1) You haven't always been shot when you are attacked. For example, a Texas truck driver was attacked by a man carrying a knife. Because of the concealed weapons law, he was able to save his life.
2) It's a helluva lot easier to defend yourself with a weapon than without.
This kind of software is very time-consuming and difficult to write....
I'm hoping that we can get the SoundKit and MusicKit working on GNUstep/Linux so that you could write one of these applications in a few weeks at the most. We will have to wait for the GNUstep development enviornment to evolve first, of course. The development environment that NeXT put together puts even VC++ to shame--partly because of the incredible NeXT API.
I don't want to use it for piracy. I want to use it to distribute samples of music that I write. Please note that I am neither a "warez" nor a "kiddie." (I detest those cute little spellings anyway.)
Americans (and American companies) think they are the police to the world not only in military matters but in internet matters too.
Please try to remember that American citizens are not American companies or the government. My views are not necessarily those of my government or employer.;-)
The system of law in the US must be curtailed! It is out of control with $$$-hunters
Definitely. We used to have a sensible system of jurisprudence but it has been wrecked. Then there are those folks who hold to a globalist philosophy. Now, I'm not an isolationist and I believe in free trade; however, I think it is 100% wrong to extend this freedom to law. Since each nation's judical history and standards are different, the only practical way to do this is to eradicate national governments and establish a single global government; which I am totally opposed to.
Is anyone really walking by tons of new people every day at work, or don't they already know pretty much everyone there?
Well, I mean it's one thing to know someone exists and to know that the two of you are compatible. Plus, if a girl I'm interested in had one of these and it went off, I'd be more than willing to talk to her. It would break the ice and gives you a reason to speak up.
Or, you could just go hang out at the type of place where people that hold your same interests do... or even better, DO some of your interests that necessitate other people (such as a club or something), so that you'll already be around people with the same interests as you...You still have the problem of finding a reason to talk to that person; and even when you do find some reason to talk it will not reveal your interest. My take on this device is that it manages to make public the mutual attraction so that neither of you feel like you're trying to hide your true feelings. It would make it feel natural and easy.
Re:Hmmm... now all i need...
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 1
it would be *so* much fun to get a whole restaurant of single women chasing me!
Are you saying that corporatism is an advantageous policy, Constitution-wise? I don't think it is.
Do you seriously think that everything can be nice and fair right here right now?
No, of course not. However, those who say that it doesn't matter and that we should get used to it are shirking their responsibility to keep watch over government.
It all comes down to whether you are willing to take a cut in your lifestyle for the sake of "justice" or whatever the favorite buzzword people are throwing around is. I will bet that if you were asked to give up the comfortable lifestyle you now enjoy so that everyone can be on equal footing, you wouldn't.
It really isn't about people being on equal footing, it's about our form of government being corrupted. The constantly decreasing power of local governments in favor of central government, the Federal Reserve Act, Executive Orders, and many other "innovations" in government have conspired to distort the elegant federal republic we once had. In addition, people are duped into giving up their rights in the name of "national security" when all it really is is a way to meld the private and public sectors.
That fact of the matter is though, that right or wrong the citizen has the responsibility to stand behind the country.
I would disagree with this. I believe that the citizen has the responsibility to keep constant vigilance over government.
Merely waving around a fist and crying out that the US goverment is the monolithic root of all evil doesn't accomplish anything.
I'm not really saying that. The US is still the best place to live, and the root of all evil is the human soul. However, we have not been doing our civic duty in holding our government accountable.
Face it, the whole rebellion against authority thing is childish.
I'm for authority, but only proper authority. The government is not only overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, but they are actively breaking the laws laid down in that document each and every day. The authors of that document had hoped that the citizenry would be vigilant and head such abuses off at the pass.
The only members of movements I respect are those who actually try and do something about whatever upsets them.
I'm doing that right now. I feel that I should take the opportunity to speak out about these things at any convenient time and perhaps my words will build up interest and courage in my fellow citizens; who knows, maybe they will start paying closer attention. Furthermore, we can go to our representatives and plead our case. We can start a political party (my favorite is the Constitution Party, see www.constitutionparty.com).
I know what you're getting at, and I'm fighting the same thing. I don't want people to just chime in with some slogan, I want them to think about what's going on. I want them to discuss philosophical issues of governance. I want to see people reading (and understanding!) the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and Lex Rex.
And it's rotten to the core. I certainly hope you don't think we went through all that business in 1776 just to end up with a paternalistic business-government.
The CIA has long been the loyal hit squad for U.S. business interests. For example, they crushed freedom fighters in Guatemala to help a giant banana import company. This happened in the 1950s.
As for all those who say, "it happens--get over it," let me inform you that it is our responsibility as citizens to maintain constant vigilance over government. If things like this didn't happen, we wouldn't need to follow their actions. Corporatism is very nasty and we must be as ruthless in fighting it as we are in fighting infringements on our Constitutional rights. Actually, our record on protecting our rights isn't that good either but that's another issue.
Actually, there is a solution. Benno Senoner has written a low-latency patch for the Linux kernel. While this applies to audio, it shouldn't be much trouble to take advantage of it in MIDI drivers. It's a modification of the process scheduler IIRC. See http://www.gardena.net/benno/linux/audio/ for the full story.
OK, I'm a musician who is also deeply into Free Software and Linux. I greatly suggest that you take a look at ALSA, the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (see http://www.alsa-project.org for details). ALSA is on its way to replacing OSS/Free in the Linux kernel, and they are working on top-flight patch management and MIDI sequencing support.
Secondly, if you are familiar with NeXTSTEP and their fabulous MusicKit/SoundKit combo, I am (as soon as this term is over!) planning on porting it to GNUstep/Linux. So, all the powerful NeXT music and sound apps (like SynthBuilder) should be easily portable to Linux. See http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Software/Music Kit/MusicKit.html#bg for background on all this.
I'm still wading through low-level MusicKit code (in addition to trying to keep my grades up!) and would appreciate some help, so write me at my email address!
we don't allow phone users or dirver's license holders to remain anonymous
A driver's license is not a form of communication; as for phones, you can use a payphone and be anonymous.
although their records are kepot private
If you believe that, I have some property in Florida you might be interested in...
An important principle to keep in mind is that any power will be abused, especially by government and law enforcement.
The issue of sexual abuse groups is the ultimate red herring in this debate. Anyone who thinks that abuse groups are the crux of this issue is deluding themselves.
I agree with this. Political concerns are far more important
These folks need to deal with professional counsellors who can really help them, not a bunch of wannabe psychologists hanging out in newsgroups giving out bad advice.
You say this as if you believe psychologists actually help people. Psychologists are more screwed up than the people they try to help.
Anonymity on the web is almost entirely focused on the ability to perform porn-related transactions without shame. Anyone who thinks it has anything to do with anything else needs a clue.
It has to do with government and judicial corruption. It has to do with cops breaking your door down in connection with some act of terrorism simply because you expressed negative political views online. Remember, we need government invasion of privacy to "protect" us from all those evil political or philosophical viewpoints that might not jibe with what our resident batch of political and social guardians thinks is right.
As it stands, even whistle blowers must be recognized as who they are - under our law, you are allowed to stand before your accusor.
In such cases, the accusor is the government, not the whistle blower. The whistle blower is more like an informant. If people fear for their lives, they won't come forward.
More important to the issue of internet privacy, I think, is the invasion of privacy merely because someone might be doing something illegal.
Education is one; clearly it benefits the individual, and it also greatly benefits society to have a large pool of literate workers and consumers rather than a horde of illterate savages.
Of course, the result of our education system is, "a horde of illiterate savages." This is because our system makes cattle out of children. We treat them as if they were parts on an assembly line: a little poorly understood mathematics slapped on here, a bit of physics (also poorly understood) there, and you have the average American dolt. Education is personal, not public. It is entirely in the care of the parents and children themselves.
Why should two people living a mile apart be subject to two different sets of laws just because they are on different sides of some arbitrary state boundary?
Well, because laws have to be precise; people have to know what's legal and where it's legal. Unfortunately, "You seem to be a Dubuque kinda guy, therefore this law doesn't apply to you" doesn't really work. Just one of the necessary evils of the system.
There's also a vast cultural difference between a lot of states in the US - think of the difference between California and Kansas for instance. The cultural gap between some US states is far wider than it is between many different countries across the world.
I really see that as necessary. It just happens and there is nothing that can be done about it. The federal system is just a way to be flexible about these differences.
Whilst the Constitution guarantees certain rights across the US there are a lot of things equally important to the welfare of a country, such as education, which are decided on per state basis which IMHO isn't right.
Here, I really have a problem: I don't believe education is a responsibility of government. Government can only do those things which are public. Education is very much a private affair.
States *THEMSELVES* are an anachronism, and the debate on internet taxes demonstrates this.
States are a good thing; and we have already gone way too far in implementing centralized governments. I don't know where you live, but if it's more than about 40 miles from where I live, you have completely different concerns and needs than I do. Even within a single state, there are wide-ranging differences in needs.
For example, if one part of a state has a big seaport, it is very likely that their industries are almost entirely related to shipping. Meanwhile, in another region of the same state, logging is the most important industry. In yet another part of the state, heavy-duty manufacturing is king. I can guarantee that these people don't like having laws imposed on them that make sense on the other side of the state, but hurt everyone where they live.
In addition to all this, there are cultural differences. Texas has a very different culture from Delaware. These people have widely different beliefs; a federal system allows people to keep local culture and beliefs while still entering into a beneficial governmental structure together.
Far from being an anachronism, until you can get rid of the variation in natural resources and industries from one region to another, and eliminate cultural diversity and personal beliefs (which is a frightening and dangerous proposition, IMHO), local governments are a necessity.
So basically what will happen is that different states will end up with yet another set of taxation rules...
So? This is a federal system, under which it is (supposedly) assumed that public problems and needs differ from region to region. This way, the system is flexible. The states' rights have been declining steadily for quite some time now--it's high time we got some of that back.
There's really no reason for things to be uniform other than some people don't like the world to be all messy-like. Should we get rid of time zones because they aren't globally uniform?
I honestly think this is an excellent idea! From what I read, it appears that President Clinton is actually taking a (refreshingly) Constitutional approach. This is one of the few times Clinton (or anyone else in the past 140 years, for that matter) has actually decided that maybe states have rights to self-governance.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to taxation of Internet sales, but I'm very much in favor of the states getting some of their Constitutionally guaranteed power back.
After reading the article, I have to admit that it's not as bad as I thought; they don't appear to be after these people for posessing password extraction software.
However, at the very end there was that dreadful quote from that lawyer:
"It's a crime to steal, whether it's done the old-fashioned way or with new technology. And it's a crime regardless of whether the stolen item is physical property or intellectual property."
I would like to ask this guy exactly why information is property. Does he have any moral reasoning for this conclusion, or is he just spouting off whatever is best for his client?
Slashdot Mirror
Correct; but I was thinking of older NeXT applications.
2) It's a helluva lot easier to defend yourself with a weapon than without.
3) You still haven't answered the argument.
Now if they would release the .nib format, everything would be peachy!
I'm hoping that we can get the SoundKit and MusicKit working on GNUstep/Linux so that you could write one of these applications in a few weeks at the most. We will have to wait for the GNUstep development enviornment to evolve first, of course. The development environment that NeXT put together puts even VC++ to shame--partly because of the incredible NeXT API.
Exactly. That's what's so great about them. It makes it that much easier to defend yourself against attack.
I don't want to use it for piracy. I want to use it to distribute samples of music that I write. Please note that I am neither a "warez" nor a "kiddie." (I detest those cute little spellings anyway.)
Please try to remember that American citizens are not American companies or the government. My views are not necessarily those of my government or employer. ;-)
The system of law in the US must be curtailed! It is out of control with $$$-hunters
Definitely. We used to have a sensible system of jurisprudence but it has been wrecked. Then there are those folks who hold to a globalist philosophy. Now, I'm not an isolationist and I believe in free trade; however, I think it is 100% wrong to extend this freedom to law. Since each nation's judical history and standards are different, the only practical way to do this is to eradicate national governments and establish a single global government; which I am totally opposed to.
You mean that wasn't the first thing that came to your mind? I don't know what's becoming of geeks these days...
Well, I mean it's one thing to know someone exists and to know that the two of you are compatible. Plus, if a girl I'm interested in had one of these and it went off, I'd be more than willing to talk to her. It would break the ice and gives you a reason to speak up.
Or, you could just go hang out at the type of place where people that hold your same interests do... or even better, DO some of your interests that necessitate other people (such as a club or something), so that you'll already be around people with the same interests as you...You still have the problem of finding a reason to talk to that person; and even when you do find some reason to talk it will not reveal your interest. My take on this device is that it manages to make public the mutual attraction so that neither of you feel like you're trying to hide your true feelings. It would make it feel natural and easy.
You mean...kind of like a Beatles movie?
Are you saying that corporatism is an advantageous policy, Constitution-wise? I don't think it is.
Do you seriously think that everything can be nice and fair right here right now?
No, of course not. However, those who say that it doesn't matter and that we should get used to it are shirking their responsibility to keep watch over government.
It all comes down to whether you are willing to take a cut in your lifestyle for the sake of "justice" or whatever the favorite buzzword people are throwing around is. I will bet that if you were asked to give up the comfortable lifestyle you now enjoy so that everyone can be on equal footing, you wouldn't.
It really isn't about people being on equal footing, it's about our form of government being corrupted. The constantly decreasing power of local governments in favor of central government, the Federal Reserve Act, Executive Orders, and many other "innovations" in government have conspired to distort the elegant federal republic we once had. In addition, people are duped into giving up their rights in the name of "national security" when all it really is is a way to meld the private and public sectors.
That fact of the matter is though, that right or wrong the citizen has the responsibility to stand behind the country.
I would disagree with this. I believe that the citizen has the responsibility to keep constant vigilance over government.
Merely waving around a fist and crying out that the US goverment is the monolithic root of all evil doesn't accomplish anything.
I'm not really saying that. The US is still the best place to live, and the root of all evil is the human soul. However, we have not been doing our civic duty in holding our government accountable.
Face it, the whole rebellion against authority thing is childish.
I'm for authority, but only proper authority. The government is not only overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, but they are actively breaking the laws laid down in that document each and every day. The authors of that document had hoped that the citizenry would be vigilant and head such abuses off at the pass.
The only members of movements I respect are those who actually try and do something about whatever upsets them.
I'm doing that right now. I feel that I should take the opportunity to speak out about these things at any convenient time and perhaps my words will build up interest and courage in my fellow citizens; who knows, maybe they will start paying closer attention. Furthermore, we can go to our representatives and plead our case. We can start a political party (my favorite is the Constitution Party, see www.constitutionparty.com).
I know what you're getting at, and I'm fighting the same thing. I don't want people to just chime in with some slogan, I want them to think about what's going on. I want them to discuss philosophical issues of governance. I want to see people reading (and understanding!) the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and Lex Rex.
And it's rotten to the core. I certainly hope you don't think we went through all that business in 1776 just to end up with a paternalistic business-government.
As for all those who say, "it happens--get over it," let me inform you that it is our responsibility as citizens to maintain constant vigilance over government. If things like this didn't happen, we wouldn't need to follow their actions. Corporatism is very nasty and we must be as ruthless in fighting it as we are in fighting infringements on our Constitutional rights. Actually, our record on protecting our rights isn't that good either but that's another issue.
Actually, there is a solution. Benno Senoner has written a low-latency patch for the Linux kernel. While this applies to audio, it shouldn't be much trouble to take advantage of it in MIDI drivers. It's a modification of the process scheduler IIRC. See http://www.gardena.net/benno/linux/audio/ for the full story.
Secondly, if you are familiar with NeXTSTEP and their fabulous MusicKit/SoundKit combo, I am (as soon as this term is over!) planning on porting it to GNUstep/Linux. So, all the powerful NeXT music and sound apps (like SynthBuilder) should be easily portable to Linux. See http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Software/Music Kit/MusicKit.html#bg for background on all this.
I'm still wading through low-level MusicKit code (in addition to trying to keep my grades up!) and would appreciate some help, so write me at my email address!
It hasn't been a free country for 140 years.
Please moderate the parent of this comment up!
A driver's license is not a form of communication; as for phones, you can use a payphone and be anonymous.
although their records are kepot private
If you believe that, I have some property in Florida you might be interested in...
An important principle to keep in mind is that any power will be abused, especially by government and law enforcement.
The issue of sexual abuse groups is the ultimate red herring in this debate. Anyone who thinks that abuse groups are the crux of this issue is deluding themselves.
I agree with this. Political concerns are far more important
These folks need to deal with professional counsellors who can really help them, not a bunch of wannabe psychologists hanging out in newsgroups giving out bad advice.
You say this as if you believe psychologists actually help people. Psychologists are more screwed up than the people they try to help.
Anonymity on the web is almost entirely focused on the ability to perform porn-related transactions without shame. Anyone who thinks it has anything to do with anything else needs a clue.
It has to do with government and judicial corruption. It has to do with cops breaking your door down in connection with some act of terrorism simply because you expressed negative political views online. Remember, we need government invasion of privacy to "protect" us from all those evil political or philosophical viewpoints that might not jibe with what our resident batch of political and social guardians thinks is right.
In such cases, the accusor is the government, not the whistle blower. The whistle blower is more like an informant. If people fear for their lives, they won't come forward.
More important to the issue of internet privacy, I think, is the invasion of privacy merely because someone might be doing something illegal.
Of course, the result of our education system is, "a horde of illiterate savages." This is because our system makes cattle out of children. We treat them as if they were parts on an assembly line: a little poorly understood mathematics slapped on here, a bit of physics (also poorly understood) there, and you have the average American dolt. Education is personal, not public. It is entirely in the care of the parents and children themselves.
Well, because laws have to be precise; people have to know what's legal and where it's legal. Unfortunately, "You seem to be a Dubuque kinda guy, therefore this law doesn't apply to you" doesn't really work. Just one of the necessary evils of the system.
There's also a vast cultural difference between a lot of states in the US - think of the difference between California and Kansas for instance. The cultural gap between some US states is far wider than it is between many different countries across the world.
I really see that as necessary. It just happens and there is nothing that can be done about it. The federal system is just a way to be flexible about these differences.
Whilst the Constitution guarantees certain rights across the US there are a lot of things equally important to the welfare of a country, such as education, which are decided on per state basis which IMHO isn't right.
Here, I really have a problem: I don't believe education is a responsibility of government. Government can only do those things which are public. Education is very much a private affair.
States are a good thing; and we have already gone way too far in implementing centralized governments. I don't know where you live, but if it's more than about 40 miles from where I live, you have completely different concerns and needs than I do. Even within a single state, there are wide-ranging differences in needs.
For example, if one part of a state has a big seaport, it is very likely that their industries are almost entirely related to shipping. Meanwhile, in another region of the same state, logging is the most important industry. In yet another part of the state, heavy-duty manufacturing is king. I can guarantee that these people don't like having laws imposed on them that make sense on the other side of the state, but hurt everyone where they live.
In addition to all this, there are cultural differences. Texas has a very different culture from Delaware. These people have widely different beliefs; a federal system allows people to keep local culture and beliefs while still entering into a beneficial governmental structure together.
Far from being an anachronism, until you can get rid of the variation in natural resources and industries from one region to another, and eliminate cultural diversity and personal beliefs (which is a frightening and dangerous proposition, IMHO), local governments are a necessity.
So? This is a federal system, under which it is (supposedly) assumed that public problems and needs differ from region to region. This way, the system is flexible. The states' rights have been declining steadily for quite some time now--it's high time we got some of that back.
There's really no reason for things to be uniform other than some people don't like the world to be all messy-like. Should we get rid of time zones because they aren't globally uniform?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to taxation of Internet sales, but I'm very much in favor of the states getting some of their Constitutionally guaranteed power back.
However, at the very end there was that dreadful quote from that lawyer:
"It's a crime to steal, whether it's done the old-fashioned way or with new technology. And it's a crime regardless of whether the stolen item is physical property or intellectual property."
I would like to ask this guy exactly why information is property. Does he have any moral reasoning for this conclusion, or is he just spouting off whatever is best for his client?