I don't know if MS is planning to release, or even has in long term development, Office for Linux, but someone in Applications isn't doing their job if an outline and fesability study isn't already done.
Why? Because Office is MS bread and butter in more ways than one. First, it is their principle revenue stream right now and probably will be for quite some time. Also, even though control of the Windows API is how Office became dominant and there is still a symbotic relationship between them, I think it is reasonable to believe Office Upgrades drive Windows upgrades more than vice versa. Hell, I'd argue that Windows upgrades are driven more by Office upgrades than any other factor (with other applications coming in second).
So, MS has two monopolies: OS and Office Suites. The OS monopoly is under attack from multiple directions: Server OSs, the Government, thin clients, computing appliances, freeware OSs. Also, the OS one is much less visible to the majority of end users (tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new OS, but keep her office suite...see which she chooses). Right now, you aren't loosing yet on Office Suites, but a couple of the groups pinging you on OSs are gearing up for it. They are planning to using this OS diversity against you.
Even MS has limited resources. If moving a small amount of resources from the OS battle can protect you in the office suite battle without noticabily changing the odds in the OS battle, what do you do? You port Office to Linux to keep StarOffice and Corel Office from hitting you on the flank and maintain the stronger standard (Office file formats) that you have.
Hell, even if Windows looses this round of the OS battles to Linux or Mac or Be, this is a good plan. Office will last longer than Windows in that scenario, but provide an in for a Windows counter attack.
I can't tell if the application would require some sort of verification of the "group's status" or not. It would be fairly easy to check the status of educational or religious groups, but a fair and consistent definition of "community group" may be hard to come by. However, I didn't see anywhere in the article a mention that individuals could apply for such a license. I guess my 24 hour a day polka station is out:)
What qualifies as a groups is very interesting to me. I've long been tempted to set up a pirate radio station playing a mix of music (mostly goth, electronica, industrial, and trance) and commentary...maybe even drama or readings. Now, I've gotten input from a mailing list of local people (most of us work within about 15 - 20 mile radius and the rest aren't much further out). I wonder if we would qualify as a community group.
On a related note, I wonder if this will be increased or decreased pressure on pirate FM stations. Most have a short radius and some are quite good. An excellent example is the Anime Music Network .
I weigh myself every day and measure my neck, chest, waist, hips and one thigh every 7 days. I walk on a treadmill, lift weights and other exercise as well as taking the 6 flights of stairs at work.
If you're doing all these measurements you might find Covert Bailey's latest Fit or Fat (ultimate Fit or Fat). He claims his staff over the years has found a tape measure way of determining body fat that is only +/- 2 off of immersion. They require waist, hip, thigh, wrist, and forearm then some basic math. There are four formulas men and women over and under 30. If memory serves men over 30 is: waist + 0.8thigh - forearm - wrist.
The parties are NOT part of the machinery of democracy, they are part of the machinery of POLITICS. How about this: First, no tax dollars to party primaries. If I'm not a member of a particular party, isn't my paying for their primary "taxation without representation"?, Second, no party "preference" when it comes to placement on the ballot. "Third" parties have specific ballot requirements they have to meet, X number of petition signatures, etc. The Repulicans and Democrats should have the same requirements. Enough of us getting the last Bozo to survive the media feeding frenzy, make people get out and work for someone they really believe in.
I hate to be an ass, but do you know how stupid your first sentense is. Democracy is a political system. Trying to seperate politics and democracy is trying to seperate the hydrogen out and still have water. If a representive democracy provides all it's own machinery, please point me to the parts that provide candidates, workers, and communications.
As for your specific points:
I'm not a big fan of primaries either. Want the parties to pay for them instead of tax dollars that's fine with me. However, before going to the immediate taxation/representation idea, remember, by that logic my tax dollars can't fund things for just women, just the poor, or a lot of other justs because I'll never be them either.
Party preference on the ballot? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that certain parties don't automatically get top billing or that candidates do get point on a line. If it's the former, hell, make them alphabetical for all I care (I would point out here in CT, for four years a third party held top billing).
Ballot requirements: varies by state. Here, if a party can score 1% of the votes for an office, they are automatically on the ballot for that office. If they break 20% for governor, they get ballot lines for the next four years for all races. Otherwise it's by petition. Thus, third parties play by the exact rules (in fact, our state Democratic party was less than 1000 votes away from being forced to petition for offices after a third party person won governor here in the 90's). Actually, I wouldn't mind forcing even the big two to do the same petitions every year. It would re-invigorate the more attrophied parts of the party machinery.
Work for someone you believe in, instead of the last media bozo. That's what I mean by parties are the machinery of democracy. They are the place candidates tryout and can work one on one. For the same reason, I hate the primary system because it stresses media ability over retail politics.
Lastly, you assumed by parties I meant only Democrats and Republicans. Nothing can be further from the truth. I've several years working for a third party, including working to get some of the ballot laws changed to be more equitable. We may not have won elections directly, but I know that one of the state's major parties changed it's focus to capture third party people. The fact that those people were an organized block drew attention and showed that major party the benefits of compromise with us. Had we remained anonymous individual voters instead of a party whose candidates TOOK VOTES from that major party they could have ignored us. That is why parties are important.
I shudder when I hear people talk of the Geek Ticket, or the Republican Ticket, or the Democratic Ticket.
I am proud to say that I don't belong to a single political party. Why? Because I make my own decisions. I support the candidate that best fits me, not the candidate with my favorite letter after their name.
I urge all of oyu to engage in some good political discussion and debate, but in the end, make your own choice. Don't let anyone shame you into a choice, and dont be a one-issue voter. Vote for more then just the guy who's best for the Net, because the Net is just a small piece of our world. No one is perfect. Make your choice on the best candidate. And for God's sake, vote. If you don't vote, don't bitch.
This is a common, but in the end uninformed, opinion. Why? Because it implies either a lack of understanding of the machinery of democracy or a distain for it. To my mind, this arguement amounts to choosing the more attractive UI as the primary reason for selecting an OS. You go for the gitzy, highly visible part without working at the machinery that makes it all work.
First, if you vote for X from the DOS party because he agrees with you on funding for higher bandwidth, but Y from the VMS party because he supports net privacy you are likely to get neither. Why, because political parties at their hearts are an agreement to support a certain agenda. X has little authority to call on Y to support his bills (and vice versa) because they have no previous agreement to do. If you had choosen Z from DOS (who you discarded because he's anti-privacy) you'd be more likely to see the bandwidth proposal succeed. You don't get everything you want, but if you support by your priorities, as opposed to best fit on each point, you're much more likely to see an effect.
Second, by ignoring parties you opt out of candidate selection, except in certain states with cross-over primaries. If you want Bill Bradly or John McCain, but get Bush and Gore, don't bitch if you're independent. You made a choice not to be part of the 'dirty' party system. If you won't do the work, don't complain about the results.
This effect is maginified by the fact that it is mostly party regulars who vote in off year elections. Big deal, you say, who cares who wins city council or state house seats. Beyond the fact that they probably influence more of your day then federal candidates, these lower offices are the farm teams for Congress and the White House. Party member help select these candidates (and have much more influence than in Presidential Primaries) and therefore have a real influence on who you will have a choice to support in ten or twenty years for Congress, Senate, and the White House.
The downside to this additional influence (which is very real) is a moral obligation to support your parties candidate and platform, even the parts you don't like (because you agreed to agreed). However, it is here where the real work of democratic government is done. It is local people who are needed to get a nomination that candidate listen to (even more than money people, as the money people listen to the active people on who to support) concerning positions.
Now what if no party fits? You can:
Stay inpendent and take what's given until one does.
You can join one and try to change it.
Form a new party (or run yourself, which are similar choices)
Each has a proper place and its own virtues. Forming new parties (and being effective if you win as a member) is harder in the US due to winner take all elections. This methodology does have a purpose (several however) beyond the scope of this posting. Regardless of your opinion pro or con, it's the way it is (although changing that could become your political prority...I'll be fighting you though, I think it's an important check on government power).
The primary point is the parties are part of the essential machinery of democracy. They provide organization and a level of abstraction necessary for representive democracy to work. You can ignore them, even hate them, but in doing so you are lessening your overall influence and the chances to enact your agenda (even if it is just do nothing). So, to applify Patman, if you're not a party member/worker don't bitch about your choices.
Lawsuits are threatening to dampen the dynamism of the internet because, even when they are obviously spurious, they add so much to the cost of doing business that soon amateurs and upstarts might not be able to afford to compete with anyone who can afford a lawyer.
These big companies would do anything to find a way to use what they have -- resources -- to make up for what they lack -- drive -- and they may have found an answer to their prayers in lawsuits.
These two quotes cover just about 90% of current patent problems and about 75% of trademark problems (squatting for greed is a factor in domain trademark wars, even if we don't like to admit it). We should also add in requests by large businesses to regulate the internet (especially things like domains).
More importantly we can see a larger issue at work here: the use of 'good' government to hurt economic competition. Generally, most people see patents, trademarks, and regulation as government working to protect rightful owners and the public. To some degree this is true. Often, however, these same things are encouraged by larger companies to weed out competition.
Some examples outside of computer patents and internet trademarks from the US in recent years include:
The cable industry: this industry bitterly waged a war in the US to be deregulated in the early 90's when it was one cable company per town. Result, prices went up and service down. Now, just by coninidence, some cable companies are venturing that maybe re-regulation would be a good thing at the same time that other services are showing up that might compete.
Cable again, this time using rebroadcasting rules to hurt the ability of satelite services like DSS to rebroadcast local programming. Cable signed on to back-outs and other rebroadcasting issues just as small satellite became an option.
For years in the US truckers could negotiate on the spot contracts (both independents and trucking companies) including price discounts. Railroads were required to post any tariff change in advance and hold public hearings to let those impacted (like truckers) protest the changes.
Similarly, NYC and Las Vegas limit new licenses for transportation services (vans, taxis, limos, etc) such that new licenses can only be issued when they won't impact the business (that is compete for customers or on price) with existing licenses.
That these issues and tactics are now appearing in the Internet world is new. That they exists and endanger inovation and decreasing costs isn't.
Also noted is how they state that file Linux can recognize the filesystems of Microsoft (and over 40 other) partition types, yet their Windows is ignorant of all but its own. Wonder which tac marketing will use on that: 1. Revise the FAQ to make it disappear. -or- 2. Use to show that Linux is inferior because it doesn't have a high quality filesystem like Windows and has to allow you to access other people's systems (I know, I know...but this is marketing speak here). -or- 3. The first W2000 Add-on pack will include the filesystem compatibility package. I personally hope 3 as it will make my Unix and MS life easier.
Re:Everything computer is a Microsoft spinoff
on
SCO does Linux
·
· Score: 1
If you'll remember, Microsoft invented the PC. Whenever I make this statement of fact, people invariably mention Apple. What Apple had was a game machine. Really, I guess that explains all those Visicalc sales. It wasn't until Microsoft came along and wrote the missing software for an IBM that computers became truly useful to regular people who wanted to get work done. And why did IBM make that computer...Apple... plus, the killer app for the PC was Lotus 123. In fact today there are many other, and better, choices of operating systems. This is a direct result of Microsoft popularizing the computer. Close on this one...I think the best explaination of what MS did was in a Unix Review article about six years ago: They added sex to computers... before MS-DOS computer OS's primarily came from the manufactures (even with Unix, you got your maker's version). With MS the OS and apps became seperate from the computer. Result, commodity hardware. If Billy Boy hadn't kept the rights to market MS-DOS and given to IBM we'd still be in the manufacture of hardware = maker of OS world. When they continued MS-DOS after IBM tried to push OS/2, it makes sense. Actually, you can understand why OS/2 failed against Windows 3.1 with this. I'm Compaq/Dell/Swan/Gateway/whoever. I can pay MS $100 for DOS/Windows or I can pay IBM $60 for OS/2. If I pay MS, they make new apps that help sell my computers. If I pay IBM they can knock those $60 off the price of their OS/2 computers and undercut me. I see Linux and the *BSD systems now doing the same to OS. It'll take a few years and a MS mistake (clones really began to overtake IBM after the PS2 line). So anything related to computers is a Microsoft spinoff. I rest my case. Uhmm, I think you mean PC's at best. Even then, that's a big statement. I think the best you can argue is MS was integral to commodizing hardware. Herb
In practice, as Chernobyl and (less spectacularly) Windscale have demonstrated, things are rarely that simple. Components do all sorts of exotic things, through bugs, inadequate maintenance, sloppy design work, etc
Hmmm, yeah, but at Chernobyl safety systems (including the flux equalizing rod group's control computer) were deactivatd. Also, by design the Chernobyl reactor type actually has an upsurge in power before shutting down during an emergency rod insertion. Also, in the Chernobyl design rising water temperatures causing reaction rates to rise, not fall as in most US reactors (most pressurized water reactors use coolant density to control reaction rates...the denser the water the more neutrons bounced back into the fuel...Chernobyl's design was 180 degrees from this). I know of no reactor in the West that could duplicate Chernobyl...there were just too many f****d up design choices there.
I'm not familiary enough with Windscale (unless I know it by another name) to comment.
Another, much more probable fault is that any computer-controlled device used in installing new fuel in the reactor could fail, thus causing the reactor to simply burn up all it's fuel and stop. Again, it would take a while to fix the Y2K fault, refuel and restart the reactor.
Do we have at power refueling in the West? I thought this was mainly a Soviet phenomena. Fueling at power does all kinds of weird things to power and neutron distribution that makes it hard to control. You must have computerized controls in a large reactor like that, whereas you can allow physics to do a lot for you if you refuel the whole thing at end of core life.
I saw a story Russian ICBMs are run on analog computers, that's vacuum tubes. Okay, quick correction here: vacuum tubes != analog Any analog computer is one which stores and operates on continuous values. A digital computer uses a set of discrete values (generally 0 and 1). The values on both may be represented in a variety of ways (analog might use voltage, ampherage, or even resistance levels to mark a continuous stream, while digital might use voltage/no voltage, current/no current, negative voltage/positive voltage...and these are just electronic representations...you should check out hydraulic digital circuits...yes they do exist, although even the engineers I worked with didn't seem them that way. Vacuum tubes are just one way to do either, depending on the tube type. In fact, there is even a class of tubes called tranisitors, which is where I believe the name we use for solid state versions come from. In each case they are tri-state semi-conductors. They key point on both is the function not the implementation is what we are describing. Herb
HTML is a @#$%^& text formatting language, for God's sake!. I'll even concede that writing CGI/Perl web stuff is code. But I'm pretty sure you do that in emacs or vi, not Dreamweaver or whatever. No, Javascript doesn't count. Javascript does count. Obviously you've never seen how some of us abuse Javascript for data validation, preprocessing, and calcuation.
What's the biggest thing you are willing to blow
on
Taking May 19 Off?
·
· Score: 1
off for the premier? I know I just told a recruiter even if 5/19 is the only day she can get me an interview for a certain job (at $80K) I am NOT availible. $80K jobs come and go, but this....well, in some ways I'm still 10. Herb
The only way to really break things is to subvert the FSF. That's why I like the fact that RMS seems like such a zealot sometimes. He's certainly more extreme than me, but I will always use the GPL because I trust him to stick to his principles and defend free software. Extremists have their place, especially when fighting for principles.
Huzzah for the fact that someone realizes this. I've been saying zealots should be listened to more often. Had we done that we could have avoided the specticals of both the Nixon (left zealots hated him from day one) and Clinton administrations (as above, but with right wingers).
The key thing about zealots of any movement is they keep everyone else honest. The Catholic church has survived a millenia and a half (roughly) because Christian zealots show up as reformers every few hundred years. Both American political parties are kept honest (believe me, they are more honest today than a centuary ago) by zealots on the parties' core believes. RMS is our zealot.
And now is a key time for him, with Red Hat and Caldera (among others) taking a go at making money with free software, just like he said they could. Like an old hermit who can't be taken too much in person, but whose wisdom is too valuable to ignore he will be a sign of guiding purity.
At the same time we have the great pragmatist, ESR, to keep us from being slaughtered. If RMS is Peter the Hermit leading a People's Crusade into slaughter, ESR is Bohemmed, leading the army of the faithful into Jerusalem (note Bohemmed never claimed anymore than protector of the Holy City...the Kings of Jerusalem and Acre came later). Between the two we are well served.
And partly because I despise math with a hatred unseen by mortal eyes. It's much too impersonal to me, all absolutes and nothing much of beauty in it. I know enough math to get through life and that's all I feel I need. But, back to the book.
Okay, now although I'm like most people who have posted and loved GEB (I read it just before I got out of the service to goto college...before I read it I was going to study ME, basically the design end of my Navy job...read it and changed majors before I even got to school...) I understand not everyone does like it. I will even admit I think some people who love it do so just because they are afraid to admit they were confused (hell, I'm lucky if I got 10% of some parts).
I cannot however let Mathematics be insulted without punishing the transgressor (: Seriously aphr(), there is much beauty in mathematics. If you are willing to give mathematics a second (third/fourth/fifth/whatever) chance, I would recommend a good intro text on group theory (I would recommend Contemporary Abstract Algebra by Gallian, probably could find a used one at a local university). Group theory is, among other things, about symmetry and can be found in Escher's drawings as well as crystals and quantum theory. I cannot think of many things more beautiful than a construct of the human mind that captures symmetry (a personal aesthetic favorite anyway).
Innovation by commercial, proprietary software? I can list quite a few examples: Civilization Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) All the various CAD programs Wolfenstein 3D & co. (doom, quake, unreal, etc.) Tetris Just about any other graphical game Java BeOS There's tons more, but that's a good start.
PGP is a commerical implementation of ideas that were first shown in Academic software (the earliest public key system I know of was by Hellman, Merkle and Diffie at Stanford (I've been using it in a Java chat system written for the purpose of learning Java). For those wondering what happened to their Public Key method, it is susceptable to linear time attacks.
I always thought the original Tetris was public domain, but I admit to probably being mistaken.
CAD may have had some academic beginnings (wouldn't be suprised).
Civ is one of my favorite games, but I don't know if I'd call it a direct inovation, but a linear improvement (their were graphical strategy empire building games prior to it...Cosmic Balance II anyone?)
What are the precise inovations of Java and BeOS. BeOS I don't know enough to say no outright, but I will on Java. Compiling to an intermediate form runable on many systems is again an academic idea (UCSD p-system anyone). The syntax is what Object oriented C should look like. Java's best claim to inovation is that it combined several ideas.
Maybe it's just a definitions problem. To me, most things that are inovative according to marketing literature are really advances in the state of the art.
Still, my original point is valid, the principle form of new things in software isn't companies or hackers, but academics who are paid to make whatever new stuff they want. They do so more than companies because companies need to make money and more than workday hackers because they have more time.
Actually, one of the most forgotten pieces of computer lore: Name a screen editor that is proprietary and predates vi (vi is a BSD product, not AT&T and is based on a screen editor from Manchester university whose name I forget, TECO I think). All major unix screen editors are, and to the best of my knowledge always have been, open source including: vi, emacs, jed, joe, pico. This might seem old, but it is a very key inovation. Other major OSS inovations might include the following rarely mentioned: Text adventures (Adventure predates Zork), the Kerberos system (now suffering from adapt and extend from MS), modern email (HoneyDanBear decendant mailers), and a few others.
Most of these may seem 70's because that was the last big heyday of inovation in OSS. The next one is now. I think the level of inovation in OSS is cyclic (the 80's were often about cleaning up 70's advances and porting to new architectures....with the advent of the workstation everyone needed to move their timeshare unix stuff to their own box).
The real question is list all advances from proprietary commerical software. Can't include the following: Unix (research and not usable as a product by its ownwer for over a decade), most compiler tools (AT&T research or academic), GUI's (both Mac and Windows draw heavily on Xerox's PARC work which was never a commerical product), compilers (the three earliest I know were MAD, a university product, Cobol, a gov. product, and Fortran, which I believe was university to replace MAD, but may be wrong), multitasking (earliest I know is the MIT system circa 1960), and a lot more.
If we want to play the inovation pissing game, most inovation is done at universities and research centers. These may not all be OSS products, but they certainly are almost never commerical (but are copied by later commerical products, often by the creators).
This may be more overblown than serious looking at the referenced article. Although I would like to read the original three judge opinion (the article says interprets to read only obscene...did they read the laundry list as obscene or did they strike particular words) it doesn't seem out of line with the course of modern law.
The key reason this doesn't seem too big is that it is a harass/annoy/etc provision. In this case all the law really is doing is extending protections to email that exist for more traditional forms of communication (phone and fax). If to harass someone I continually faxed them obscene stories (hell, even non-obscene material under some circumstances...how many anti-spam sig files refer to that infamous computer+modem+printer = fax machine provision on the books) I am in violation of the law. Now, if I do the same via email I am in violation as well.
The part that makes me sad is that we might need such a law. I realize the average person might try this with their account and that's one thing (Jake day anyone), but creating a website to facilitate is downright childish. Getting your opinion out is important, but as more and more/.ers as realizing how you get it out is just as important. I looked at annoy.com after reading the story. This site is an example in how not to get your point across. Sure flaming and it's relatives can be fun sometimes and even useful in contexts general spamming of flames to Jerry Falwell/the Supreme Court/Bill Clinton/Rush Limbaugh/Senator Dodd/name your favorite bad guy here might be fun, but doesn't advance the cause much. Maybe if the forces that worry about their ability to spam to annoy with obscene materials spent more time pursuing education and awareness:
1. People wouldn't support the CDA because it seems less necessary and they'd know about its dangers 2. The general public wouldn't be so afraid of cyberspace/the information superhighway/this week's buzzword. 3. We could get some really useful work done.
One of the key components of any freedom is knowing how and when to use it. Most people call this maturity. At times it might be the correct move to heckle, gib, or so on, but that should not be a normal response. When we start behaving like kids and make it our normal response expect someone (generally the goverment) to decide to play adults.
Or maybe it's just the laziness of annoy.com that annoys me. If you're going to get pissy without some, research the email address and type out the message yourself. Stop Lazy Spamming
I think the key thing this article captures is the state of the underlying modern culture that requires stupid user help. The stupid user. phenomena isn't limited to Linux or even computers. It is a common and generally accepted state in the modern world. We wear ignorance with pride.
What are the most popular series of instructional books today? That's right, X for Dummies and The Complere Idiots Guide to X. Teach Yourself X in Y comes in third. Finally, there is a For the Clueless series concentrating on social science and literature. Only one of these four lines has what I'd call an optimistic or inspired title, Teach Yourself. The other revel in not knowing something to the point of needing hand-holding all the time.
Now I realize that almost all of us need special help for some topics, but this is different. This phenomena of Dummies and Idiots is for people who don't want to try, but to be spoon feed. I would argue the open source/free software world is made up of the opposite: Teach Yourself people (or to use the series I'd like to see I Can Learn people). Linux, Hurd, FreeBSD, Emacs (no idiot would use emacs, despite the fact that I've claimed only idiots do use it), gcc, and the rest aren't written by or for people who lack drive and confidence. They shouldn't be.
This isn't the same as saying Windows or Mac people aren't welcome (I mean there is Mac for Dummies, so Mac can't equal dummy). Lots of users in the world aren't stupid users. They have taken the time to learn and master their systems. They aren't afraid to learn.
As arrogent as it sounds I want the Linux world to stay that way. I think OSS has always been for success oriented people. By that I don't mean rich, but people who set themselves challenges and goals and pursue them. If there is one thing the two polar opposites of the OSS/FSF community have in common it is success orientation. RMS and ERS both have a view of software and the world and set up to create it. Linus had a goal and learned what it took and did it. It is an insult to everyone who has learned and struggled to build the wonderful tools and toys we have to spend our energy making them stupid friendly. On the other hand it is a complement to make them friendly to non-computer people willing to use their minds.
It might be elitist, but at least its honest: Let Microsoft have the stupid users, they deserve each other. Let us go win over the smart ones.
Herb Nowell Who refuses to own a dummies book on moral grounds.
This is expectable. When you get games, where the sole purpose is to go around shooting people, what the hell is supposed to happen? If you sit and play these games too long, it really warps your mind. In what the fuck kind of game do you go around and shoot things for no fucking reason? "But it's just a game," you say. Hell, let's all grab some shotguns, and go out to the fields, and start trying to blow each other's heads off.. what cool special effects we can have - wont that be a wonderful game?
I only have one problem with this, why doesn't the increased number of these games result in increased violence. Violent crime in general and by teenagers in particular is actually down in the same time frame as the rise in popularity of first person shooters. If these games contribute to violence in a way different from other media why the drop in the corresponding time frame.
More interestingly, some other factors seem to be dropping. Teenage pregnancy/mother started a decline slightly earlier. While the first group of kids defined by this drop aren't old enough to see the effects (being in the 7-9 bracket) perhaps they have similar underlying factors.
Now one could make the arguement that the drops from other factors mask the rise due to violent video games. This, however, is an approach not compatable with Occum's Razor and, therefore, not a good path to follow.
As a note, I am not saying violent games do not promote violent behavior in those predisposed towards it. What I am saying is supply me evidence that violent games justify/encourage/support/whatever affect an ill mind and that their effect is different than violent TV or movies. You could argue saturation, but it would seem the effect is probably not additive after a certain point. I am willing to bet non-game sources supply that point already.
I will accept those disposed towards violence are more likely to engage in it after viewing violent images than reading violent books, although how much more I don't know. I have no statistical evidence, but base this on the effectiveness of appeals for action on famine or war based on video images over print. Numerous examples such as the Anti-Veitnam War movement, the use of US troops in Somalia, and even the recent bombings in Kosovo show video can generate support in ways print or radio can't. However, no suit I have seen address this fact head on in any coherent manner.
Finally, what end would a ban serve? Age bands on certain activities such as drinking, voting, and driving are based on two assumptions. First, a given level of maturity is required to perform these activities safely. Second, that maturity tracks generally with age. Now, the best evidence I have seen suggests that random killers are generally (yes, there are exceptions) a function of mental health, not a lack of maturity. In general, the evidence I've seen suggests that immature viewing leads to poor scores in "works well with others" but not violence unless accompanied by mental instability. Mental instability doesn't seem to track with age, so the violence reduction from an age ban would seem to be minimal. If this is correct, the safety factor maturity is supposed to provide via an age restriction would not be apparent without a larger ban of violent visual media in general which I see as difficult politically and physically.
Wish solutions were easy as passing a law, though.
I guess the factions are finally getting down to cases. The level structure (may be new, but this is the first time I've seen it) is interesting. The highest is improve software and the lowest (ie, most important requirement) is usage.
This ordering, more than any other showcases the difference between FSF/RMS and ESR/OSS. The former sees an egalitarian ability to use software as the key to the Free Software Movement. Source code is the key to using however you want (without source you can't use EMACS on your old Timex/Sinclair) because it gives you platform and site freedom. ESR and his fellow travellers on the other hand, see software as a mertocracy of craftsman. "Let me have the source so I can improve it and we all have better products," is their mantra.
Like most ideology issues, I think the majority of the community is somewhere in the middle. Yeah, we want source to improve and fix, but we also want it to port and steal (oops., borrow). For the the times RMS has been called a hippie/socialist/commie/loser/whatever we still don't like the Apple license.
If their is any single thing from the FSF I'd like to see OSS adopted is the permenance of the license. This to me, even more than source, is key. If I know what the rules will always be I can make a much more imformed and productive choices. I don't so much object to more restrictive source licenses (one time fees and such) as I do to licenses that can be pulled out from under me at any time, after months of work on my part.
One final question for the FSF guys. Given the generally left leaning politics of your staff, have you considered the free to use cause and military usage? What if copylefted imaging aided in missle design or crypto added in war radio traffic? Is the principle of free usage important enough to override other principles. I ask because I've seen a lot of source availible (and source not availible) with free licenses except for the US Military/any military/US Government/any government/the Pentagon/etc. Would such a line violate free software principles in your POV (this is not to be insiteful, but a question of opinion...can we restrict people we don't like...the army, fundies, Green Peace, Discordian, whoever, from usage and still have freeware?).
This is a somewhat valid point. These new licenses can bring freely provided source into a corporate code base and then log the users out. There is however a simple solution: don't use it. If companies want to get money from software you've made better by your bug fixes or new features demand royalties.
My theory works something like this: There is such a thing as IP. Some people like to share, so they copyleft their software. Fine, if you copyleft, I'll copyleft as well, fair is fair (Note, the copy left does acknowledge IP...it is designed to protect the author's IP and how he has choosen to use it, in this case as free software).
If a company wants a one time fee (such as Sun or Troll Tech) then we should expect the same from them. If I fix or add to QT and Troll Tech folds it into their code, I should get a one time fee.
Finally, more limiting licenses should be ignored. If I can use my contributions to your system by the same rules for the overall system I won't play.
To be honest, I think the long term future of Open Source is more long the lines of one time fee to use, but a one time royalty to fold in my changes. It's not quite RMS's dream, but a lot closer than current practice. It allows for ESR's dream of better software, it allows for mainly free source (if I pay my one time fee, I believe my source can be GPLed, correct me if I'm wrong). It allows us to make a living. To be honest, I see it as an evolution of the LGPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Because Office is MS bread and butter in more ways than one. First, it is their principle revenue stream right now and probably will be for quite some time. Also, even though control of the Windows API is how Office became dominant and there is still a symbotic relationship between them, I think it is reasonable to believe Office Upgrades drive Windows upgrades more than vice versa. Hell, I'd argue that Windows upgrades are driven more by Office upgrades than any other factor (with other applications coming in second).
So, MS has two monopolies: OS and Office Suites. The OS monopoly is under attack from multiple directions: Server OSs, the Government, thin clients, computing appliances, freeware OSs. Also, the OS one is much less visible to the majority of end users (tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new OS, but keep her office suite...see which she chooses). Right now, you aren't loosing yet on Office Suites, but a couple of the groups pinging you on OSs are gearing up for it. They are planning to using this OS diversity against you.
Even MS has limited resources. If moving a small amount of resources from the OS battle can protect you in the office suite battle without noticabily changing the odds in the OS battle, what do you do? You port Office to Linux to keep StarOffice and Corel Office from hitting you on the flank and maintain the stronger standard (Office file formats) that you have.
Hell, even if Windows looses this round of the OS battles to Linux or Mac or Be, this is a good plan. Office will last longer than Windows in that scenario, but provide an in for a Windows counter attack.
Just my $0.02
What qualifies as a groups is very interesting to me. I've long been tempted to set up a pirate radio station playing a mix of music (mostly goth, electronica, industrial, and trance) and commentary...maybe even drama or readings. Now, I've gotten input from a mailing list of local people (most of us work within about 15 - 20 mile radius and the rest aren't much further out). I wonder if we would qualify as a community group.
On a related note, I wonder if this will be increased or decreased pressure on pirate FM stations. Most have a short radius and some are quite good. An excellent example is the Anime Music Network .
Herb
If you're doing all these measurements you might find Covert Bailey's latest Fit or Fat (ultimate Fit or Fat). He claims his staff over the years has found a tape measure way of determining body fat that is only +/- 2 off of immersion. They require waist, hip, thigh, wrist, and forearm then some basic math. There are four formulas men and women over and under 30. If memory serves men over 30 is: waist + 0.8thigh - forearm - wrist.
I hate to be an ass, but do you know how stupid your first sentense is. Democracy is a political system. Trying to seperate politics and democracy is trying to seperate the hydrogen out and still have water. If a representive democracy provides all it's own machinery, please point me to the parts that provide candidates, workers, and communications.
As for your specific points:
Lastly, you assumed by parties I meant only Democrats and Republicans. Nothing can be further from the truth. I've several years working for a third party, including working to get some of the ballot laws changed to be more equitable. We may not have won elections directly, but I know that one of the state's major parties changed it's focus to capture third party people. The fact that those people were an organized block drew attention and showed that major party the benefits of compromise with us. Had we remained anonymous individual voters instead of a party whose candidates TOOK VOTES from that major party they could have ignored us. That is why parties are important.
I am proud to say that I don't belong to a single political party. Why? Because I make my own decisions. I support the candidate that best fits me, not the candidate with my favorite letter after their name.
I urge all of oyu to engage in some good political discussion and debate, but in the end, make your own choice. Don't let anyone shame you into a choice, and dont be a one-issue voter. Vote for more then just the guy who's best for the Net, because the Net is just a small piece of our world. No one is perfect. Make your choice on the best candidate. And for God's sake, vote. If you don't vote, don't bitch.
This is a common, but in the end uninformed, opinion. Why? Because it implies either a lack of understanding of the machinery of democracy or a distain for it. To my mind, this arguement amounts to choosing the more attractive UI as the primary reason for selecting an OS. You go for the gitzy, highly visible part without working at the machinery that makes it all work.
First, if you vote for X from the DOS party because he agrees with you on funding for higher bandwidth, but Y from the VMS party because he supports net privacy you are likely to get neither. Why, because political parties at their hearts are an agreement to support a certain agenda. X has little authority to call on Y to support his bills (and vice versa) because they have no previous agreement to do. If you had choosen Z from DOS (who you discarded because he's anti-privacy) you'd be more likely to see the bandwidth proposal succeed. You don't get everything you want, but if you support by your priorities, as opposed to best fit on each point, you're much more likely to see an effect.
Second, by ignoring parties you opt out of candidate selection, except in certain states with cross-over primaries. If you want Bill Bradly or John McCain, but get Bush and Gore, don't bitch if you're independent. You made a choice not to be part of the 'dirty' party system. If you won't do the work, don't complain about the results.
This effect is maginified by the fact that it is mostly party regulars who vote in off year elections. Big deal, you say, who cares who wins city council or state house seats. Beyond the fact that they probably influence more of your day then federal candidates, these lower offices are the farm teams for Congress and the White House. Party member help select these candidates (and have much more influence than in Presidential Primaries) and therefore have a real influence on who you will have a choice to support in ten or twenty years for Congress, Senate, and the White House.
The downside to this additional influence (which is very real) is a moral obligation to support your parties candidate and platform, even the parts you don't like (because you agreed to agreed). However, it is here where the real work of democratic government is done. It is local people who are needed to get a nomination that candidate listen to (even more than money people, as the money people listen to the active people on who to support) concerning positions.
Now what if no party fits? You can:
- Stay inpendent and take what's given until one does.
- You can join one and try to change it.
- Form a new party (or run yourself, which are similar choices)
Each has a proper place and its own virtues. Forming new parties (and being effective if you win as a member) is harder in the US due to winner take all elections. This methodology does have a purpose (several however) beyond the scope of this posting. Regardless of your opinion pro or con, it's the way it is (although changing that could become your political prority...I'll be fighting you though, I think it's an important check on government power).The primary point is the parties are part of the essential machinery of democracy. They provide organization and a level of abstraction necessary for representive democracy to work. You can ignore them, even hate them, but in doing so you are lessening your overall influence and the chances to enact your agenda (even if it is just do nothing). So, to applify Patman, if you're not a party member/worker don't bitch about your choices.
Herb
These big companies would do anything to find a way to use what they have -- resources -- to make up for what they lack -- drive -- and they may have found an answer to their prayers in lawsuits.
These two quotes cover just about 90% of current patent problems and about 75% of trademark problems (squatting for greed is a factor in domain trademark wars, even if we don't like to admit it). We should also add in requests by large businesses to regulate the internet (especially things like domains).
More importantly we can see a larger issue at work here: the use of 'good' government to hurt economic competition. Generally, most people see patents, trademarks, and regulation as government working to protect rightful owners and the public. To some degree this is true. Often, however, these same things are encouraged by larger companies to weed out competition.
Some examples outside of computer patents and internet trademarks from the US in recent years include:
That these issues and tactics are now appearing in the Internet world is new. That they exists and endanger inovation and decreasing costs isn't.
Herb
Also noted is how they state that file Linux can recognize the filesystems of Microsoft (and over 40 other) partition types, yet their Windows is ignorant of all but its own. Wonder which tac marketing will use on that: 1. Revise the FAQ to make it disappear. -or- 2. Use to show that Linux is inferior because it doesn't have a high quality filesystem like Windows and has to allow you to access other people's systems (I know, I know...but this is marketing speak here). -or- 3. The first W2000 Add-on pack will include the filesystem compatibility package. I personally hope 3 as it will make my Unix and MS life easier.
If you'll remember, Microsoft invented the PC. Whenever I make this statement of fact, people invariably mention Apple. What Apple had was a game machine. Really, I guess that explains all those Visicalc sales. It wasn't until Microsoft came along and wrote the missing software for an IBM that computers became truly useful to regular people who wanted to get work done.
And why did IBM make that computer...Apple...
plus, the killer app for the PC was Lotus 123.
In fact today there are many other, and better, choices of operating systems. This is a direct result of Microsoft popularizing the computer.
Close on this one...I think the best explaination of what MS did was in a Unix Review article about six years ago: They added sex to computers... before MS-DOS computer OS's primarily came from the manufactures (even with Unix, you got your maker's version). With MS the OS and apps became seperate from the computer. Result, commodity hardware. If Billy Boy hadn't kept the rights to market MS-DOS and given to IBM we'd still be in the manufacture of hardware = maker of OS world. When they continued MS-DOS after IBM tried to push OS/2, it makes sense.
Actually, you can understand why OS/2 failed against Windows 3.1 with this. I'm Compaq/Dell/Swan/Gateway/whoever. I can pay MS $100 for DOS/Windows or I can pay IBM $60 for OS/2. If I pay MS, they make new apps that help sell my computers. If I pay IBM they can knock those $60 off the price of their OS/2 computers and undercut me.
I see Linux and the *BSD systems now doing the same to OS. It'll take a few years and a MS mistake (clones really began to overtake IBM after the PS2 line).
So anything related to computers is a Microsoft spinoff. I rest my case. Uhmm, I think you mean PC's at best. Even then, that's a big statement. I think the best you can argue is MS was integral to commodizing hardware.
Herb
Hmmm, yeah, but at Chernobyl safety systems (including the flux equalizing rod group's control computer) were deactivatd. Also, by design the Chernobyl reactor type actually has an upsurge in power before shutting down during an emergency rod insertion. Also, in the Chernobyl design rising water temperatures causing reaction rates to rise, not fall as in most US reactors (most pressurized water reactors use coolant density to control reaction rates...the denser the water the more neutrons bounced back into the fuel...Chernobyl's design was 180 degrees from this). I know of no reactor in the West that could duplicate Chernobyl...there were just too many f****d up design choices there.
I'm not familiary enough with Windscale (unless I know it by another name) to comment.
Another, much more probable fault is that any computer-controlled device used in installing new fuel in the reactor could fail, thus causing the reactor to simply burn up all it's fuel and stop. Again, it would take a while to fix the Y2K fault, refuel and restart the reactor.
Do we have at power refueling in the West? I thought this was mainly a Soviet phenomena. Fueling at power does all kinds of weird things to power and neutron distribution that makes it hard to control. You must have computerized controls in a large reactor like that, whereas you can allow physics to do a lot for you if you refuel the whole thing at end of core life.
Harmast
I saw a story Russian ICBMs are run on analog computers, that's vacuum tubes.
Okay, quick correction here:
vacuum tubes != analog
Any analog computer is one which stores and operates on continuous values. A digital computer uses a set of discrete values (generally 0 and 1). The values on both may be represented in a variety of ways (analog might use voltage, ampherage, or even resistance levels to mark a continuous stream, while digital might use voltage/no voltage, current/no current, negative voltage/positive voltage...and these are just electronic representations...you should check out hydraulic digital circuits...yes they do exist, although even the engineers I worked with didn't seem them that way.
Vacuum tubes are just one way to do either, depending on the tube type. In fact, there is even a class of tubes called tranisitors, which is where I believe the name we use for solid state versions come from. In each case they are tri-state semi-conductors.
They key point on both is the function not the implementation is what we are describing.
Herb
HTML is a @#$%^& text formatting language, for God's sake!. I'll even concede that writing CGI/Perl web stuff is code. But I'm pretty sure you do that in emacs or vi, not Dreamweaver or whatever. No, Javascript doesn't count. Javascript does count. Obviously you've never seen how some of us abuse Javascript for data validation, preprocessing, and calcuation.
off for the premier? I know I just told a recruiter even if 5/19 is the only day she can get me an interview for a certain job (at $80K) I am NOT availible. $80K jobs come and go, but this....well, in some ways I'm still 10. Herb
Huzzah for the fact that someone realizes this. I've been saying zealots should be listened to more often. Had we done that we could have avoided the specticals of both the Nixon (left zealots hated him from day one) and Clinton administrations (as above, but with right wingers).
The key thing about zealots of any movement is they keep everyone else honest. The Catholic church has survived a millenia and a half (roughly) because Christian zealots show up as reformers every few hundred years. Both American political parties are kept honest (believe me, they are more honest today than a centuary ago) by zealots on the parties' core believes. RMS is our zealot.
And now is a key time for him, with Red Hat and Caldera (among others) taking a go at making money with free software, just like he said they could. Like an old hermit who can't be taken too much in person, but whose wisdom is too valuable to ignore he will be a sign of guiding purity.
At the same time we have the great pragmatist, ESR, to keep us from being slaughtered. If RMS is Peter the Hermit leading a People's Crusade into slaughter, ESR is Bohemmed, leading the army of the faithful into Jerusalem (note Bohemmed never claimed anymore than protector of the Holy City...the Kings of Jerusalem and Acre came later). Between the two we are well served.
Herb
Okay, now although I'm like most people who have posted and loved GEB (I read it just before I got out of the service to goto college...before I read it I was going to study ME, basically the design end of my Navy job...read it and changed majors before I even got to school...) I understand not everyone does like it. I will even admit I think some people who love it do so just because they are afraid to admit they were confused (hell, I'm lucky if I got 10% of some parts).
I cannot however let Mathematics be insulted without punishing the transgressor (: Seriously aphr(), there is much beauty in mathematics. If you are willing to give mathematics a second (third/fourth/fifth/whatever) chance, I would recommend a good intro text on group theory (I would recommend Contemporary Abstract Algebra by Gallian, probably could find a used one at a local university). Group theory is, among other things, about symmetry and can be found in Escher's drawings as well as crystals and quantum theory. I cannot think of many things more beautiful than a construct of the human mind that captures symmetry (a personal aesthetic favorite anyway).
Harmast
PGP is a commerical implementation of ideas that were first shown in Academic software (the earliest public key system I know of was by Hellman, Merkle and Diffie at Stanford (I've been using it in a Java chat system written for the purpose of learning Java). For those wondering what happened to their Public Key method, it is susceptable to linear time attacks.
I always thought the original Tetris was public domain, but I admit to probably being mistaken.
CAD may have had some academic beginnings (wouldn't be suprised).
Civ is one of my favorite games, but I don't know if I'd call it a direct inovation, but a linear improvement (their were graphical strategy empire building games prior to it...Cosmic Balance II anyone?)
What are the precise inovations of Java and BeOS. BeOS I don't know enough to say no outright, but I will on Java. Compiling to an intermediate form runable on many systems is again an academic idea (UCSD p-system anyone). The syntax is what Object oriented C should look like. Java's best claim to inovation is that it combined several ideas.
Maybe it's just a definitions problem. To me, most things that are inovative according to marketing literature are really advances in the state of the art.
Still, my original point is valid, the principle form of new things in software isn't companies or hackers, but academics who are paid to make whatever new stuff they want. They do so more than companies because companies need to make money and more than workday hackers because they have more time.
Actually, one of the most forgotten pieces of computer lore: Name a screen editor that is proprietary and predates vi (vi is a BSD product, not AT&T and is based on a screen editor from Manchester university whose name I forget, TECO I think). All major unix screen editors are, and to the best of my knowledge always have been, open source including: vi, emacs, jed, joe, pico. This might seem old, but it is a very key inovation. Other major OSS inovations might include the following rarely mentioned: Text adventures (Adventure predates Zork), the Kerberos system (now suffering from adapt and extend from MS), modern email (HoneyDanBear decendant mailers), and a few others.
Most of these may seem 70's because that was the last big heyday of inovation in OSS. The next one is now. I think the level of inovation in OSS is cyclic (the 80's were often about cleaning up 70's advances and porting to new architectures....with the advent of the workstation everyone needed to move their timeshare unix stuff to their own box).
The real question is list all advances from proprietary commerical software. Can't include the following: Unix (research and not usable as a product by its ownwer for over a decade), most compiler tools (AT&T research or academic), GUI's (both Mac and Windows draw heavily on Xerox's PARC work which was never a commerical product), compilers (the three earliest I know were MAD, a university product, Cobol, a gov. product, and Fortran, which I believe was university to replace MAD, but may be wrong), multitasking (earliest I know is the MIT system circa 1960), and a lot more.
If we want to play the inovation pissing game, most inovation is done at universities and research centers. These may not all be OSS products, but they certainly are almost never commerical (but are copied by later commerical products, often by the creators).
Herb
This may be more overblown than serious looking at the referenced article. Although I would like to read the original three judge opinion (the article says interprets to read only obscene...did they read the laundry list as obscene or did they strike particular words) it doesn't seem out of line with the course of modern law.
The key reason this doesn't seem too big is that it is a harass/annoy/etc provision. In this case all the law really is doing is extending protections to email that exist for more traditional forms of communication (phone and fax). If to harass someone I continually faxed them obscene stories (hell, even non-obscene material under some circumstances...how many anti-spam sig files refer to that infamous computer+modem+printer = fax machine provision on the books) I am in violation of the law. Now, if I do the same via email I am in violation as well.
The part that makes me sad is that we might need such a law. I realize the average person might try this with their account and that's one thing (Jake day anyone), but creating a website to facilitate is downright childish. Getting your opinion out is important, but as more and more /.ers as realizing how you get it out is just as important. I looked at annoy.com after reading the story. This site is an example in how not to get your point across. Sure flaming and it's relatives can be fun sometimes and even useful in contexts general spamming of flames to Jerry Falwell/the Supreme Court/Bill Clinton/Rush Limbaugh/Senator Dodd/name your favorite bad guy here might be fun, but doesn't advance the cause much. Maybe if the forces that worry about their ability to spam to annoy with obscene materials spent more time pursuing education and awareness:
1. People wouldn't support the CDA because it seems less necessary and they'd know about its dangers
2. The general public wouldn't be so afraid of cyberspace/the information superhighway/this week's buzzword.
3. We could get some really useful work done.
One of the key components of any freedom is knowing how and when to use it. Most people call this maturity. At times it might be the correct move to heckle, gib, or so on, but that should not be a normal response. When we start behaving like kids and make it our normal response expect someone (generally the goverment) to decide to play adults.
Or maybe it's just the laziness of annoy.com that annoys me. If you're going to get pissy without some, research the email address and type out the message yourself. Stop Lazy Spamming
Herb
I think the key thing this article captures is the state of the underlying modern culture that requires stupid user help. The stupid user. phenomena isn't limited to Linux or even computers. It is a common and generally accepted state in the modern world. We wear ignorance with pride.
What are the most popular series of instructional books today? That's right, X for Dummies and The Complere Idiots Guide to X. Teach Yourself X in Y comes in third. Finally, there is a For the Clueless series concentrating on social science and literature. Only one of these four lines has what I'd call an optimistic or inspired title, Teach Yourself. The other revel in not knowing something to the point of needing hand-holding all the time.
Now I realize that almost all of us need special help for some topics, but this is different. This phenomena of Dummies and Idiots is for people who don't want to try, but to be spoon feed. I would argue the open source/free software world is made up of the opposite: Teach Yourself people (or to use the series I'd like to see I Can Learn people). Linux, Hurd, FreeBSD, Emacs (no idiot would use emacs, despite the fact that I've claimed only idiots do use it), gcc, and the rest aren't written by or for people who lack drive and confidence. They shouldn't be.
This isn't the same as saying Windows or Mac people aren't welcome (I mean there is Mac for Dummies, so Mac can't equal dummy). Lots of users in the world aren't stupid users. They have taken the time to learn and master their systems. They aren't afraid to learn.
As arrogent as it sounds I want the Linux world to stay that way. I think OSS has always been for success oriented people. By that I don't mean rich, but people who set themselves challenges and goals and pursue them. If there is one thing the two polar opposites of the OSS/FSF community have in common it is success orientation. RMS and ERS both have a view of software and the world and set up to create it. Linus had a goal and learned what it took and did it. It is an insult to everyone who has learned and struggled to build the wonderful tools and toys we have to spend our energy making them stupid friendly. On the other hand it is a complement to make them friendly to non-computer people willing to use their minds.
It might be elitist, but at least its honest: Let Microsoft have the stupid users, they deserve each other. Let us go win over the smart ones.
Herb Nowell
Who refuses to own a dummies book on moral grounds.
I only have one problem with this, why doesn't the increased number of these games result in increased violence. Violent crime in general and by teenagers in particular is actually down in the same time frame as the rise in popularity of first person shooters. If these games contribute to violence in a way different from other media why the drop in the corresponding time frame.
More interestingly, some other factors seem to be dropping. Teenage pregnancy/mother started a decline slightly earlier. While the first group of kids defined by this drop aren't old enough to see the effects (being in the 7-9 bracket) perhaps they have similar underlying factors.
Now one could make the arguement that the drops from other factors mask the rise due to violent video games. This, however, is an approach not compatable with Occum's Razor and, therefore, not a good path to follow.
As a note, I am not saying violent games do not promote violent behavior in those predisposed towards it. What I am saying is supply me evidence that violent games justify/encourage/support/whatever affect an ill mind and that their effect is different than violent TV or movies. You could argue saturation, but it would seem the effect is probably not additive after a certain point. I am willing to bet non-game sources supply that point already.
I will accept those disposed towards violence are more likely to engage in it after viewing violent images than reading violent books, although how much more I don't know. I have no statistical evidence, but base this on the effectiveness of appeals for action on famine or war based on video images over print. Numerous examples such as the Anti-Veitnam War movement, the use of US troops in Somalia, and even the recent bombings in Kosovo show video can generate support in ways print or radio can't. However, no suit I have seen address this fact head on in any coherent manner.
Finally, what end would a ban serve? Age bands on certain activities such as drinking, voting, and driving are based on two assumptions. First, a given level of maturity is required to perform these activities safely. Second, that maturity tracks generally with age. Now, the best evidence I have seen suggests that random killers are generally (yes, there are exceptions) a function of mental health, not a lack of maturity. In general, the evidence I've seen suggests that immature viewing leads to poor scores in "works well with others" but not violence unless accompanied by mental instability. Mental instability doesn't seem to track with age, so the violence reduction from an age ban would seem to be minimal. If this is correct, the safety factor maturity is supposed to provide via an age restriction would not be apparent without a larger ban of violent visual media in general which I see as difficult politically and physically.
Wish solutions were easy as passing a law, though.
Herb
I guess the factions are finally getting down to cases. The level structure (may be new, but this is the first time I've seen it) is interesting. The highest is improve software and the lowest (ie, most important requirement) is usage.
This ordering, more than any other showcases the difference between FSF/RMS and ESR/OSS. The former sees an egalitarian ability to use software as the key to the Free Software Movement. Source code is the key to using however you want (without source you can't use EMACS on your old Timex/Sinclair) because it gives you platform and site freedom. ESR and his fellow travellers on the other hand, see software as a mertocracy of craftsman. "Let me have the source so I can improve it and we all have better products," is their mantra.
Like most ideology issues, I think the majority of the community is somewhere in the middle. Yeah, we want source to improve and fix, but we also want it to port and steal (oops., borrow). For the the times RMS has been called a hippie/socialist/commie/loser/whatever we still don't like the Apple license.
If their is any single thing from the FSF I'd like to see OSS adopted is the permenance of the license. This to me, even more than source, is key. If I know what the rules will always be I can make a much more imformed and productive choices. I don't so much object to more restrictive source licenses (one time fees and such) as I do to licenses that can be pulled out from under me at any time, after months of work on my part.
One final question for the FSF guys. Given the generally left leaning politics of your staff, have you considered the free to use cause and military usage? What if copylefted imaging aided in missle design or crypto added in war radio traffic? Is the principle of free usage important enough to override other principles. I ask because I've seen a lot of source availible (and source not availible) with free licenses except for the US Military/any military/US Government/any government/the Pentagon/etc. Would such a line violate free software principles in your POV (this is not to be insiteful, but a question of opinion...can we restrict people we don't like...the army, fundies, Green Peace, Discordian, whoever, from usage and still have freeware?).
Herb Nowell
This is a somewhat valid point. These new licenses can bring freely provided source into a corporate code base and then log the users out. There is however a simple solution: don't use it. If companies want to get money from software you've made better by your bug fixes or new features demand royalties.
My theory works something like this: There is such a thing as IP. Some people like to share, so they copyleft their software. Fine, if you copyleft, I'll copyleft as well, fair is fair (Note, the copy left does acknowledge IP...it is designed to protect the author's IP and how he has choosen to use it, in this case as free software).
If a company wants a one time fee (such as Sun or Troll Tech) then we should expect the same from them. If I fix or add to QT and Troll Tech folds it into their code, I should get a one time fee.
Finally, more limiting licenses should be ignored. If I can use my contributions to your system by the same rules for the overall system I won't play.
To be honest, I think the long term future of Open Source is more long the lines of one time fee to use, but a one time royalty to fold in my changes. It's not quite RMS's dream, but a lot closer than current practice. It allows for ESR's dream of better software, it allows for mainly free source (if I pay my one time fee, I believe my source can be GPLed, correct me if I'm wrong). It allows us to make a living. To be honest, I see it as an evolution of the LGPL.
Well, thats my two cents.
Herb