally allow the government to fulfill what seems to be its chief purpose anyway - maintaining the status quo indefinitely.
I meant aesthetics due to the geometry and size of the bulbs. For instance, my parents have a chandelier that has candle-type incadescents, that are both slimmer and physically smaller than any CFLs I've found so far, especially ones that are not outright spirals.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for CFLs - the only incadescent bulb I own is inside my microwave, but I am also fairly tolerant of people's preferences.
*It was supposed to say "look simply horrendous with fluorescent light bulbs"
I think that a total ban, as all total bans, is really arrogant and short-sighted. After all, there are many decorative lights that will look simply horrendous with incadescent light bulbs. Aesthetics are important, and forcing people to make their households less appealing isn't going to help anyone live a better life.
Instead of a ban, let's create an economic pressure. Tax the incadescent light bulbs, so that they are significantly more expensive than compact fluorescents, and use the money for conservation. This way, the shift will be natural, and the people who prefer/need incadescent bulbs, can still purchase them, albeit at 10X+ the current price.
Mod parent up, definitely.
You're absolutely right, especially in your analysis of the emerging DRM-centered philosophy of ownership. This is just a further continuation of the philosophy of leasing housing, transportation, and now - images, sounds, and ideas. In the end, all this means is that we will find ourselves yet again in a society where a microscopic fraction of the population owns everything, and by withdrawing the permission to use their "property" can effectively crush anyone they please. Considering that US was built on the concept of protecting the citizens against just that, it is ironic that we're leading the way in demolishing the very concepts that we fought so hard to sustain (granted, with a huge measure of hypocrisy, but nonetheless...).
And I hope you won't mind if I infringe on your intellectual property a little, and use the phrase "intellectual sharecropping". It's a very eloquent way of putting it.
It's terrible, but that's exactly what any jobs that matter and pay well are turning into. For doctors, lawyers, research scientists, as well as many programmers, finance professionals, and others, working 60-80 hours per week is not an indication of dedication to work, but a necessity.
Myspace is not liable for this any more than the phone company is liable for the prank and threatening phone calls. I don't know about the rest of the /. community, but I am dead tired of the continuous attempts to impose liability on the carrier for the content. This goes to the very core of undermining the openness and freedom of the internet, as a neutral medium for communication and sharing of information. Verdict for the plaintiff would have been a horrible precedent.
It's not that it's lost its halo, it's just that it has realized its usefulness. The fact that companies make money off open-source technologies doesn't mean that open-source is bad. Anyone who thinks that is doing the entire open-source community a great disservice.
We don't live in a utopian communist state. Progress is driven by self-interest, and I am happy that companies make money using open-source technologies, because it not only affirms the essential role of OSS in the marketplace, but also provides incentive for support and adoption of OSS by those who were previously skeptical.
I disagree. I think that they've seen what happened to their MPAA buddies when they spent countless millions developing DRM for HD-DVD and BluRay, only to see them broken before the sales got off the ground.
I always had a sense that while the RIAA execs had the information about the uselessness of DRM all along, their greed and anger was too great for them to admit it to anyone, especially themselves. But this recent fiasco, along with a very high profile essay by Jobs might have just been enough to jolt them into realizing that the reason that they're losing money, is because they're failing at their primary business model - music distribution.
They got so caught in copyright protection that for awhile it seemed like this was their primary focus. It was almost clear that the RIAA lawsuits were becoming a profitable side-business in the form of outright racketeering and extortion.
But perhaps the decreasing sales of CDs in the context of a flourishing DVD business, and very healthy iTMS sales, they've finally come to their senses.
The goal of RIAA is to distribute music at a price to the consumer. So that's what they should be doing. If the labels got together, and opened an online music shop with non-DRM custom-format/bitrate downloads from 96kbps to uncompressed, a-la-AllOfMP3, they'd make a killing!
So perhaps long-term greed reinforced by reality and logic has finally triumphed over old-school throat-ripping greed...
The best place to put this chip: the forearm. It's worked well for identification purposes before, and considering that ultimately it'll be used for the same reasons now, there's no real reason to put it anywhere else.
Maybe also couple it with a fashion accessory - like a pattern on the chest of various pieces of clothing, consisting of two intertwined triangles, lighted in yellow LEDs, when a person with a certain boolean tag in their chip puts it on.
They're already unveiling a website? It seems as if to the RIAA, these lawsuits are becoming not just a tool to scare their clients into submission, but rather a business model in and of itself. A "$1000 discount?" being offered to clients of certain ISPs?! What's next, 2-for-1 specials? How long are we going to sit quietly, while the RIAA unrolls a new wave of ecommerce - information superhighway robbery...
Well, there are always people who are going to pay to have someone tortured, so why don't you get right down to it?
Pragmatism and self-interest should only extend as far as ethics allow it, otherwise it's called sociopathy.
I blame the judges and the prosecution for the same reason I blame every member of the SS for the atrocities they committed upon the Jewish population during WWII.
Just because the law exists, doesn't mean those who execute it are absolved of the responsibility. Ultimately, the responsibility for any action rests with the person who engages in it.
This is clearly a case of not just prosecutorial misconduct, but malicious prosecution of the worst kind. The majority brief actually included a part where they justified continuing this charade because these pictures MIGHT harm this couple in the future. The gall of the two judges who wrote this opinion is incomprehensible, and their hypocrisy borders on sadism. I mean, it seems as if they view the mere possibility of this picture surfacing as being more damaging to these kids than being labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?
I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here.
Mod parent troll for being one, please.