...check out "Sixth Column". One of the most overtly rascist sci-fi novels I have read, but it was early in his career, and I do think he grew beyond that early narrow-minded perspective as he progressed.
If I remember right, there's something in Grumbles From the Grave on how the politics/racism in that book are actually John W. Campbell's, not Heinlein's; JWC dropped the story on him, and convinced him to write it... albeit reluctantly.
I think the age of the person you're targeting the recommendation at is the key. Space Suit is probably best for adolescent boys; however, I dropped Podkayne of Mars on my niece since I thought it would be better for a girl. For adults, I consistently recommend Moon, regardless of gender.
Having read For Us, the Living myself, I'd only recommend buying it to Heinlein scholars and the truly rabid fans-- for whom it is deeply worthwhile. Less rabid fans should visit the local library; they might not regret the time reading it, but they'd certainly regret the money if they actually bought it.
Heinlein had a reason for locking it away in a trunk...
But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
True, you can produce stem cells without cloning. However, as far as I know of the research, there are no known means for making general-purpose stem cells (IE, that could become either nerve, heart, or any other kind of cells) identical to Person X without making a clone of person X and harvesting it at around 1000 cells.
Now, mind you, I think cloning a human and bring the clone to term at this point would be a BAD thing to attempt. I also think that messing with embyonic-only cloning is something not to undertake lightly. But the blind bans are a Bad Idea.
It's been about 16 years since I last watched the orginal series, so I feel that I approached it with a more open mind than many fans. The gender changes in Boomer and Starbuck don't bother me-- Sackhoff did well in the Starbuck role, and I couldn't even remember who the original Boomer was, so any "changes" were moot.
Also, while what I saw was merely "good", the new Galactica has the potential for greatness. All really worthwhile stories explore the meaning of being human. (My personal favorite SF episode is the ST:TNG episode "The Measure of a Man", Data's "trial"-- it was Roddenberry's favorite too, IIR. With the humaniform Cylons, and the deeper, less cardboard, yet still evil motivations for Baltar, followup mini-series have the potential to explore questions of good and evil and man vs. machine in immense and beautiful depth. The Humaniform Cylon looking for love and the (at least) one Humaniform Cylon in the fleet who doesn't KNOW about not being human are great sources for future stories.
I don't think they can turn it back into an effective weekly show. However, if SciFi made it a 4-times per year miniseries, they could have a format that would allow for the depth of a series and the phenomenal sets/stories that a miniseries allows.
It has promise.... but all depends on the ratings, no doubt.
No, no, no, that's the World Wide Web, invented in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee, which RUNS ON the Internet. The Internet predates that by a couple decades-- RFC #1 is dated Apr-07-1969-- and was developed as a result of a (D)ARPA project.
Now, I'm not saying that putting it under UN control is an inherently bad idea, but these UN ----ers are planning on screwing with the foundations, which is #$%^ing lunacy if you don't consult with someone who knows what they're talking about.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana
In the end, the power remains in the hand of who has the means to use the weapons they have (be it warheads or multinationals).
Almost. The UN puts some restraint, in that it provides a forum for everyone pissed at you to figure out what they're going to do about it. Even the US can't take on the whole world at once. It also facilitates coalition building on moral grounds. Napoleon's claim that "The Moral is to the Physical as Three is to One" suggests this may not be a bad thing.
The security council is an admission that Aesop did have a point about the mice deciding to bell the cat-- because there's still a lot of physical might out there.
Indeed. The four patentsthat Micro$oft mentions are all on the mixed long/short filename issue. So VFAT/FAT32 are all covered, but the original 8.3 FAT might not be.
Of course, there might be some interesting anti-trust implications, too...
Mac's HFS and HFS+ are another alternative. There's PC (pay) software to read them already in at least 3 flavors, and I believe Linux supports them, too. Of course, these may be covered by Apple patents.
Of course, this might explain why it's such a bitch to format to FAT on a OS X Mac....
In your terms Smalley's objection is that the current existance proof is a special case. Specifically, Smalley points out that the extant examples are all dependent on WATER BASED CHEMISTRY. Water is one of the most powerfully corrosive solvents known. Smalley implies this rules out nanoassembly of items unstable in water... such as steel, silicon, titanium, &c. At the very least, it presents a highly non-trivial problem, and Smalley thus challenges Drexler to provide an non-handwaving solution. Drexler ducks; there may be a solution (or solvent), but it ain't simple.
The biotic existance proof proves it's not impossible, but doesn't prove that general materials assemblers are possible, due to the limitations of water chemistry. (I don't count humans as a general nanoassembler; not cost effective.)
Look for Article I, Section 8, Clause 3... and yes, I know it's always been massively abused. (On the other hand, I do think the federal highway system is a good thing.)
Doesn't anybody read the WHOLE constitution any more, instead of just the parts they like?
The customers at large will; it will most likely be reflected in higher account/ATM fees. Banks will likely pass on the cost of theft just like merchants do the cost of shoplifting. Which sucks for the honest folk out there... all seventy-two of them.
Apparently, this particular language is very good for being heard and understood clearly over long distances. This might have some future value, and may be worth preserving the knowlege on that basis.
Well, for starters, Iamnotalawyer, and you're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That aside...
If I download a movie and after downloading it it's a file full of garbage, am I still guilty?
If the garbage file was shared out by "Alice," the person who created the garbage (not the movie, though oft there is little difference), then no, you are innocent of copyright violation. If, however, "Eve" made a copy and shared it without permission from "Alice", then both you and "Eve" are guilty of violating Alice's copyright on the garbage. (I don't know if your intent to download the movie would make it a crime; possibly something on the lines of "conspiracy" could be charged if you are working at a freind's computer with their knowledge. Ask a real lawyer.)
How about I take an iso for redhat or something, then rename it matrix revolutions, am I still guilty?
As I read it, under neither the new nor current legislation, so go ahead.... but make sure it includes the Matrix Screensaver to be Stylish. =)
I also wonder if they have to download the file to actually make sure it's the movie
I would suspect that downloading at least the first 5MB or so to ID the file would be normal procedure, if anyone had any sense... but that has yet to be proven.
if not, then I could replace the file with garbage from/dev/zero and make sure it's the same size. When they then come and take my computer away, they can't prove I didn't anything wrong.
Well, that depends. Do you mean creating a file to share out that looks the same size *before* you share it, or creating one *after* to try and hide your crime? The former might work; the latter a determined forensic analysis would uncover... and might get you in substantially more trouble.
Re:Good, Original SF Recommendations
on
Farscape is Back
·
· Score: 1
I think science fiction is in its golden age today
Having a copy of a video on your hard drive is (arguably) fair use. If your next doorneighbor makes a copy of it, then that was and will still be copyright infringement. Under the new law, however, merely having the file up on an open FTP server or Samba share will count as copyright infringement EVEN IF IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR MADE A COPY-- or for that matter, even if he DIDN'T make a copy. Because it's possible, you're guilty of copyright infringement
Upmod Parent! Unlikely as it is... is *anyone* on Slashdot an actual SCO customer, who would have access to the text of the new SCO license, and could post it?
Of course, SCO could have put the sub-license under an NDA... but that would probably be proof of GPL violation (further restriction) right there.
Conveniently enough, one of the Apple Senior System Engineers was in town talking with one of my bosses. I had mentioned my concern yesterday to him at a meeting-- I had only time to see headlines at the Inquirer ("13 bugs!") and ZDNet ("No fix!"), but that I didn't know if this was a real panic issue.
Quoth my boss to me in E-mail, "I brought the subject up with the Apple representatives this morning. The response was that they were patching 10.3 first, but that they expected 10.2 to also be patched in a timely way."
Which is not unreasonable.
This, combined with the fact that none of these 13 bugs reported allow Remote-Arbitraty-Code-Execution, has me calmed down... for now.
It may well be that Apple hasn't issued a statement yet. If so, they need to get their propoganda machine in motion.
In Apple's defense, I will say that the security bugs I've seen do not include any "Remote Arbitratry Code Execution" [RACE] holes, so not releasing a patch isn't *completely* insane... albeit, it is insane.
At least one bug allows for remote crashing of a machine. So, combine (using script kiddie tools) a standard M$RPC virus like Blaster with a routine to scan all IP addresses in reach with the Apple-Crashing RPC, and every infectable Internet PC takes out every Jaguar Mac on the net. Someone's going to do it sooner or later; probably one of the fanatic anti-Mac zealots. Apple *NEEDS* to release this patch, or it will be a PR disaster.
I work for a group that teaches engineering ethics. Speaking as someone with purchasing-recommendation authority, I've checked with half of my Mac users so far, and my purchasing-authoritied boss (who buys what I tell her to). The response has been unanimous: requiring payment to recieve security patches on an operating system barely a year old (and which we've been using for less than six months) is "an unethical business practice" and completely unacceptable. I now have my Apple users all ready to consider switching to Windows, and my boss ready to stop all future Mac hardware purchases, unless Apple provides the security patches.
I am willing to consider bugs (like Preview crashing on opening a certain ordinary digital photo) to be something where they can say "we fixed that, but you have to buy Jaguar." Security flaws are a whole different kettle of cat. They need to patch any RACE holes at least, and probably all of the security holes.
I don't know where you guys are from, but around here, we call that vandalism.
And you're saying vandalism doesn't happen where you live?
Besides which, it's evidently *designed* to be updated. How hard can it be to change the new ad sound and picture from "Buy brand Foo paper towels!" to "Call 1-800-TOO-SEXY for a good time!"
There's two parts to this. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete
and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.
While Win95 does not seem to meet the requirement for original media or hardware... Windows XP does; unless you are reinstalling on the original hardware, the copy protection kicks in, and requires you to call M$ for activation... which option will doubtless cease at "End of Life" in 2007-ish. Looking ahead to the future, there will come a point where you will legally be able to forge a key for activation, assuming (a) you owned it legally in the first place [possible], (b) Microsoft doesn't run the activation indefinitely [highly likely], and (c) the LOC doesn't change these rules right around that time to preclude this.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt For Us, the Living goes in there somewhere.
Having read all of these, I would sayFor Us, the Living goes all the way at the end. And even Spider Robinson would probably agree.
...check out "Sixth Column". One of the most overtly rascist sci-fi novels I have read, but it was early in his career, and I do think he grew beyond that early narrow-minded perspective as he progressed.
If I remember right, there's something in Grumbles From the Grave on how the politics/racism in that book are actually John W. Campbell's, not Heinlein's; JWC dropped the story on him, and convinced him to write it... albeit reluctantly.
I think the age of the person you're targeting the recommendation at is the key. Space Suit is probably best for adolescent boys; however, I dropped Podkayne of Mars on my niece since I thought it would be better for a girl. For adults, I consistently recommend Moon, regardless of gender.
Having read For Us, the Living myself, I'd only recommend buying it to Heinlein scholars and the truly rabid fans-- for whom it is deeply worthwhile. Less rabid fans should visit the local library; they might not regret the time reading it, but they'd certainly regret the money if they actually bought it.
Heinlein had a reason for locking it away in a trunk...
But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
True, you can produce stem cells without cloning. However, as far as I know of the research, there are no known means for making general-purpose stem cells (IE, that could become either nerve, heart, or any other kind of cells) identical to Person X without making a clone of person X and harvesting it at around 1000 cells.
And while Bush has not outlawed embryonic stem cell research, he has banned the production of new stem cell lines. Furthermore, last I heard the extant cell lines have a major problem with them.
Now, mind you, I think cloning a human and bring the clone to term at this point would be a BAD thing to attempt. I also think that messing with embyonic-only cloning is something not to undertake lightly. But the blind bans are a Bad Idea.
It's been about 16 years since I last watched the orginal series, so I feel that I approached it with a more open mind than many fans. The gender changes in Boomer and Starbuck don't bother me-- Sackhoff did well in the Starbuck role, and I couldn't even remember who the original Boomer was, so any "changes" were moot.
Also, while what I saw was merely "good", the new Galactica has the potential for greatness. All really worthwhile stories explore the meaning of being human. (My personal favorite SF episode is the ST:TNG episode "The Measure of a Man", Data's "trial"-- it was Roddenberry's favorite too, IIR. With the humaniform Cylons, and the deeper, less cardboard, yet still evil motivations for Baltar, followup mini-series have the potential to explore questions of good and evil and man vs. machine in immense and beautiful depth. The Humaniform Cylon looking for love and the (at least) one Humaniform Cylon in the fleet who doesn't KNOW about not being human are great sources for future stories.
I don't think they can turn it back into an effective weekly show. However, if SciFi made it a 4-times per year miniseries, they could have a format that would allow for the depth of a series and the phenomenal sets/stories that a miniseries allows.
It has promise.... but all depends on the ratings, no doubt.
Jane, you ignorant....
No, no, no, that's the World Wide Web, invented in 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee, which RUNS ON the Internet. The Internet predates that by a couple decades-- RFC #1 is dated Apr-07-1969-- and was developed as a result of a (D)ARPA project.
Now, I'm not saying that putting it under UN control is an inherently bad idea, but these UN ----ers are planning on screwing with the foundations, which is #$%^ing lunacy if you don't consult with someone who knows what they're talking about.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana
In the end, the power remains in the hand of who has the means to use the weapons they have (be it warheads or multinationals).
Almost. The UN puts some restraint, in that it provides a forum for everyone pissed at you to figure out what they're going to do about it. Even the US can't take on the whole world at once. It also facilitates coalition building on moral grounds. Napoleon's claim that "The Moral is to the Physical as Three is to One" suggests this may not be a bad thing.
The security council is an admission that Aesop did have a point about the mice deciding to bell the cat-- because there's still a lot of physical might out there.
Indeed. The four patents that Micro$oft mentions are all on the mixed long/short filename issue. So VFAT/FAT32 are all covered, but the original 8.3 FAT might not be.
Of course, there might be some interesting anti-trust implications, too...
Mac's HFS and HFS+ are another alternative. There's PC (pay) software to read them already in at least 3 flavors, and I believe Linux supports them, too. Of course, these may be covered by Apple patents.
Of course, this might explain why it's such a bitch to format to FAT on a OS X Mac....
In your terms Smalley's objection is that the current existance proof is a special case. Specifically, Smalley points out that the extant examples are all dependent on WATER BASED CHEMISTRY. Water is one of the most powerfully corrosive solvents known. Smalley implies this rules out nanoassembly of items unstable in water... such as steel, silicon, titanium, &c. At the very least, it presents a highly non-trivial problem, and Smalley thus challenges Drexler to provide an non-handwaving solution. Drexler ducks; there may be a solution (or solvent), but it ain't simple.
The biotic existance proof proves it's not impossible, but doesn't prove that general materials assemblers are possible, due to the limitations of water chemistry. (I don't count humans as a general nanoassembler; not cost effective.)
Look for Article I, Section 8, Clause 3... and yes, I know it's always been massively abused. (On the other hand, I do think the federal highway system is a good thing.)
Doesn't anybody read the WHOLE constitution any more, instead of just the parts they like?
Can read a script... um, yeah...
Are flawlessly polite... D'OH!!!
A rudimentary keyboard controller; any 4x4 matrix will easily do the job. Make it 8x8 and you have more keys you'll ever need
And 640K of RAM ought to be enough for anybody....
The customers at large will; it will most likely be reflected in higher account/ATM fees. Banks will likely pass on the cost of theft just like merchants do the cost of shoplifting. Which sucks for the honest folk out there... all seventy-two of them.
Apparently, this particular language is very good for being heard and understood clearly over long distances. This might have some future value, and may be worth preserving the knowlege on that basis.
Well, for starters, Iamnotalawyer, and you're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That aside...
If I download a movie and after downloading it it's a file full of garbage, am I still guilty?
If the garbage file was shared out by "Alice," the person who created the garbage (not the movie, though oft there is little difference), then no, you are innocent of copyright violation. If, however, "Eve" made a copy and shared it without permission from "Alice", then both you and "Eve" are guilty of violating Alice's copyright on the garbage. (I don't know if your intent to download the movie would make it a crime; possibly something on the lines of "conspiracy" could be charged if you are working at a freind's computer with their knowledge. Ask a real lawyer.)
How about I take an iso for redhat or something, then rename it matrix revolutions, am I still guilty?
As I read it, under neither the new nor current legislation, so go ahead.... but make sure it includes the Matrix Screensaver to be Stylish. =)
I also wonder if they have to download the file to actually make sure it's the movie
I would suspect that downloading at least the first 5MB or so to ID the file would be normal procedure, if anyone had any sense... but that has yet to be proven.
if not, then I could replace the file with garbage from
Well, that depends. Do you mean creating a file to share out that looks the same size *before* you share it, or creating one *after* to try and hide your crime? The former might work; the latter a determined forensic analysis would uncover... and might get you in substantially more trouble.
I think science fiction is in its golden age today
No, no... it's in its Diamond Age !
Having a copy of a video on your hard drive is (arguably) fair use. If your next door neighbor makes a copy of it, then that was and will still be copyright infringement. Under the new law, however, merely having the file up on an open FTP server or Samba share will count as copyright infringement EVEN IF IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR MADE A COPY-- or for that matter, even if he DIDN'T make a copy. Because it's possible, you're guilty of copyright infringement
Huzzah for the senator from the MPAA....
It's not just that 19000 voters produced 144000 votes; it's that 19000 voters produced 5352 BALLOTS that produced 144000 votes.
Obviously, this was intended as the Chicago or Baldwin release of the software.
Upmod Parent! Unlikely as it is... is *anyone* on Slashdot an actual SCO customer, who would have access to the text of the new SCO license, and could post it?
Of course, SCO could have put the sub-license under an NDA... but that would probably be proof of GPL violation (further restriction) right there.
Conveniently enough, one of the Apple Senior System Engineers was in town talking with one of my bosses. I had mentioned my concern yesterday to him at a meeting-- I had only time to see headlines at the Inquirer ("13 bugs!") and ZDNet ("No fix!"), but that I didn't know if this was a real panic issue.
Quoth my boss to me in E-mail, "I brought the subject up with the Apple representatives this morning. The response was that they were patching 10.3 first, but that they expected 10.2 to also be patched in a timely way." Which is not unreasonable.
This, combined with the fact that none of these 13 bugs reported allow Remote-Arbitraty-Code-Execution, has me calmed down... for now.
It may well be that Apple hasn't issued a statement yet. If so, they need to get their propoganda machine in motion.
In Apple's defense, I will say that the security bugs I've seen do not include any "Remote Arbitratry Code Execution" [RACE] holes, so not releasing a patch isn't *completely* insane... albeit, it is insane.
At least one bug allows for remote crashing of a machine. So, combine (using script kiddie tools) a standard M$RPC virus like Blaster with a routine to scan all IP addresses in reach with the Apple-Crashing RPC, and every infectable Internet PC takes out every Jaguar Mac on the net. Someone's going to do it sooner or later; probably one of the fanatic anti-Mac zealots. Apple *NEEDS* to release this patch, or it will be a PR disaster.
I work for a group that teaches engineering ethics. Speaking as someone with purchasing-recommendation authority, I've checked with half of my Mac users so far, and my purchasing-authoritied boss (who buys what I tell her to). The response has been unanimous: requiring payment to recieve security patches on an operating system barely a year old (and which we've been using for less than six months) is "an unethical business practice" and completely unacceptable. I now have my Apple users all ready to consider switching to Windows, and my boss ready to stop all future Mac hardware purchases, unless Apple provides the security patches.
I am willing to consider bugs (like Preview crashing on opening a certain ordinary digital photo) to be something where they can say "we fixed that, but you have to buy Jaguar." Security flaws are a whole different kettle of cat. They need to patch any RACE holes at least, and probably all of the security holes.
I don't know where you guys are from, but around here, we call that vandalism.
And you're saying vandalism doesn't happen where you live?
Besides which, it's evidently *designed* to be updated. How hard can it be to change the new ad sound and picture from "Buy brand Foo paper towels!" to "Call 1-800-TOO-SEXY for a good time!"
Aerosol whipped cream is a fashion accessory.
There's two parts to this.
Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete
and
which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.
While Win95 does not seem to meet the requirement for original media or hardware... Windows XP does; unless you are reinstalling on the original hardware, the copy protection kicks in, and requires you to call M$ for activation... which option will doubtless cease at "End of Life" in 2007-ish. Looking ahead to the future, there will come a point where you will legally be able to forge a key for activation, assuming (a) you owned it legally in the first place [possible], (b) Microsoft doesn't run the activation indefinitely [highly likely], and (c) the LOC doesn't change these rules right around that time to preclude this.