My understanding is that the research to break encryption itself is legal, but publishing a tool based on that research isn't. (Also, the DMCA only applies to encryption of copyrighted works.)
There is considerable debate as to if an algorithm or source code is a "circumvention device", but pretty much most of the courts have ruled that object code of such a device is no longer free speech and falls under the "circumvention device" portion of the code.
If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me as my understanding of the issue is a bit muddled as well.
Again, with emphasis, IANAL. I was under the assumption that during a patent dispute, trade secrets do NOT become public.
Defending a trade secret doesn't involve publicly disclosing the secret; that would nullify the point. I *thought* confidentiality in this area of the proceedings was kept. Could someone with more knowledge of this please clarify?
Not true. Trade secrets, while affording significantly less protection than patents, have indefinite length and you do not have to claim anything publicly.
Someone else can patent it later if they develop a similar idea independently of you (for example, if one person invents the wheel but keeps it secret it is only a matter of time before someone else does) but other items are not so easily repeatable.
IANAL, but IIRC trade secrets are protected as long as you keep the secret.
It's nice that you want to keep an open mind, but paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of Judge Jackson's findings, Novell did indeed arrange secretly for Caldera to sue Microsoft, essentially on Novell's behalf. I think that qualifies as "proven guilty."
And we all know how impartial Judge Jackson was. Jackson's improper conduct tainted the anti-trust trial, resulting in a situation that was neither fair to Microsoft or to the consumer. if Jackson had been professional, perhaps tougher punishments would have befallen MS.
Any rational person will take anything Jackson says as suspect. Once a judge shows complete disregard for impartiality, how can he ever be trusted to be impartial again?
See a movie. Go to a concert. Get a car repair (excluding "parts" cost). Go to an amusement park. Go to a doctor's office.
What there is tangible? Try doing it with no money in your pocket, though, and you'll be booted as soon as you're caught.
You are using false analogy to compare things that aren't even remotely equivelent.
If you try and stiff your auto mechanic it isn't theft, it's a contract breach. You agree to pay for services rendered. Refusal to pay is breach of contract. You cannot "steal" someone's time as time is something intangible. You are guilty of failing to meet your contractual obligations. The doctors office is the same idea. It is NOT theft, or stealing, despite the propaganda.
Sneaking into a movie/concert/amusement park without paying is TRESPASSING, not THEFT. All of those places are private property, and you do not have permission to be there without paying. You can't be arrested for stealing if you don't take any physical property. You can be charged with trespassing.
The only difference between a concert and a recording is that the recording is time-shifting the work from its original time and location. If you're not paying for the recording, it's tantamount to hiring without pay. Uh, wrong again bucko. Saying an apple is an orange does not make it so. First of all, you aren't paying for the recording, you are paying for a copy of the recording. (That is what copyright is all about...control of copying). Did you hire the musician directly? No. Purchasing a copy of a work is not the same as hiring someone on contract to perform. If you think copyright infringment is theft, I suggest you look at the law itself. Secondly, not paying for a concert can't be considered theft under any definition. If I hear a copyrighted work in the open air without paying am I guilty of theft? Of course not! The only thing I would be guilty of is being on private property without permission...trespassing.
Your logic is troubling, because it is Orwelliean speak. Instead of using the proper words and definitions, words with stronger connotations are used.
Words have distinct meanings/definitions, and if you deliberately distort words to invoke passions in your audience you are no better than Goebels in the Third Reich or any other propagandist! The meaning of a word does not change just because a few elites claim it does. "Moral equivelancy" is hogwash for the simple reason that the law does not make such equivelences. "Moral equivelency" is for people making rationalizations based on their personal opinions, not facts, laws, or even basic definitions found in the dictionary.
I am _not_ saying copyright infringement is morally sound, but I am stating that you get either a) a dictionary or b) some legitimate legal definitions before you throw around such drivel.
Incorrect usage over time, by enough people, becomes correct usage. Simply put, people define the language, and dictionaries and grammar books merely reflect the way society uses language. This is not to say someone won't consider you incorrect in using l33t speak;)
This happens frequently in languages like English, where the words and usage change over time. (Unlike French, for example, where a central authority attempts to enforce the "purity" of the language.)
Of course the way you put it is much more entertaining:)
Making it to the house floor has nothing to do with "jurisdiction" of a committee, and everything to do with what the House Rules Committee says. What committee the bill is in at any given time doesn't matter that much. In the US House of Representatives, when a bill is debated, what committees (and how many) that bill is shuffled to, how much debate will be on the bill, even the number of offered ammdenmdents, are all decided by the House Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee can shuffle a bill to any number of committees, even ones that don't seem to have juristiction (or even have to do with anything related to the bill!) You are probably thinking of the US Senate, where bills are only refered to one committee (rarely two, but the secondary committee has far less powers). Most people think the power in the US House is on Ways and Means, but the real power is on the Rules Committee. Those members decide what/when/where happens to every bill.
Because a bill has to pass all committees before it is allowed on the House floor, a common tactic to kill legislation used by the Rules Commitee refer it to many, many committees. Failure to get approval from any one of the committees results in the bill's demise.
Getting a bill to the House floor is a duanting task, but if the bill does make it out of committee it has a good chance of an up or down vote without major modification. In the House, only germane ammendments (previously approved by the Rules Committee) may be offered. Filibusters do not occur in the House.
In the Senate, bills are only refered to one committee (usually) so getting out of committee is much easier. The flipside of this process is in the Senate, non-germane ammendments are allowed, and there always exists the risk of filibuster.
Thanks, that does clear it up a bit..and it has been a while since I looked at the German system.
One issue that still remains is when US students are compared to German students, our "high school students" (which here makes up 100% of the public school students) are compared only with Gymnasium students (the top 24%). Using this comparison it is easy to see why American students seem worse off than their German counterparts.
I know I was off topic, and didn't mean to bash the German system, just bash unfair comparisons between your system and ours. Here in the US, the attempt is made (however faulty this may be) to get everyone through a high school curriculum, which in theory is university prep.
Vo-Tech (which I believe is like the Realshule) programs aren't everywhere, and only a minority of students utilize them.
What I mean to say is that if you compare the United States's top 25% of high school students they would perform on par with Gymnasium students.
My beef is with people who say the American public school system is terrible, and cite these blatantly unfair comparisons as justification. Our schools are in need of serious work, I'll admit. Just make sure we use the right comparisons.
Thanks again for clarifying my memory...we covered that in German class a little each year but it has been so long since then:) My mistake!
In the United States, secondary school education is available to EVERYONE. Unlike Germany, which about 10% of its citizens even receive a high school education (like the US), and that is based on a test you take in the 4th or 6th grade. Everyone else goes to vo-tech high school. (It has been a long time since I read the actual figures, but it is well less than half). Japan and France also use a similar system of education.
The myth of American schools as poor performers vs the rest of the world is that when American high schoolers (and 8th graders) are compared to the world, those stats are comparing 10% (or even less in some countries) to the US's 100%. If you compare apples to apples, our top 10% competes quite well against the 10% of other countries.
Yes, our schools could use improvement. However, we don't base who can get the education required to go to university based on a test taken in the 4th or 6th grade. Some students are not diagnosed with learning disabilities until later than 4th grade, and this completely ignores a student's ability to mature academically later. Public education in the United States is far more democratic.
Feh. Deficit spending is merely a delayed tax increase. We're paying boatloads for Reagan-Bush41 deficits even today.
Are you nuts??? Deficit spending is what most Democrats want to do to grow a stagnant economy. Deficit spending pushes a weak economy into a stronger one. Look, before you make a blindly partisan attack, understand Keynsian theory. this has been around a LONG LONG TIME, and used by BOTH parties. It is so widely accepted as fact I wonder what rock you crawled out from under. Budget surpluses aren't created by tax increases, but a stronger overall economy. Contrary to what the left would have you believe, Clinton's tax increases did not reduce the deficit. Controlled spending and a booming economy did. (Oh btw, policies of any government take about 3-4 years to have significant effect on the economy. This is why it is rediculous to credit/blame any first term president for the economy during his first term.)
Deficit spending is a demand-side impact on the economy, whereas massive tax decreases have the supply-side effect. The deficit spending under Regan (as supported by the democrats) moved the economy forward. I'm a republican, and don't like massive governmenet spending, but both the Reagan tax cuts AND the spending improved the economy and helped bankrupt the USSR. (Before you bash supply side, understand the Federal reserve chairmain during Regan had interest rates did not play ball, keeping interest rates high. Supply side may still be a bunk theory, but it never was implemented like it was intended.)
You obviously are confusing national debt and deficit spending. Deficit spending during WWII broke the cycle of depression. Deficit spending by the government builds up the economy.
Massive national debt *can* affect the economy by increasing interest rates (the government is borrowing so much, it decreases the amount of lower interest rates loans availiable to the market). However this arugment is still wishy-washy, because the Fed will lower interest rates far enough during a recession in an effort to spur growth.
B.S. A weak dollar means your savings and salary have decreased in terms of what they can buy. We may sell more stuff overseas, but you can't buy as much yourself. If the dollar's drop is not accompanied by a matching increase in salaries, then you personally have lost purchasing power, and no economic hand-waving is going to change that.
Do you know anything about economics? A weak dollar doesn't affect you unless you buy something FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY! When the dollar is weak, all american dollars are weak. All american dollars go down at the same time. You can buy just as many *American* goods as you could before, just less imports. That loaf of bread won't cost a dime more to you, because it was made in the USA.
What you are talking about is INFLATION. A weaker US dollar has nothing to do with INFLATION. If there is inflation, that means your dollars have less buying power EVERYWHERE, not just in the US. The "weak" dollar you are talking about is in relation to foriegn currency.
Currently, there is effectively ZERO inflation. Your dollars buy the same amount as they did yesterday, as long as you buy American goods.
Read up on economics before you spout such ignorance.
Unless your livelyhood depends on imported cars and imported chocolate, you won't even notice the weak dollar. You can buy just as many locally grown groceries as you could before.
As far as gasoline is concerned, you argument is hogwash. The #1 reason for gas prices is supply and demand. Consumption is up all over the world: China uses more oil than the United States. OPEC cut production despite higher demand. Higher gas prices do have an impact on the economy, but gas prices are up less from a weaker dollar and more from supply and demand.
If you want to buy something imported, yes you will feel it. Because staples are rarely affected, the vast majority of families will not feel any problem, and the overall economy improves.
Read up on economics, because nothing you have said is based in reality.
Deficit has no tangible negative effect on the economy. Keynesian economic models prove deficit spending in a recession stimulates the economy. When the economy recovers, the deficits turn into surpluses. If you had read proven economic history, instead of smoking that John Kerry hash you might know this. John Kerry has no economic plan other than to raise taxes, so he whines about the deficit. (Oh yeah I know he wants a middle class tax cut, but Bill Clinton promised that in 1992 as well...I guess when they say tax "cut", they mean tax "hike").
Furthermore, a weak US dollar is great for the US economy. A weak US dollar makes our exports cheaper for foreigners and makes imports more expensive for the locals. The result is more American goods are bought as opposed to a strong US dollar.
One last note, another poster was complaining that consumer debt was at an all time high, including mortgage debt. There is a logical explaination for mortgage debt to be at an all time high -- home ownership is at the highest levels in history!
Something is really wrong with your math. You should be considering FLOPS or some other measure of speed.
Mhz to MHz comparisons are only valid within the same generation of CPU You ignore the changes in chip generations. A Pentium I chip @ 75Mhz is FASTER than a 486 chip running @ 75mhz. An alpha EV56 is faster than an EV5 at the same clock frequency.
Just look at AMD vs Intel if you want a current example of how clock speed isn't the only factor.
Moore's law deals with the overall speed of the processor NOT the clock frequency.
You can't take the P3 core to those high speeds. The P4 was designed to scale at high clock cycle. For a while with rambus, P4 at high clock cycles was owning every AMD chip out there. It is a shame really that rambus was such a crummy business...as the technology is superior to DDR (ddr1)
My parents don't watch R-rated movies. Why? Because they feel that supporting movies with content they disapprove of is hypocracy. They make a concious choice not to support them financially. They vote with their wallet.
They also have purchased something called a "Guardian." It reads the closed captioning feed and cuts the sound out when something on the offensive list appears. You can even set it to print out a replacement word on the screen (as closed captions.) It has multiple filter strength settings, and they use it because television often has unpredictable degrees of obscenity. (TV ratings help, but as devout Christians, they dispise hearing things like "goddamn" etc which happens to be everywhere on TV.)
So far, they have been unable to find a product for DVD viewing that gives them a similar benefit.
I have NO problem with this product because the filtering is chosen by the consumer. This is absolutely fair use, just as backing up a DVD for personal use (which you legally own) is fair use. You are not "redistributing an altered copy", because the original is still in the dvd player.
No one's copyrights are violated. Copyright deals with changes and redistribution.
If this is a violation of copyright, then drawing mustaches on the pictures of an artbook you own and keep in your library is also a violation of copyright.
This is __NOT__ censorship!!! This is about controlling what you see in your own home. As long as you don't charge for admission, or dub copies of the altered version and distribute them, there is nothing illegal about this.
I'm quite amazed slashdot writers are upset about this. The maker is simply giving viewers a choice about what they want on their screen, without altering the original copy.
If everyone watches TV Shows only on DVD, eventually there will be no more broadcast television shows. In the United States, television is an ad supported medium. Shows like the Simpsons exist because high ratings equate to high advertising revenue. You pay for cable television because (non-premium) networks fill a niche market and don't broadcast over the airwaves the same way traditional UHF/VHF stations do.
I watch television probably more than most my age (I'm 25.) Lots of sci-fi, spiketv, and a news station that I won't name here (my choice, but don't care to be flamed heh).
Television is a huge part of American culture. The major networks have resorted to a lot of crapola reality shows and lousy sitcoms, but occasionally you will find a gem.
While by no means do I think skipping commercials is "stealing" programming, I don't find commercials all too annoying (usually). Most of the time I consider it a tradeoff for cheaper programming.
Advertising is also an art form in its own right...getting you to think about buying something (and possibly actually buying something) you might not have considered before. Some ad campaigns stick with you for a very long time. (It's quite scary when you can sing a jingle from a commercial aired when you were in elementary school when you see at a product at the grocery store, but I digress.)
What troubles me about more people only buying their programming on DVDs is quality programming on telivision will become more and more scarce. Telivision programming (and especially good serials) just might disappear altogether. Telivision programming is different than say, a movie released in the theaters. Both have positives and negatives, but I would genuinely hate to see quality telivision programming disapear because no one is watching.
(Yes, there still is quality programming on TV...just look to A&E's Horatio Hornblower miniseries or Stargate: SG1 for example. CSI, while it has lost the edge of the first few seasons, is still quite good.)
In summary, advertisements aren't all bad. We don't have to watch them, but we should understand why we need them to keep an art form alive. (TV programming is an art form in its own right.)
(I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but oh well:) )
As a programmer, C is great because it is quick and low level. Operating systems are written in C. Network stacks are written in C.
For a GUI, C is horrific. GUI just lends itself to Object Oriented programming. I know the hard core *NIX geeks will flame me for this, but why on earth would you NOT want to do a GUI in OOP. The beauty of coding for windows using MFC and.NET is you just extend classes already there. It's an elegant and tidy way to do things.
Languages like C with functions just turn code into a nightmare. Ever wonder why most game companies program in directX and NOT openGL? OpenGL is C, directX is not.
The commercial issue with QT is really a non-issue. It might even be possible companies and write inhouse software without paying a license fee (since the code is never redistributed.) If companies want to make money writing with QT they will. What do *companies* want, to pay a fee to QT and own their own code, or give it away with the GPL and Gnome?
When someone starts talking about something being "FREER" as in the gpl, I turn on my Stallman filter. These people claim the BSD license isn't free because the code can be 'hijacked' by closed source projects.
If you give something away, you give it away for good. The BSD license gives it away for EVERYONE to use, and doesn't discriminate.
When decisions are NOT based on technical merit, rather on politics, then you are no longer a geek. You are an activist.
Would you use a distro developed with activism placed over technical merit? This is why Linus carries so much weight. He doesn't get into politics.
Ever since the AT&T breakup, anything on your side of the demarcation point is your property, your responsibility. The phone company's lines end at the demarcation point.
This is basic telecommunications. This is why a Bell can't tell you how to wire your home telephone network. This is also wh y you can put any phone connected to anything on your side of the demarcation point.
**Side note** its a shame cable internet isn't treated the same way. Cable companies shouldn't be able to tell you what you can or cannot connect to "thier network" since it's in your home.
You really miss the point here, and it's quite obvious you never worked in telecommunications.
For starters, a T1/T3 connection is full duplex. That requires a higher strength of signal on your end plus additional error correction. The equipment required on each end is more expensive than cable/DSL.
With DSL/High Speed Cable, you get no bandwith guarantees. You get a max speed, and if it bogs down, you just have to live with it because there is no guarantee of Quality of Service (QoS). That is the main reason DSL/High speed cable is sooo much cheaper than a dedicated T1/T3.
When you purchase/lease a T1/T3, your contract specifies minimum QoS. A minimum guaranteed bandwith, and if that bandwith drops below that amount X times in the month (X is determined by the contract), you get a refund.
For this reason, dedicated T1/T3 lines require a significant amount of extra monitoring and maintenence to ensure the company doesn't lose out due to bad QoS. I used to work in the control center of WorldCom in Tulsa, and part of my job was to monitor T3 circuits.
That monitoring costs money (my salary, monitoring equipment, software) and that is part of the cost of the cost of the T1/T3.
Your DSL/Cable connection at its peak might very well be faster than a T1, but you have no guarantees that bandwith will stay that way.
Yes, DSL runs over existing copper, BUT you must be within a certain distance of the Central Office, or your connection speeds plummet. (That distance is getting bigger with new technologies, but it is still a limiting factor.)
Fiber over the local loop is just not a possibility. There are just too many local loops and no real incentive for anyone to lay all that expensive fiber (expensive meaning way more than free lines already in the ground).
After the telco bust, do you really think companies want to lay all that fiber to replace millions of local loops? There are still places in rural oklkahoma with old tar paper covered copper lines in the ground. When it rains hard, their phone service is horrible (if working at all.)
Next time know what you are talking about before posting.
There is no way to prove global warming exists, or if it doesn't exist. Certain factors such as solar radiation AND the impact of different types of clouds have yet to be accurately modeled.
One of my good friends is a masters student in meterology at the University of Oklahoma (the best in the country for meterology.) We were discussing this the other day. All models used to prove or disprove global warming completely ignore the impact that different cloud formations have on climate change. This is just one of many hundreds (or even thousands) of variables that cannot even be measured let alone modeled.
I take this global warming with a grain fo salt. Remember the Ice Age and the "Little Ice Age"? Those were natural phenomena. This warming (if it even is warming) could also be natural.
Scientists have only kept decent records of temperature for the last 100 to 150 years. Accurate studies of other factors (sea surface temperature, solar radiation, etc) have been taken for even less time. There just is not enough data to draw any conclusion about these so-called "drastic climate changes",
Alarm fees are to help fund police paperwork
on
Surviving Tornadoes
·
· Score: 1
We have a similar fee in Tulsa. About 10 years ago, police were resonding to every house alarm and finding bogus alarms. They instituted several permit fees, low cost (5$ is pretty cheap) just to fund the police paperwork and infrastructure to support the alarms and communicate with the alarm companies.
They also have what is called a "first response" permit, which IIRC costs more than the standard fee. It tells the police to respond immediately rather than waiting for verification with the alarm company.
Also, if your alarm goes off too many times without you calling in to cancel it, you can be fined. Too many lazy people were not setting their alarms properly or bother8ing to call in to cancel it, and police were sent out on dummy trips, that waste their time and money on a crime that doesn't exist.
Tulsa is smaller than large cities, our metro area is around 500,000. We have most of the advantages of a larger city, with a lot less crime. We average about 50 murders per year.
Tulsa used to be a great place to be if you were in telecom. Worldcom has is largest headquarters here, and we had many many other smaller firms before the bust. Tulsa was built with oil money, and in the 20s, Tulsa was the "Oil Capital of the World." Because of that, we have some very nice museums (nothing earth shaking, though.)
The public schools are pretty good, and in my opinion, it is just beautiful here. Springs and falls are gorgeous, winters are not that cold, and the only really nasty weather is in late July through August. Unlike a lot of the state, Tulsa has lots of hills and trees. I have been camping around here for years.
Is it the most exciting place to live? No, probably not. It's home to me, so it will always have a place in my heart, even if I am relocated. This place has a lot to offer, but it is hard to quantify. The last time i was in southern California the things I noticed were: 1) People everywhere, lines everyplace, bad traffic and 2) I couldn't see the stars very well at night. We have light pollution here, but it isn't nearly to the extent of southern California.
We don't have beaches, but we have tons of lakes for fishing and boating. Here, you can drive 25 minutes in one direction (sometimes less) and hit farmland, and not be in the city anymore. I can get anywhere in town in less than 30 mins, maybe a little more during rush hour.
How do you explain home to someone? I am finding this difficult, but I gave it my best shot.
You are very wrong. I have read my policy, and all homeowners insurances that I know of here cover tornado damage. Flooding is something different, and is not covered (one exception.)
But tornados definately are. If you have a heart attack and wreck your car while driving, and you have full coverage, that is listed as an "act of God" and you pay your dedcutable and make a claim.
I don't know where youg ot this, but it's not the case. Tornadoes, hail, falling trees, all that are covered under basic homeowners insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I think any ignorant person can be scammed, but honest individuals won't willingly take part in a scheme.
My understanding is that the research to break encryption itself is legal, but publishing a tool based on that research isn't. (Also, the DMCA only applies to encryption of copyrighted works.)
There is considerable debate as to if an algorithm or source code is a "circumvention device", but pretty much most of the courts have ruled that object code of such a device is no longer free speech and falls under the "circumvention device" portion of the code.
If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me as my understanding of the issue is a bit muddled as well.
Again, with emphasis, IANAL. I was under the assumption that during a patent dispute, trade secrets do NOT become public.
Defending a trade secret doesn't involve publicly disclosing the secret; that would nullify the point. I *thought* confidentiality in this area of the proceedings was kept. Could someone with more knowledge of this please clarify?
Not true. Trade secrets, while affording significantly less protection than patents, have indefinite length and you do not have to claim anything publicly.
Someone else can patent it later if they develop a similar idea independently of you (for example, if one person invents the wheel but keeps it secret it is only a matter of time before someone else does) but other items are not so easily repeatable.
IANAL, but IIRC trade secrets are protected as long as you keep the secret.
erm I'm an idiot... was definately way wrong here!
It's nice that you want to keep an open mind, but paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of Judge Jackson's findings, Novell did indeed arrange secretly for Caldera to sue Microsoft, essentially on Novell's behalf. I think that qualifies as "proven guilty."
And we all know how impartial Judge Jackson was. Jackson's improper conduct tainted the anti-trust trial, resulting in a situation that was neither fair to Microsoft or to the consumer. if Jackson had been professional, perhaps tougher punishments would have befallen MS.
Any rational person will take anything Jackson says as suspect. Once a judge shows complete disregard for impartiality, how can he ever be trusted to be impartial again?
See a movie.
Go to a concert.
Get a car repair (excluding "parts" cost).
Go to an amusement park.
Go to a doctor's office.
What there is tangible? Try doing it with no money in your pocket, though, and you'll be booted as soon as you're caught.
You are using false analogy to compare things that aren't even remotely equivelent.
If you try and stiff your auto mechanic it isn't theft, it's a contract breach. You agree to pay for services rendered. Refusal to pay is breach of contract. You cannot "steal" someone's time as time is something intangible. You are guilty of failing to meet your contractual obligations. The doctors office is the same idea. It is NOT theft, or stealing, despite the propaganda.
Sneaking into a movie/concert/amusement park without paying is TRESPASSING, not THEFT. All of those places are private property, and you do not have permission to be there without paying. You can't be arrested for stealing if you don't take any physical property. You can be charged with trespassing.
The only difference between a concert and a recording is that the recording is time-shifting the work from its original time and location. If you're not paying for the recording, it's tantamount to hiring without pay.
Uh, wrong again bucko. Saying an apple is an orange does not make it so. First of all, you aren't paying for the recording, you are paying for a copy of the recording. (That is what copyright is all about...control of copying). Did you hire the musician directly? No. Purchasing a copy of a work is not the same as hiring someone on contract to perform. If you think copyright infringment is theft, I suggest you look at the law itself. Secondly, not paying for a concert can't be considered theft under any definition. If I hear a copyrighted work in the open air without paying am I guilty of theft? Of course not! The only thing I would be guilty of is being on private property without permission...trespassing.
Your logic is troubling, because it is Orwelliean speak. Instead of using the proper words and definitions, words with stronger connotations are used.
Words have distinct meanings/definitions, and if you deliberately distort words to invoke passions in your audience you are no better than Goebels in the Third Reich or any other propagandist! The meaning of a word does not change just because a few elites claim it does. "Moral equivelancy" is hogwash for the simple reason that the law does not make such equivelences. "Moral equivelency" is for people making rationalizations based on their personal opinions, not facts, laws, or even basic definitions found in the dictionary.
I am _not_ saying copyright infringement is morally sound, but I am stating that you get either a) a dictionary or b) some legitimate legal definitions before you throw around such drivel.
Incorrect usage over time, by enough people, becomes correct usage. Simply put, people define the language, and dictionaries and grammar books merely reflect the way society uses language. This is not to say someone won't consider you incorrect in using l33t speak ;)
:)
This happens frequently in languages like English, where the words and usage change over time. (Unlike French, for example, where a central authority attempts to enforce the "purity" of the language.)
Of course the way you put it is much more entertaining
Making it to the house floor has nothing to do with "jurisdiction" of a committee, and everything to do with what the House Rules Committee says. What committee the bill is in at any given time doesn't matter that much. In the US House of Representatives, when a bill is debated, what committees (and how many) that bill is shuffled to, how much debate will be on the bill, even the number of offered ammdenmdents, are all decided by the House Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee can shuffle a bill to any number of committees, even ones that don't seem to have juristiction (or even have to do with anything related to the bill!) You are probably thinking of the US Senate, where bills are only refered to one committee (rarely two, but the secondary committee has far less powers). Most people think the power in the US House is on Ways and Means, but the real power is on the Rules Committee. Those members decide what/when/where happens to every bill.
Because a bill has to pass all committees before it is allowed on the House floor, a common tactic to kill legislation used by the Rules Commitee refer it to many, many committees. Failure to get approval from any one of the committees results in the bill's demise.
Getting a bill to the House floor is a duanting task, but if the bill does make it out of committee it has a good chance of an up or down vote without major modification. In the House, only germane ammendments (previously approved by the Rules Committee) may be offered. Filibusters do not occur in the House.
In the Senate, bills are only refered to one committee (usually) so getting out of committee is much easier. The flipside of this process is in the Senate, non-germane ammendments are allowed, and there always exists the risk of filibuster.
Hope that clarifies things.
Thanks, that does clear it up a bit..and it has been a while since I looked at the German system.
:) My mistake!
One issue that still remains is when US students are compared to German students, our "high school students" (which here makes up 100% of the public school students) are compared only with Gymnasium students (the top 24%). Using this comparison it is easy to see why American students seem worse off than their German counterparts.
I know I was off topic, and didn't mean to bash the German system, just bash unfair comparisons between your system and ours. Here in the US, the attempt is made (however faulty this may be) to get everyone through a high school curriculum, which in theory is university prep.
Vo-Tech (which I believe is like the Realshule) programs aren't everywhere, and only a minority of students utilize them.
What I mean to say is that if you compare the United States's top 25% of high school students they would perform on par with Gymnasium students.
My beef is with people who say the American public school system is terrible, and cite these blatantly unfair comparisons as justification. Our schools are in need of serious work, I'll admit. Just make sure we use the right comparisons.
Thanks again for clarifying my memory...we covered that in German class a little each year but it has been so long since then
In the United States, secondary school education is available to EVERYONE. Unlike Germany, which about 10% of its citizens even receive a high school education (like the US), and that is based on a test you take in the 4th or 6th grade. Everyone else goes to vo-tech high school. (It has been a long time since I read the actual figures, but it is well less than half). Japan and France also use a similar system of education.
The myth of American schools as poor performers vs the rest of the world is that when American high schoolers (and 8th graders) are compared to the world, those stats are comparing 10% (or even less in some countries) to the US's 100%. If you compare apples to apples, our top 10% competes quite well against the 10% of other countries.
Yes, our schools could use improvement. However, we don't base who can get the education required to go to university based on a test taken in the 4th or 6th grade. Some students are not diagnosed with learning disabilities until later than 4th grade, and this completely ignores a student's ability to mature academically later. Public education in the United States is far more democratic.
Feh. Deficit spending is merely a delayed tax increase. We're paying boatloads for Reagan-Bush41 deficits even today.
Are you nuts??? Deficit spending is what most Democrats want to do to grow a stagnant economy. Deficit spending pushes a weak economy into a stronger one. Look, before you make a blindly partisan attack, understand Keynsian theory. this has been around a LONG LONG TIME, and used by BOTH parties. It is so widely accepted as fact I wonder what rock you crawled out from under. Budget surpluses aren't created by tax increases, but a stronger overall economy. Contrary to what the left would have you believe, Clinton's tax increases did not reduce the deficit. Controlled spending and a booming economy did. (Oh btw, policies of any government take about 3-4 years to have significant effect on the economy. This is why it is rediculous to credit/blame any first term president for the economy during his first term.)
Deficit spending is a demand-side impact on the economy, whereas massive tax decreases have the supply-side effect. The deficit spending under Regan (as supported by the democrats) moved the economy forward. I'm a republican, and don't like massive governmenet spending, but both the Reagan tax cuts AND the spending improved the economy and helped bankrupt the USSR. (Before you bash supply side, understand the Federal reserve chairmain during Regan had interest rates did not play ball, keeping interest rates high. Supply side may still be a bunk theory, but it never was implemented like it was intended.)
You obviously are confusing national debt and deficit spending. Deficit spending during WWII broke the cycle of depression. Deficit spending by the government builds up the economy.
Massive national debt *can* affect the economy by increasing interest rates (the government is borrowing so much, it decreases the amount of lower interest rates loans availiable to the market). However this arugment is still wishy-washy, because the Fed will lower interest rates far enough during a recession in an effort to spur growth.
B.S. A weak dollar means your savings and salary have decreased in terms of what they can buy. We may sell more stuff overseas, but you can't buy as much yourself. If the dollar's drop is not accompanied by a matching increase in salaries, then you personally have lost purchasing power, and no economic hand-waving is going to change that.
Do you know anything about economics? A weak dollar doesn't affect you unless you buy something FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY! When the dollar is weak, all american dollars are weak. All american dollars go down at the same time. You can buy just as many *American* goods as you could before, just less imports. That loaf of bread won't cost a dime more to you, because it was made in the USA.
What you are talking about is INFLATION. A weaker US dollar has nothing to do with INFLATION. If there is inflation, that means your dollars have less buying power EVERYWHERE, not just in the US. The "weak" dollar you are talking about is in relation to foriegn currency.
Currently, there is effectively ZERO inflation. Your dollars buy the same amount as they did yesterday, as long as you buy American goods.
Read up on economics before you spout such ignorance.
Unless your livelyhood depends on imported cars and imported chocolate, you won't even notice the weak dollar. You can buy just as many locally grown groceries as you could before.
As far as gasoline is concerned, you argument is hogwash. The #1 reason for gas prices is supply and demand. Consumption is up all over the world: China uses more oil than the United States. OPEC cut production despite higher demand. Higher gas prices do have an impact on the economy, but gas prices are up less from a weaker dollar and more from supply and demand.
If you want to buy something imported, yes you will feel it. Because staples are rarely affected, the vast majority of families will not feel any problem, and the overall economy improves.
Read up on economics, because nothing you have said is based in reality.
Deficit has no tangible negative effect on the economy. Keynesian economic models prove deficit spending in a recession stimulates the economy. When the economy recovers, the deficits turn into surpluses. If you had read proven economic history, instead of smoking that John Kerry hash you might know this. John Kerry has no economic plan other than to raise taxes, so he whines about the deficit. (Oh yeah I know he wants a middle class tax cut, but Bill Clinton promised that in 1992 as well...I guess when they say tax "cut", they mean tax "hike").
Furthermore, a weak US dollar is great for the US economy. A weak US dollar makes our exports cheaper for foreigners and makes imports more expensive for the locals. The result is more American goods are bought as opposed to a strong US dollar.
One last note, another poster was complaining that consumer debt was at an all time high, including mortgage debt. There is a logical explaination for mortgage debt to be at an all time high -- home ownership is at the highest levels in history!
Sure he was. He was basing "speed of computers" based on Mhz. He stated the changes weren't as dramatic, again based on Mhz. Re-read the parent.
Something is really wrong with your math. You should be considering FLOPS or some other measure of speed.
Mhz to MHz comparisons are only valid within the same generation of CPU
You ignore the changes in chip generations. A Pentium I chip @ 75Mhz is FASTER than a 486 chip running @ 75mhz. An alpha EV56 is faster than an EV5 at the same clock frequency.
Just look at AMD vs Intel if you want a current example of how clock speed isn't the only factor.
Moore's law deals with the overall speed of the processor NOT the clock frequency.
You can't take the P3 core to those high speeds. The P4 was designed to scale at high clock cycle. For a while with rambus, P4 at high clock cycles was owning every AMD chip out there. It is a shame really that rambus was such a crummy business...as the technology is superior to DDR (ddr1)
My parents don't watch R-rated movies. Why? Because they feel that supporting movies with content they disapprove of is hypocracy. They make a concious choice not to support them financially. They vote with their wallet.
They also have purchased something called a "Guardian." It reads the closed captioning feed and cuts the sound out when something on the offensive list appears. You can even set it to print out a replacement word on the screen (as closed captions.) It has multiple filter strength settings, and they use it because television often has unpredictable degrees of obscenity. (TV ratings help, but as devout Christians, they dispise hearing things like "goddamn" etc which happens to be everywhere on TV.)
So far, they have been unable to find a product for DVD viewing that gives them a similar benefit.
I have NO problem with this product because the filtering is chosen by the consumer. This is absolutely fair use, just as backing up a DVD for personal use (which you legally own) is fair use. You are not "redistributing an altered copy", because the original is still in the dvd player.
No one's copyrights are violated. Copyright deals with changes and redistribution.
If this is a violation of copyright, then drawing mustaches on the pictures of an artbook you own and keep in your library is also a violation of copyright.
This is __NOT__ censorship!!! This is about controlling what you see in your own home. As long as you don't charge for admission, or dub copies of the altered version and distribute them, there is nothing illegal about this.
I'm quite amazed slashdot writers are upset about this. The maker is simply giving viewers a choice about what they want on their screen, without altering the original copy.
If everyone watches TV Shows only on DVD, eventually there will be no more broadcast television shows. In the United States, television is an ad supported medium. Shows like the Simpsons exist because high ratings equate to high advertising revenue. You pay for cable television because (non-premium) networks fill a niche market and don't broadcast over the airwaves the same way traditional UHF/VHF stations do.
:) )
I watch television probably more than most my age (I'm 25.) Lots of sci-fi, spiketv, and a news station that I won't name here (my choice, but don't care to be flamed heh).
Television is a huge part of American culture. The major networks have resorted to a lot of crapola reality shows and lousy sitcoms, but occasionally you will find a gem.
While by no means do I think skipping commercials is "stealing" programming, I don't find commercials all too annoying (usually). Most of the time I consider it a tradeoff for cheaper programming.
Advertising is also an art form in its own right...getting you to think about buying something (and possibly actually buying something) you might not have considered before. Some ad campaigns stick with you for a very long time. (It's quite scary when you can sing a jingle from a commercial aired when you were in elementary school when you see at a product at the grocery store, but I digress.)
What troubles me about more people only buying their programming on DVDs is quality programming on telivision will become more and more scarce. Telivision programming (and especially good serials) just might disappear altogether. Telivision programming is different than say, a movie released in the theaters. Both have positives and negatives, but I would genuinely hate to see quality telivision programming disapear because no one is watching.
(Yes, there still is quality programming on TV...just look to A&E's Horatio Hornblower miniseries or Stargate: SG1 for example. CSI, while it has lost the edge of the first few seasons, is still quite good.)
In summary, advertisements aren't all bad. We don't have to watch them, but we should understand why we need them to keep an art form alive. (TV programming is an art form in its own right.)
(I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but oh well
As a programmer, C is great because it is quick and low level. Operating systems are written in C. Network stacks are written in C.
.NET is you just extend classes already there. It's an elegant and tidy way to do things.
For a GUI, C is horrific. GUI just lends itself to Object Oriented programming. I know the hard core *NIX geeks will flame me for this, but why on earth would you NOT want to do a GUI in OOP. The beauty of coding for windows using MFC and
Languages like C with functions just turn code into a nightmare. Ever wonder why most game companies program in directX and NOT openGL? OpenGL is C, directX is not.
The commercial issue with QT is really a non-issue. It might even be possible companies and write inhouse software without paying a license fee (since the code is never redistributed.) If companies want to make money writing with QT they will. What do *companies* want, to pay a fee to QT and own their own code, or give it away with the GPL and Gnome?
When someone starts talking about something being "FREER" as in the gpl, I turn on my Stallman filter. These people claim the BSD license isn't free because the code can be 'hijacked' by closed source projects.
If you give something away, you give it away for good. The BSD license gives it away for EVERYONE to use, and doesn't discriminate.
When decisions are NOT based on technical merit, rather on politics, then you are no longer a geek. You are an activist.
Would you use a distro developed with activism placed over technical merit? This is why Linus carries so much weight. He doesn't get into politics.
Ever since the AT&T breakup, anything on your side of the demarcation point is your property, your responsibility. The phone company's lines end at the demarcation point.
This is basic telecommunications. This is why a Bell can't tell you how to wire your home telephone network. This is also wh y you can put any phone connected to anything on your side of the demarcation point.
**Side note** its a shame cable internet isn't treated the same way. Cable companies shouldn't be able to tell you what you can or cannot connect to "thier network" since it's in your home.
You really miss the point here, and it's quite obvious you never worked in telecommunications.
For starters, a T1/T3 connection is full duplex. That requires a higher strength of signal on your end plus additional error correction. The equipment required on each end is more expensive than cable/DSL.
With DSL/High Speed Cable, you get no bandwith guarantees. You get a max speed, and if it bogs down, you just have to live with it because there is no guarantee of Quality of Service (QoS). That is the main reason DSL/High speed cable is sooo much cheaper than a dedicated T1/T3.
When you purchase/lease a T1/T3, your contract specifies minimum QoS. A minimum guaranteed bandwith, and if that bandwith drops below that amount X times in the month (X is determined by the contract), you get a refund.
For this reason, dedicated T1/T3 lines require a significant amount of extra monitoring and maintenence to ensure the company doesn't lose out due to bad QoS. I used to work in the control center of WorldCom in Tulsa, and part of my job was to monitor T3 circuits.
That monitoring costs money (my salary, monitoring equipment, software) and that is part of the cost of the cost of the T1/T3.
Your DSL/Cable connection at its peak might very well be faster than a T1, but you have no guarantees that bandwith will stay that way.
Yes, DSL runs over existing copper, BUT you must be within a certain distance of the Central Office, or your connection speeds plummet. (That distance is getting bigger with new technologies, but it is still a limiting factor.)
Fiber over the local loop is just not a possibility. There are just too many local loops and no real incentive for anyone to lay all that expensive fiber (expensive meaning way more than free lines already in the ground).
After the telco bust, do you really think companies want to lay all that fiber to replace millions of local loops? There are still places in rural oklkahoma with old tar paper covered copper lines in the ground. When it rains hard, their phone service is horrible (if working at all.)
Next time know what you are talking about before posting.
There is no way to prove global warming exists, or if it doesn't exist. Certain factors such as solar radiation AND the impact of different types of clouds have yet to be accurately modeled.
One of my good friends is a masters student in meterology at the University of Oklahoma (the best in the country for meterology.) We were discussing this the other day. All models used to prove or disprove global warming completely ignore the impact that different cloud formations have on climate change. This is just one of many hundreds (or even thousands) of variables that cannot even be measured let alone modeled.
I take this global warming with a grain fo salt. Remember the Ice Age and the "Little Ice Age"? Those were natural phenomena. This warming (if it even is warming) could also be natural.
Scientists have only kept decent records of temperature for the last 100 to 150 years. Accurate studies of other factors (sea surface temperature, solar radiation, etc) have been taken for even less time. There just is not enough data to draw any conclusion about these so-called "drastic climate changes",
We have a similar fee in Tulsa. About 10 years ago, police were resonding to every house alarm and finding bogus alarms. They instituted several permit fees, low cost (5$ is pretty cheap) just to fund the police paperwork and infrastructure to support the alarms and communicate with the alarm companies.
They also have what is called a "first response" permit, which IIRC costs more than the standard fee. It tells the police to respond immediately rather than waiting for verification with the alarm company.
Also, if your alarm goes off too many times without you calling in to cancel it, you can be fined. Too many lazy people were not setting their alarms properly or bother8ing to call in to cancel it, and police were sent out on dummy trips, that waste their time and money on a crime that doesn't exist.
Tulsa is smaller than large cities, our metro area is around 500,000. We have most of the advantages of a larger city, with a lot less crime. We average about 50 murders per year.
Tulsa used to be a great place to be if you were in telecom. Worldcom has is largest headquarters here, and we had many many other smaller firms before the bust. Tulsa was built with oil money, and in the 20s, Tulsa was the "Oil Capital of the World." Because of that, we have some very nice museums (nothing earth shaking, though.)
The public schools are pretty good, and in my opinion, it is just beautiful here. Springs and falls are gorgeous, winters are not that cold, and the only really nasty weather is in late July through August. Unlike a lot of the state, Tulsa has lots of hills and trees. I have been camping around here for years.
Is it the most exciting place to live? No, probably not. It's home to me, so it will always have a place in my heart, even if I am relocated. This place has a lot to offer, but it is hard to quantify. The last time i was in southern California the things I noticed were: 1) People everywhere, lines everyplace, bad traffic and 2) I couldn't see the stars very well at night. We have light pollution here, but it isn't nearly to the extent of southern California.
We don't have beaches, but we have tons of lakes for fishing and boating. Here, you can drive 25 minutes in one direction (sometimes less) and hit farmland, and not be in the city anymore. I can get anywhere in town in less than 30 mins, maybe a little more during rush hour.
How do you explain home to someone? I am finding this difficult, but I gave it my best shot.
You are very wrong. I have read my policy, and all homeowners insurances that I know of here cover tornado damage. Flooding is something different, and is not covered (one exception.)
But tornados definately are. If you have a heart attack and wreck your car while driving, and you have full coverage, that is listed as an "act of God" and you pay your dedcutable and make a claim.
I don't know where youg ot this, but it's not the case. Tornadoes, hail, falling trees, all that are covered under basic homeowners insurance.