Re:What about the problems with Genetic Engineerin
on
Goodbye, Dolly
·
· Score: 1
Imagine a hacker, taking a 10MB binary, disembling it by hand, randomly tinkering with a few bytes here and there, then looking for effects when they run it. Would you consider that app bug free?
Now imagine 1 million hackers, taking 10MB binaries that are all slightly different, and communicating back and forth to see what the trends are between code differences and functional differences. Get them all to tinker with the programs, and... does this sound familiar yet?
Actually...the DMCA makes it illegal to do what you have a legal right to do. Under current copyright laws you have the ability to make 1 copy of any material that you own as long as it is for personal use only, and makes no mention of the medium for that copy.
Interestingly enough, the provision of the DMCA that prohibits having more than 1 copy of a piece of intellectual property also indirectly makes it illegal for you to run any software on your computer. When you run a program, you are, in effect, creating a second copy of that program in memory. As a result, every time you run a program, you are technically breaking the DMCA.
IEEE implies that it only relates to Electrical Engineering, but it has become the de facto professional society for Software Engineers / Computer Scientists as well. As programmers are perhaps the most heavily affected professionals in the DCMA, I'm surprised IEEE hasn't picked up the mic up before this.
Additionally, the 13 states decided way back at the time the Constitution was framed, that the popular vote was not a good way to decide things. States with low population would never be heard. If we let the popular vote decide things, New York, California, and Texas would make all the rules, and because of this, none of the other states would have ever joined the union in the first place.
State representation was addressed with the number of electoral votes given each state, not with the creation of the electoral college.
The creation of the EC itself was more a matter of dealing with the problem of information exchange (that, and the desire to leave the higher seats of power as far removed from voters as possible).
The issue of information flow was a big problem back in the original founding of this country. It took days or weeks for news to travel around, and even when it did reach an area, it wasn't guaranteed to reach everyone.
Today, we have a literacy rate that is virtually 100%. Information travels instantaneously in a number of formats that everyone can access in one form or another.
In 1791, the vast majority of voters didn't even know the names of the top candidates running. It was foolish to expect that even a small fraction of the population had the slightest idea what each candidate's platform was.
In 2001, anyone who cares to watch can see political debates as they happen. Anyone who is so inclined can find out even the tiniest details of a candidate's platform. Everyone in the US knows that Gore "invented the Internet" and Bush "put food on his family."
The issue of information exchange has been conquered. The distrust of the populace has eroded to the point where in many states, the electors are legally required to vote the way of the majority. The simple fact that people even get to vote for the president shows this erosion - originally, the state legislatures voted for the electors, which in turn voted for the president. The only say a voter had was during the election of the state legislature. States no longer have any real power, nor do they continue to push for "state representation" in government. Finally, the last election showed a major flaw of the electoral system. Not only did the winner of the popular vote lose the election, but the election was held in a deadlock waiting for the results of a single state. In effect, the US didn't elect Bush. Florida did.
Why, then, should we not switch to a popular vote? Why, in a system of government that champions the idea of "majority rules", do we allow the majority to lose?
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a hacker, taking a 10MB binary, disembling it by hand, randomly tinkering with a few bytes here and there, then looking for effects when they run it. Would you consider that app bug free? Now imagine 1 million hackers, taking 10MB binaries that are all slightly different, and communicating back and forth to see what the trends are between code differences and functional differences. Get them all to tinker with the programs, and... does this sound familiar yet?
...if Microsoft owns the cyborg industry and your body BSODs?
Actually...the DMCA makes it illegal to do what you have a legal right to do. Under current copyright laws you have the ability to make 1 copy of any material that you own as long as it is for personal use only, and makes no mention of the medium for that copy. Interestingly enough, the provision of the DMCA that prohibits having more than 1 copy of a piece of intellectual property also indirectly makes it illegal for you to run any software on your computer. When you run a program, you are, in effect, creating a second copy of that program in memory. As a result, every time you run a program, you are technically breaking the DMCA.
IEEE implies that it only relates to Electrical Engineering, but it has become the de facto professional society for Software Engineers / Computer Scientists as well. As programmers are perhaps the most heavily affected professionals in the DCMA, I'm surprised IEEE hasn't picked up the mic up before this.
But do you really believe that the techies and people working at the RIAA are that stupid?
I think that logic would be clear to anyone. Including the RIAA.
We are talking about the same industry that came out with CD copy protection that could be defeated by a felt-tip marker, here.
State representation was addressed with the number of electoral votes given each state, not with the creation of the electoral college.
The creation of the EC itself was more a matter of dealing with the problem of information exchange (that, and the desire to leave the higher seats of power as far removed from voters as possible).
The issue of information flow was a big problem back in the original founding of this country. It took days or weeks for news to travel around, and even when it did reach an area, it wasn't guaranteed to reach everyone.
Today, we have a literacy rate that is virtually 100%. Information travels instantaneously in a number of formats that everyone can access in one form or another.
In 1791, the vast majority of voters didn't even know the names of the top candidates running. It was foolish to expect that even a small fraction of the population had the slightest idea what each candidate's platform was.
In 2001, anyone who cares to watch can see political debates as they happen. Anyone who is so inclined can find out even the tiniest details of a candidate's platform. Everyone in the US knows that Gore "invented the Internet" and Bush "put food on his family."
The issue of information exchange has been conquered. The distrust of the populace has eroded to the point where in many states, the electors are legally required to vote the way of the majority. The simple fact that people even get to vote for the president shows this erosion - originally, the state legislatures voted for the electors, which in turn voted for the president. The only say a voter had was during the election of the state legislature. States no longer have any real power, nor do they continue to push for "state representation" in government. Finally, the last election showed a major flaw of the electoral system. Not only did the winner of the popular vote lose the election, but the election was held in a deadlock waiting for the results of a single state. In effect, the US didn't elect Bush. Florida did.
Why, then, should we not switch to a popular vote? Why, in a system of government that champions the idea of "majority rules", do we allow the majority to lose?
Let plurality die.