The problem with an Article V Convention is that such a Convention is not bound or limited in any way to the issue that the Convention is called for. Such a Convention can literally rewrite any part of the Constitution it chooses. It's an enormous amount of power, and something to be approached as only the very last resort. While the current situation is very bad, I'm not sure that it has reached that point yet.
You miss the point. Bruce doesn't state that the self-employed are more or less likely to vote in any particular fashion. Bruce states that the explosion of small businesses will move money away from mega-corps, diminishing their budgets and the large donations that they can then make toward Republican elections. That is what they fear.
I'm not sure that he's right but that seems to me to be what he's saying.
Too many people forget the second part. That's what avoids the tyranny of the majority. The majority can make whatever laws they want, so long as those laws don't infringe on the rights of a minority. For example, in the US, no majority can pass a law that legalizes slavery, as that violates the rights of minorities.
All too often I see US citizens squawking about "majority rule!" when the courts uphold the rights of a minority. They should know better; without minority rights, they would be the next to suffer the tyranny of the majority.
This is interesting, but I have another, similar question:
I've read that the easiest words to type on a QWERTY keyboard are those whose letters alternate between the left and right hand. I'd like a list of words like that, ideally longer ones that I could use for passwords. However, I can't think of a simple (or even complex) grep command that would find those.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with whether or not RealNetworks' product infringes copyright restrictions. It has to do with whether or not RealNetworks' product violates the contract that they signed to legally get the CSS keys for DVDs. That contract is essential to avoid violating the DMCA with DVD copying software; having it gives you permission to create products that decrypt DVDs. That's what tripped up 321 Studios a few years back; they didn't have a CSS contract.
Just recently a judge ruled that the "CSS General Specifications", which are given to a licensee after the contract is signed (ostensibly because the specs include confidential information that can only be disseminated after the licensee is bound by the contract), are not themselves part of the contract. As the provisions forbidding copying are written up in the "CSS General Specifications," the judge ruled that the contract itself does not forbid creating products that copy DVDs.
That ruling has been appealed, but I haven't been able to find anything about the appeal. I presume that it hasn't been heard yet.
While 3rd-world children browsing porn is a very sensational subject, it's only one small piece of a very big potential result of the OLPC project.
Think about it. One poster quoted some publications that spoke about Nigerian culture, and the challenges it poses to anti-AIDS efforts. However, what do you think will happen when, for example, a Nigerian woman can look through the "Internet window" and see that women in America, or England, or Spain, or Germany, or even possibly Egypt (I'm not familiar with the current Egyptian culture, someone fill me in) is not subject to male domination? What do you think will happen when Nigerian children, educated by the OLPCs, can look through the "Internet window" and see the different cultures and different mores within those cultures (not just sexual mores, but all of them)? What do you think will happen when these same educated children (and some of their better-educated parents, courtesy of the OLPC) start challenging their culture's standards, with intelligent arguments and international examples to back those challenges up?
I'll tell you what will happen: a huge, (relatively) rapid change in their culture. Education is one of the most culturally disruptive things that can happen to a people; exchange of ideas is another one. Put them together and you have an absolutely massive force for change that will build up within two decades (if not sooner). While I expect that change of sexual mores will be part of that, it will only be a relatively small part.
I pray that such rapid change is not accompanied by violence... but I have my doubts. It'll probably be worth it in the long run (the USA is arguably a better place to live as a result of the American Revolution) but that won't stop the suffering of people during the violence.
-----
Xen is a different product, its a virtualisation tool, but it allows you to split 1 OS into several running 'instances'. VMWare is a 'wrapper' that allows you to run several different OSes side by side. Which one you'd go for depends on your requirements.
-----
I believe that you are incorrect there, especially about Xen.
VMWare Workstation and VMWare Server are host/guest based virtualiztion products. When you boot the computer it launches an OS (Windows, Linux, whatever), then VMWare Server runs on that OS. VMWare Server then sets up environments for guest OSs to run. Because of this layered setup (Host OS | VMWare Server | Guest OS) your guest OSs tend to be slower.
Xen, however, is a "hypervisor" type virtualiztion product, somewhat similar to VMWare Server ESX. You don't boot to Linux, you boot to Xen (or ESX). Xen (or ESX) then boots each OS in its own environment (Xen calls them "domains"). Each OS runs on its own, with Xen (or ESX) handling resource allocation/sharing/conflicts. Because of this lower-level approach, the OSs tend to run faster, depending on how hard you're taxing each one.
Currently, however, Xen only works with a slightly modified kernel. Therefore, you can't properly run Windows inside a Xen domain (developers have done it, to prove it can be done, but they can't share their work because that would violate the Windows EULA). With the virtualization technologies coming from Intel and AMD, however, Xen will be able to run unmodified Windows kernels in Xen domains.
"They would write and maintain the ABI over the kernel and ensure that any differences were hidden from both sides."
Ah, but I have seen it argued (IANAL so I don't know if it's valid) that this is forbidden by the GPL.
"... the reality is that many OEMs won't open source their drivers for very sensible business reasons."
I tend to agree, although I'm neither a businessman (to know what I might want to hold confidential) nor a driver writer (to know if open-sourcing drivers would reveal said confidential info). However, I can understand Linus's (and others') objections to binary drivers, too. As I said, I don't see a resolution, personally, so I expect that it's going to be a long haul for some hardware drivers for Linux.
"Binary drivers are essential if Linux is ever to conquer the home / consumer market."
We're getting offtopic, here, but I thought I'd mention something that I see all too often. What makes you think that "Linux" (Linus & Co., I presume?) wants to conquer anything? Oh, sure, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. may have conquest dreams. I, personally, would love to see Linux bring down a certain large software company - but I'm not a core Linux developer. However, to my perception, Linus & Co. are more interested in Building A Better OS than in Conquering Anything.
I frequently see some pundit or speaker comment that "If Linux really wants to accomplish X then it must do Y." (I saw one just yesterday by Simon Phipps, Sun Microsystems' Chief Open Source officer) What they don't seem to realize is that the first half of that statement is more important than the second. If "Linux" doesn't care about accomplishing X then it can do what it deems best rather than pursue course Y.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Linus & Co. look at the Binary Drivers Problem, shrug, say something like, "The GPL forbids it and we agree with that," and go back to coding.
"Linux desperately needs a decent binary driver layer, one which is common to all dists with a common packaging system so that manufacturers can ship a driver which works on all of them."
The thing is, the core Linux developers don't want binary drivers. They want Open Source drivers so that bugs can be found and squashed by the Open Source community, just as other Open Source bugs are. Indeed, one part of the Linux creation legend (I believe) is that Linus originally created Linux, in part, because of a malfunctioning binary printer driver whose vendor wouldn't release the source code so it could be fixed.
Theres a big debate out there which boils up occasionally (it did so recently) about whether or not Linux should even allow binary-only drivers. I believe that some argue that the GPL explicitly forbids creating binary-only Linux drivers (some vendors, like nVidia, have found a way around this problem). Personally, I can see some validity to both sides of the issue and I don't know if, how, or when it will be resolved.
1) "If creating a tiered internet does not worsen my connection *at all* why should I care?"
A) We'll assume, for the moment, that the telcos will play nice and truly leave the "slow lanes" alone while charging a premium for the "fast lanes." Once you get used to having services provided to you over the "fast lanes" the "slow lanes" will still *appear* worse, indeed likely unacceptably slow.
Did you ever use a modem to get to the Internet? Once you make the move to broadband it becomes torture to even *think* about going back to dial-up speeds. The same effect will apply: today's acceptable speeds will be tomorrows way-too-slow speeds.
Another poster's answer also applies: while the bandwidth of your connection to your ISP won't change, the bandwidth of a service provider (like, say, MySpace) may well change, resulting in an overall slower Internet.
2) "If creating a tiered internet does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly, why should I care?"
A) While it may or may not cost you any more money (another poster's statement that increased costs will be passed on to you does apply... but only if you're paying for content in the first place) it will certainly cost you in terms of *value*.
Two recent hits on the Internet that I can think of are Flickr and MySpace. In an environment of a tiered Internet it is quite likely that services such as these would see much slower uptake simply due to bandwidth issues. When sites such as these start out they don't have much, if any, capital to invest, so they wouldn't be able to pay for a "fast lane" on a tiered Internet. I could easily see a site like Flickr being critiqued early on with a statement like, "This site has a remarkable online photo management and sharing setup but transmission speeds are very slow." That's not going to win many adherents to the site. If uptake is slowed enough such a site may die before it can reach the critical mass necessary for it to get the money to buy a spot in the "fast lane."
Perhaps you don't use Flickr or MySpace, but odds are that some service will arise on the Internet that you'd like to make use of. If that service dies due to tiered-Internet factors, and I expect that some will, then you're losing value.
3) "If creating a tiered internet is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it, why should I care?"
A) Mainly, as I understand it, because you have *already* paid for it (improved bandwidth) and the telcos haven't delivered.
As I understand it (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the telcos have been heavily subsidized by our government to improve our broadband bandwidth and penetration throughout the country. That's *your* money, your tax dollars. The telcos have failed to live up to their side of the bargain. Until they do they should enjoy no privilege of creating a tiered Internet and profiting from it.
The argument in 2), above, about losing value, also applies here, as loss of value to you means that you are indirectly paying a price for a tiered Internet.
Q) "... can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?"
A) Because it provides a level playing field for innovators and entrepreneurs to create new services and businesses on the Internet. Also, for that matter, because it provides a level playing field for people who want to run small service set-ups (such as, if I wanted to set up a server to provide voice chat for an online game playing guild) without having to pay an arm and a leg to do so.
Sorry to tell you this, but you answered your last question in the preceding paragraph.
While IANAL, I believe that the word, "privately" is different in legalese from how you're using it. A company can be "private" or "public" depending on whether or not it trades shares publicly. Or, perhaps you're trying to say that your actions within a company aren't "private" because they're not done by one individual for and by themselves. Yet a "private" action can be performed by a company by itself and for itself. It can also be done by an employee of the company for the company. In that regard it is still "privately" done.
This is why there's all the "legalese" in the GPL3. In order to make it usable in the courts it needs to be written in a dialect that will be interpreted the same way by the writer and any legal reader (another lawyer or judge).
If you're finding the license difficult to understand, you have at least a couple of options:
1) Get a lawyer's professional explanation and opinion (of course, this will cost money).
2) Go check out the website and choose what legal opinions you will trust. There's plenty of them available.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with an Article V Convention is that such a Convention is not bound or limited in any way to the issue that the Convention is called for. Such a Convention can literally rewrite any part of the Constitution it chooses. It's an enormous amount of power, and something to be approached as only the very last resort. While the current situation is very bad, I'm not sure that it has reached that point yet.
You miss the point. Bruce doesn't state that the self-employed are more or less likely to vote in any particular fashion. Bruce states that the explosion of small businesses will move money away from mega-corps, diminishing their budgets and the large donations that they can then make toward Republican elections. That is what they fear. I'm not sure that he's right but that seems to me to be what he's saying.
"Majority rule, minority rights"
Too many people forget the second part. That's what avoids the tyranny of the majority. The majority can make whatever laws they want, so long as those laws don't infringe on the rights of a minority. For example, in the US, no majority can pass a law that legalizes slavery, as that violates the rights of minorities.
All too often I see US citizens squawking about "majority rule!" when the courts uphold the rights of a minority. They should know better; without minority rights, they would be the next to suffer the tyranny of the majority.
This is interesting, but I have another, similar question:
I've read that the easiest words to type on a QWERTY keyboard are those whose letters alternate between the left and right hand. I'd like a list of words like that, ideally longer ones that I could use for passwords. However, I can't think of a simple (or even complex) grep command that would find those.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with whether or not RealNetworks' product infringes copyright restrictions. It has to do with whether or not RealNetworks' product violates the contract that they signed to legally get the CSS keys for DVDs. That contract is essential to avoid violating the DMCA with DVD copying software; having it gives you permission to create products that decrypt DVDs. That's what tripped up 321 Studios a few years back; they didn't have a CSS contract.
Just recently a judge ruled that the "CSS General Specifications", which are given to a licensee after the contract is signed (ostensibly because the specs include confidential information that can only be disseminated after the licensee is bound by the contract), are not themselves part of the contract. As the provisions forbidding copying are written up in the "CSS General Specifications," the judge ruled that the contract itself does not forbid creating products that copy DVDs. That ruling has been appealed, but I haven't been able to find anything about the appeal. I presume that it hasn't been heard yet.
While 3rd-world children browsing porn is a very sensational subject, it's only one small piece of a very big potential result of the OLPC project.
... but I have my doubts. It'll probably be worth it in the long run (the USA is arguably a better place to live as a result of the American Revolution) but that won't stop the suffering of people during the violence.
Think about it. One poster quoted some publications that spoke about Nigerian culture, and the challenges it poses to anti-AIDS efforts. However, what do you think will happen when, for example, a Nigerian woman can look through the "Internet window" and see that women in America, or England, or Spain, or Germany, or even possibly Egypt (I'm not familiar with the current Egyptian culture, someone fill me in) is not subject to male domination? What do you think will happen when Nigerian children, educated by the OLPCs, can look through the "Internet window" and see the different cultures and different mores within those cultures (not just sexual mores, but all of them)? What do you think will happen when these same educated children (and some of their better-educated parents, courtesy of the OLPC) start challenging their culture's standards, with intelligent arguments and international examples to back those challenges up?
I'll tell you what will happen: a huge, (relatively) rapid change in their culture. Education is one of the most culturally disruptive things that can happen to a people; exchange of ideas is another one. Put them together and you have an absolutely massive force for change that will build up within two decades (if not sooner). While I expect that change of sexual mores will be part of that, it will only be a relatively small part.
I pray that such rapid change is not accompanied by violence
-----
Xen is a different product, its a virtualisation tool, but it allows you to split 1 OS into several running 'instances'. VMWare is a 'wrapper' that allows you to run several different OSes side by side. Which one you'd go for depends on your requirements.
-----
I believe that you are incorrect there, especially about Xen.
VMWare Workstation and VMWare Server are host/guest based virtualiztion products. When you boot the computer it launches an OS (Windows, Linux, whatever), then VMWare Server runs on that OS. VMWare Server then sets up environments for guest OSs to run. Because of this layered setup (Host OS | VMWare Server | Guest OS) your guest OSs tend to be slower.
Xen, however, is a "hypervisor" type virtualiztion product, somewhat similar to VMWare Server ESX. You don't boot to Linux, you boot to Xen (or ESX). Xen (or ESX) then boots each OS in its own environment (Xen calls them "domains"). Each OS runs on its own, with Xen (or ESX) handling resource allocation/sharing/conflicts. Because of this lower-level approach, the OSs tend to run faster, depending on how hard you're taxing each one.
Currently, however, Xen only works with a slightly modified kernel. Therefore, you can't properly run Windows inside a Xen domain (developers have done it, to prove it can be done, but they can't share their work because that would violate the Windows EULA). With the virtualization technologies coming from Intel and AMD, however, Xen will be able to run unmodified Windows kernels in Xen domains.
"They would write and maintain the ABI over the kernel and ensure that any differences were hidden from both sides."
Ah, but I have seen it argued (IANAL so I don't know if it's valid) that this is forbidden by the GPL.
"... the reality is that many OEMs won't open source their drivers for very sensible business reasons."
I tend to agree, although I'm neither a businessman (to know what I might want to hold confidential) nor a driver writer (to know if open-sourcing drivers would reveal said confidential info). However, I can understand Linus's (and others') objections to binary drivers, too. As I said, I don't see a resolution, personally, so I expect that it's going to be a long haul for some hardware drivers for Linux.
"Binary drivers are essential if Linux is ever to conquer the home / consumer market."
We're getting offtopic, here, but I thought I'd mention something that I see all too often. What makes you think that "Linux" (Linus & Co., I presume?) wants to conquer anything? Oh, sure, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. may have conquest dreams. I, personally, would love to see Linux bring down a certain large software company - but I'm not a core Linux developer. However, to my perception, Linus & Co. are more interested in Building A Better OS than in Conquering Anything.
I frequently see some pundit or speaker comment that "If Linux really wants to accomplish X then it must do Y." (I saw one just yesterday by Simon Phipps, Sun Microsystems' Chief Open Source officer) What they don't seem to realize is that the first half of that statement is more important than the second. If "Linux" doesn't care about accomplishing X then it can do what it deems best rather than pursue course Y.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Linus & Co. look at the Binary Drivers Problem, shrug, say something like, "The GPL forbids it and we agree with that," and go back to coding.
"Linux desperately needs a decent binary driver layer, one which is common to all dists with a common packaging system so that manufacturers can ship a driver which works on all of them."
The thing is, the core Linux developers don't want binary drivers. They want Open Source drivers so that bugs can be found and squashed by the Open Source community, just as other Open Source bugs are. Indeed, one part of the Linux creation legend (I believe) is that Linus originally created Linux, in part, because of a malfunctioning binary printer driver whose vendor wouldn't release the source code so it could be fixed.
Theres a big debate out there which boils up occasionally (it did so recently) about whether or not Linux should even allow binary-only drivers. I believe that some argue that the GPL explicitly forbids creating binary-only Linux drivers (some vendors, like nVidia, have found a way around this problem). Personally, I can see some validity to both sides of the issue and I don't know if, how, or when it will be resolved.
Okay, here's my $.02:
... but only if you're paying for content in the first place) it will certainly cost you in terms of *value*.
1) "If creating a tiered internet does not worsen my connection *at all* why should I care?"
A) We'll assume, for the moment, that the telcos will play nice and truly leave the "slow lanes" alone while charging a premium for the "fast lanes." Once you get used to having services provided to you over the "fast lanes" the "slow lanes" will still *appear* worse, indeed likely unacceptably slow.
Did you ever use a modem to get to the Internet? Once you make the move to broadband it becomes torture to even *think* about going back to dial-up speeds. The same effect will apply: today's acceptable speeds will be tomorrows way-too-slow speeds.
Another poster's answer also applies: while the bandwidth of your connection to your ISP won't change, the bandwidth of a service provider (like, say, MySpace) may well change, resulting in an overall slower Internet.
2) "If creating a tiered internet does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly, why should I care?"
A) While it may or may not cost you any more money (another poster's statement that increased costs will be passed on to you does apply
Two recent hits on the Internet that I can think of are Flickr and MySpace. In an environment of a tiered Internet it is quite likely that services such as these would see much slower uptake simply due to bandwidth issues. When sites such as these start out they don't have much, if any, capital to invest, so they wouldn't be able to pay for a "fast lane" on a tiered Internet. I could easily see a site like Flickr being critiqued early on with a statement like, "This site has a remarkable online photo management and sharing setup but transmission speeds are very slow." That's not going to win many adherents to the site. If uptake is slowed enough such a site may die before it can reach the critical mass necessary for it to get the money to buy a spot in the "fast lane."
Perhaps you don't use Flickr or MySpace, but odds are that some service will arise on the Internet that you'd like to make use of. If that service dies due to tiered-Internet factors, and I expect that some will, then you're losing value.
3) "If creating a tiered internet is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it, why should I care?"
A) Mainly, as I understand it, because you have *already* paid for it (improved bandwidth) and the telcos haven't delivered.
As I understand it (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the telcos have been heavily subsidized by our government to improve our broadband bandwidth and penetration throughout the country. That's *your* money, your tax dollars. The telcos have failed to live up to their side of the bargain. Until they do they should enjoy no privilege of creating a tiered Internet and profiting from it.
The argument in 2), above, about losing value, also applies here, as loss of value to you means that you are indirectly paying a price for a tiered Internet.
Q) "... can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?"
A) Because it provides a level playing field for innovators and entrepreneurs to create new services and businesses on the Internet. Also, for that matter, because it provides a level playing field for people who want to run small service set-ups (such as, if I wanted to set up a server to provide voice chat for an online game playing guild) without having to pay an arm and a leg to do so.
Sorry to tell you this, but you answered your last question in the preceding paragraph.
While IANAL, I believe that the word, "privately" is different in legalese from how you're using it. A company can be "private" or "public" depending on whether or not it trades shares publicly. Or, perhaps you're trying to say that your actions within a company aren't "private" because they're not done by one individual for and by themselves. Yet a "private" action can be performed by a company by itself and for itself. It can also be done by an employee of the company for the company. In that regard it is still "privately" done.
This is why there's all the "legalese" in the GPL3. In order to make it usable in the courts it needs to be written in a dialect that will be interpreted the same way by the writer and any legal reader (another lawyer or judge).
If you're finding the license difficult to understand, you have at least a couple of options:
1) Get a lawyer's professional explanation and opinion (of course, this will cost money).
2) Go check out the website and choose what legal opinions you will trust. There's plenty of them available.