the first bios that is universally applicable to ALL sort of computers.
In fact, not to long ago I flashed my bios: it was a pain in the ass to actually get the right one. While there are few brandname-bioses left, to actually get it working... Bios differs from motherboard to motherboard, let alone it could work on IBM boxes, Macs, etc.
And besides: how long would it take before ppl would find out, and how long before that vendor could close its business? There is no way to universally implement and force this legally; in fact, in some countries it would be downright illegal.
"Also, since the evil-doer might try to
hide his or her evil-doing by disconnecting the computer from
the network, the OP must be able to continue to communicate,
even under these circumstances. Meeting this requirement may
require that the OP client be able to reconfigure the user's
machine into a cell phone"
Isn't one phony-1st april-joke-post on slashdot enough for one day?
How would a computer be able to contact anyone (if the connection to the internet is broken), if it wasn't - a rather costly - hardware implemented? And why, then, couldn't you just disable that?
Besides, even if it were true, it's impossible to implement. even his first step would fail: who has ever heard of something that worked on ALL computers, regardless of configuration, type or OS?
And who would want such a thing? Certainly not government working agencies. And not even ordinary consumers. And FORCE it? By whome? Since when can the RIAA make the law for souvereign states? (ok, one begins to doubt sometimes, but still).
And then: being completely invisble and undetectable by any hacker? Big chance! The security record of the RIAA and any other commercial instances do not speak well in this respect.
Conclusion: the article is an aprils' fool, or just plain hoghwash.
While 20 liters of water (or any other liquid substance) will cause severe pain and will kill you when drunk at once (see torture-methods), the fact that it is spread on a time-period of 24 hours changes the picture completely.
If the body is given enough time/oportunity to get rid of a considerable amount of the liquid, then nothing will happen (exept a full blatter every hour).
So, provided it's evenly spread among the 24 hours, 100 glasses of water are consumable without any great averse affects.
that's all very well, but the spirit of the law did not provide for an income for the offspring. I would like to recall that, for the reasonings that were given to include copyright, it was meant to be very restrictive. It was NOT meant to be a nearly-perpetual income for corporations, nor a sustainable income for the offspring of the author.
Why ypour example would make bleed our harts, there are a lot of ppl after all, that are in the same position without that refuge. Copeyrights should not be a replacement for a solidarity icome for those left behind; that's what a state should care for in a social context. The law of copyright was never intended to be used for that, even if, in some occasional circumstances, one could see a proper use for it.
I think it's best when we let the original goal of the law supercede above the current speudo-income reason that is actually the root of the reasoning these days.
So, they could as well say 'Let's extend it to a billion years', and the courts would have agreed to it too?
I think there is a difference to the letter and to the spirit of things. Clearly, the founding fathers meant only to give a very limited amount of time, so that it would STIMULATE them for making more inventions. when it becomes so extended that it has the averse effect of stiffling, and when it is clearly nowhere to the original intentions anymore, then one has some right in saying that the true meaning has been corrupted, and the law should go back for what it was intended.
Apart from that, there is still the 'to the authors' phrase. I think the supreme court should have ruled that no copyrights may be granted after the death of the original author.
Your rights may become even far less, if the EU gets away with it's latest round of internet-despotism.
Soon, scientists and others all over europe may become sued when exposing flaws or reverse-engineering stuff. I therefor urge everyone to react, and this is how:
*PLEASE HELP TO WIDESPREAD*
14-15 April 2004 : Brussels is the Hub to go
Conferences and LUG in Brussels European Parliament Chaired by Dany Cohn-Bendit MEP
http://plone.ffii.org/events/2004/bxl04
http://www.greens-efa.org/agenda
http://laurence.domainepublic.net
Most legal frame related to new technologies is cooked up at Brussels. To get a feet into European Parliament's door and show that you care right before the election. Its future Members will decide on the patentability of software, on data privacy issues, TPRM, and so on), join an install party within parliament (and bring your favourite MEP with you), attend a panel with eg Alan COX, Georg GREVE, Jon Lech JOHANSEN (of decss fame), participate in a guided tour through brussels (anti-swpats "demo"), meet LUGs and programming rights groups from all over the place, and some chaotic nerds of FFII. A Wiki DSL connection will be available.
On 14 April evening, there will be a diner/party at restaurant La Tentation, in the center of Brussels. http://plone.ffii.org/events/2004 (also to book you hotel).
Entrance is free however to access the building you have to register online before 7 April http://www.greens-efa.org/agenda
Contact : lvandewalle@europarl.eu.int
euroG/LUGparty
Brussels European Parliament room ASP 1G2
15 April 2004
The Greens in European parliament invite representatives of GNU/Linux Users Groups of the 25 Member States of the European Union to come to Brussels to
- enhance the networking among the free software community in Europe(in particular with the New Member states)
- prepare the second reading on the software patents directive
- show inside EP what free software is, how it works and what ideas lie behind
- participate to the FFII conference and demo against software patents on 14 April
Programme and registration on http://www.greens-efa.org
lvandewalle@europarl.eu.int
PROGRAMME
9.00-11.00 25 G/LUGs for a Free Europe
Gathering European GNU/Linux Users Groups and associations for the promotion of free software : BxLUG - Belgium, RWO - Plug - Poland, Vrijschrift - The Netherlands, LiLux - Luxemburg, FFS Software - Austria, APRIL - HNS-info.net - France, GUUG - Germany, SSLUG - Sweden&Denmark, LUGOS - Slovenia, Debian - Latvia, AKL - Lithuania, LugRoma - Italy, Grece, Cyprus, Finland, Estonia,...
11.00-12.30 Linux Install Party for MEps with Monica Frassoni Dany Cohn-Bendit, Hiltrud Breyer, Bart Staes,... organized by BxLug
15.00 PANEL I: FAIR USE/COPIE PRIVEE
Gwen Hinze(Electronic Fronteer Foundation), Laurence Lebersorg(Test-Achat Belgium), Jon Lech Johansen(DVD-Jon)
16.00 PANEL II: FREE/OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE
Cristiano Paggetti(Italy): eGovernment,Andrea Glorioso (Italy) : Free Content, Herman Bruynickx(Belgium): Free software in education, Jens Muhlhaus(Germany): Public administration: Linux fur Munchen
17.00 PANEL III : FREE AS IN FREEDOM
Georg Greve, FSF Europe (Germany) Agenda 1910
17.30 Alan Cox www.linux.org.uk co-signatory of the letter sent by Linus Torvalds to the President of EP against software patents(UK)
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I doubt any space-agency will put people on Mars without extensive testing, including experimenting with domes on earth, basic research on the necessary techologies, etc.
I did not make a plee for the immediate grabbing of the nearest rocketbooster and tossing something together. But ultimately, true testing of humans living in space (or on a planet) can only be done by actually living in space, thus, to close all human space-related projects untill 'things are sorted out' is going to be counterproductive. As is diverting all money to non-human space-endeavours, like some would wish.
What you propose is: let us follow a sensible course of humanitary exploration. Well, I'm all for that, but in my view that isn't possible if one is going to stop all human spacetravel/experiments.
I wasn't complaining about democracy.;-) The problem with a one-ruler is that he's seldom 'enlightened' and freedom for the people is often the first thing to fall, together with being treated equal and given equal chances. But one should be realistic, and acknowledge the fact that there are some drawbacks to a democracy too.
As for the pyramids thing... that's why it's always so difficult to purely base a project on it's economic value. Where there better things to spend it on? Perhaps, depending on your definition of better. All those things that you describe if they had spend it on something else, could well have happend, but at the same time, the opposite might have happened.
People have a strangely distorted view on the building of the pyramids, which has been abandoned by archeologists a long time ago. Forget the picture of numerous slaves being whipped into work under inhumane slave-drivers... In fact, the building of the piramids were mostly done during the periods that the Nile didn't overflow. Thus, during periods the population did not need to work on the fields, and, in fact, had a difficult time getting enough work/food. The pyramid-project was welcommed by most, and they were treated as workers, not slaves.
The immense work provided enough food for all the workers for years, it had a strong unifying influence on the egyptian populace and culture, they created something that endured time and now generates income, even thousands of years after it was build - even if that wasn't the original purpose.
Was it that bad a project, then, one might wonder?
Maybe things could have gone better, but for the same token, egypt may have otherwise fallen apart by internal turmoil, and cultures inspired by it may not have achieved what they have now, and we might be off worse then we are today. So, really, it's speculation.
Apart from that, the difference with the colonisation of planets and the pyramids, is that the first is linked to our *survival* as a race, while one can't say the same of the pyramids.
But anyway, it were interesting points you raised, and brought in a rational manner, so I would say: mod it up!:-)
Warm fuzzy feelings, like, say, when having a house, cars, tv's and internet?;-) And you *did* say 'need', not more pleasant (and even then, are the pyramids making your life more pleasant?)
I'm not USA, and in fact, am not pro-USA at all (certainly not with the current government), so we can keep nationalistic feelings out of it. Would I feel it's a great accomplishement of/for the human race? Well certainly. But the main reason for my pro-stance is exactly that, which I have argumented in my above posts. I therefor take a bit of offence to the tone of your post.
You seem to be implying that your argumentation, which is primarely based on the economic benefits/science output is somehow worth more then my arguments. Well, that's rather easy. I could just say your reasoning is hogwash too, but it's rather meaningless as an argumentation. The truth is, it all comes down on how much one values one premise above another, and economic efficiency of spacetravel can be regarded as worthless or worthwhile as anything else. The values given to it are subjective.
And, btw, I already knew your 'FYI'.
Furthermore, you seem to mix two points: indeed, I am implying that a manned Mars mission would be the *FIRST STEP* for colonization. I fail to see how it wouldn't be a first step, since, obviously, one has to go to a planet a first time, if one ever want to colonise it.
That said, I did not imply that the very first marsmission will have the result of immediate colonisation of a planet. Hence; first step. You have to walk before you can run. Will additional research, in first instance robotic in nature, be necessary? Certainly. Contrary to some, I'm not claiming robotic probes should be abolished because it drains on human-based initiatives; rather I think they both have their place. But robots should be used to serve the goals of humans, and in my view, the ultimate goal is not being economical proficient or have the maximal science-output just for the sake of science, but for humans to colonise other planets and augment the chances of the human race and earths' ecosystem.
One objective does not exclude the other, IMHO, but it does mean there remains a hierarchy of priorities.
Now, I do understand your argument of 'maybe later, when things will be cheaper', and it has some validity. But then again, one can not claim the drive for expanding the human presence in space is alive and kicking, when you completely halt human exploration. And, in fact, the argument used that it's not economical beneficial in regard to robotic probes is ALWAYS going to be true: when hardware/etc costs are going to be only a 10th of today in the future, it STILL will be far more expensive to send humans then to simply send robotic probes.
So the argument is mute, in the sense that, if you accept the premisse, it's always going to be true. The real question thus becomes: what do you want to spend on human exploration, first steps or not? Clearly you seem to think the price is too high, while I think it's not. It does not follow, however, that my argumentation is false and 'hogwash', while yours is the only correct viewpoint on the matter.
We don't need the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxery, etc.
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
While I'm in principle all for democratic values and the lot, you cite the one major drawback of democratic governments.
If the pharao's had been presidents, and had had to pass their idea of a tombe (and the budget for it) through parliament and senate, we would never have had the pyramids.
Democracies are really bad in creating and sustaining truelly grand projects and visions.
That said, the populace isn't really totally opposed to the idea of spacetravel, otherwise it wouldn't be popular to say so (by politicians) and NASA would have closed down a long time ago.
In any case, it's not my job to sell it to people; I only want to point out the fallacies used when argumenting against it with motives that are purely based on economic motives.
The treat to conquer new grounds is not a tell-tale sign of a virus, but of life in general.
And frankly, the exploration of earth (or its ecology) is hardly that of a virus killing it's host, though the ultra-greens may often portray it that way. Earths' ecology ALWAYS changes; species appear and dissapear, and those that are most suited (and have spread the most around the globe) have the most chance of surviving.
The fact that a lot of current change is done by humans, may give it an air of artificiality, but to that idea I don't subscribe. Humans are still biological identies, and as such, need an ecology to survive in. 'Nature' or 'the world' does not care what particular ecology it sustains; as long as there is biological life, it exists, period.
Your premise that being self-aware is not a reason to colonise the solar system and then the galaxy is based on...what? I would claim it DOES (though it would not excuse us from being responsable - to alien life - while colonising).
If alien life is not omni-present on the planet, but only in small niches, I think it's worth considering to protect those niches, or create articial enclosures to preserve it - but still go on with the colonisation. Things would only be different if it's a planetwide alien ecology, or if there is alien sentient life involved.
As for your argument that it does not benefit the host; allow me to contradict. The mere fact that we would colonise other planets and introduce earths' ecology there, would augment the chances of earths' 'nature' to survive...therefor, it would benefit from our actions.
Infact, viewed from the point of 'Nature' (if it had a viewpoint, that is;-), we, humans, could be seen as merely the spermcells of Earth, and are the means to propagate itself so that the galaxy will eventually contain myriads of earths.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
It's should be noted that, for attaining a sustainable nuclear fusion, it's generally agreed on (by the fusion-experts) that tokamak-based systems have a vastly superior chance of doing the job.
It's always amazing how the people in charge (or that sponsor the project) seem to 'forget' this little detail. But, in fact, the critics are right. Billions and billions are wasted, on something that they know full well will never amount to a working fusion reactor that actually delivers energy to the market. The design (and goals, btw) are extremely unsuited to accomplish that, especially compared to the JET-project - http://www.jet.efda.org/ - (or actually the ITER-project).
And all the 'new things that have been learned' does not weigh up against the billions spend on it. The REAL reason (which they never mention) that they have gone through with this, is because of military pressure and animousity between the EU and USA on some key issues. Because, while a tokamak design yields the best results and opportunities for actual energy-output in a sustained, marketable way, the laser-pellet system is a lot more usefull in one respect: the study and experimentation of atomic/hydrogen fussions as they occur in bombs (explosive output). THAT is why they went for that project, because for usefull civilian experimentation, other ways of attaining nuclear fusion are far better suited.
Strange how you never seem to hear that aspect from the scientists/politicians involved.
(sorry, reposting this because my nick wasn't attached to my former post, and I would like to see eventual reactions)
I have had this idea since long, was a bit reluctant to share it, but hey, it's doubtfull I'll get a patent on it anyway (?):
"However, both goals - heating and thickening - could be achieved together, say researchers. One idea is to build a large mirror, many miles in diameter, and place it orbit above Mars...."
"The alternative would be to construct plants for generating super-greenhouse gases - made of complex combinations of carbon, chlorine and fluorine, and which are thousands of times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat."
Giant mirrors? Plants? I'm amazed at the lack of reality that those scientists have with comming up ways to terraform. Am I the only one to see this? Apart from the question if and when one should terraform (see other post), it is ludicrous to propose these sorts of things. A giant mirror would take ages to build, and years untill accomplishement...plants would take centuries to have any real impact.
There is a MUCH more efficient and cheap way of terraforming, wich, strangely enough, never seems to come to the mind of those terraforming-experts: use gentically modified bacteria.
On earth, we already have bacteria who produce methane. We also have extremophiles which can endure extremely harsh conditions (as are found on Mars). Combine the two points in a gentically modified bacteria, which thrives in the martian atmosphere, and produce methane.
Since no predators, nor food shortage (at least untill the atmosphere is satured) would be present, the amount of bacteria (and thus, the producing of methane) would grow in an exponetial rate. Within 15 years, the atmosphere would contain enough methane to augment the average temperature with 3-4 degrees, enough to melt the dry-ice of the polarcaps in a permanent way.
This in turn, would augment the pressure of the atmosphere, and, combined with steadely augmenting temperature, would lead to running surface water within 50 years. (At which time, one should note, an additional large amount of gases would be released, through the reaction of the surface water (and possible rain) with the elements of the corrosive ground of Mars. The chemical reaction would lead, once again, to a considerable extra input of gases, which in turn would make the atmosphere even more thicker.
Instead of billions and hundreds of years, with this sheme, one would only need millions and decennia at most.
The additional terraforming to make it habital for open *human* life would take more time, but even here are possible shortcuts with genetically modified bacteria (for instance, if one could establish a simple biological balance between oxygen-producing bacteria and co2-producing ones in the same amount as on Earth). In any case, the use of genetically modified bacteria, that have the survival-characteristics of extremophiles, could fasten the terraforming a thousandfold, with minimal costs, compared to any other sheme I have ever seen from the so-called scientific experts.
I hereby take a patent on it;-).
Seriously though; the concept of terraforming being extremely expensive and long-term is only true when limiting oneself to giant mirrors, putting black dust on the poles, creating massive co2-producing factory-plants on Mars and a lot of other totally unrealistic stuff that I have seen mentionned as possible ways for terraforming.
My way would be vastly cheaper and vastly more effcient/rapid.
Though the scientific potential of finding alien life is staggering, and one should do everything first to detect it, when push comes to shove, it's a matter of balancing things.
This implies that, when reasonable efforts are done to detect it, and none are found, I think one should go through with human colonisation. Anything else would amount to a moratorium: you are NEVER completely sure that there is no niche somewhere on a planet where life (as we know it or not, jim!) exists. Infact, those planets that have the most potential to sustain (alien) life, will often be those that have the most potential to be fterraformed.
And, while some may dispute it, human life (or at least intelligent life) comes first, period. We can see that in the reality on earth as well. While I'm all for procedures and inventions that reduce the medical experimenting on animals, for example, I do not subscribe to the idea of the ultra-greens that evrything in this regard should be forbidden and abolished. It's doubtfull that animal experiments can be totally abolished, and I have no problem with the necessary experiments, to ensure medicines are as safe as possible for human use. I think most would agree. This established one thing clearly: ultimately, humans come first (at least over non-sentient other beings).
In practical terms, what does this imply? Well, science certainly must have it's shot, and the discovery of alien life would be wonderfull and potentially very important, even in our daily lives. But, if, say, in 20 years of searching, nothing is found, and one can be reasonably sure that there is no life (or it's in such remote niches that it will not rapidely be contaminated anyway), I think one should start terraforming the planet, so that humans (and the earth ecology to sustain them) may thrive on another planet, thereby augmenting our survival (and that of the earth ecology).
If life IS found, however, things become more difficult. Certainly the timeframe in which to colonise/terraform would be much longer (if ever), depending on the level of alien ecological presence on the planet (small niches or not). Certainly, one could not let that alien life die, so, even if one did decide to terraform, then only after an artificial, viable surroundings is developped (sort of closed zoo, thus), where the alien ecology may be sustained indefinately.
I'm not going into safety-concerns here, since that's another topic.
But let's face it: when/if there are other alternatives in keeping alien (non-sentient) life in existence, then one should do that and go on with what is of most use to the human race anyway.
it could be better spend saving kids in africa from starvation. Idem for robotic probes-money. Or money to maintain our cities' statues.
And btw, it does 'invent', but the inventions are more based on the human condition and needs then on the purely technical ones you envision probes would deliver.
I'm agreeing that, on a purely technological front, probes can deliver more bang for their bucks.. but to state that human spacetravel is completely useless and doesn't lead to any inventions is that typical black&white portraying of things, again.
And, as said earlier, there is more to consider then economics or science.
Slashdot Mirror
the first bios that is universally applicable to ALL sort of computers.
In fact, not to long ago I flashed my bios: it was a pain in the ass to actually get the right one. While there are few brandname-bioses left, to actually get it working... Bios differs from motherboard to motherboard, let alone it could work on IBM boxes, Macs, etc.
And besides: how long would it take before ppl would find out, and how long before that vendor could close its business? There is no way to universally implement and force this legally; in fact, in some countries it would be downright illegal.
If you want some more info, go to: http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/p rocurement.shtml.
Isn't one phony-1st april-joke-post on slashdot enough for one day?
How would a computer be able to contact anyone (if the connection to the internet is broken), if it wasn't - a rather costly - hardware implemented? And why, then, couldn't you just disable that?
Besides, even if it were true, it's impossible to implement. even his first step would fail: who has ever heard of something that worked on ALL computers, regardless of configuration, type or OS?
And who would want such a thing? Certainly not government working agencies. And not even ordinary consumers. And FORCE it? By whome? Since when can the RIAA make the law for souvereign states? (ok, one begins to doubt sometimes, but still).
And then: being completely invisble and undetectable by any hacker? Big chance! The security record of the RIAA and any other commercial instances do not speak well in this respect.
Conclusion: the article is an aprils' fool, or just plain hoghwash.
The answer is; it's do-able.
While 20 liters of water (or any other liquid substance) will cause severe pain and will kill you when drunk at once (see torture-methods), the fact that it is spread on a time-period of 24 hours changes the picture completely.
If the body is given enough time/oportunity to get rid of a considerable amount of the liquid, then nothing will happen (exept a full blatter every hour).
So, provided it's evenly spread among the 24 hours, 100 glasses of water are consumable without any great averse affects.
It *ain't* your BD! You take us for (april)fools? ;-p
that's all very well, but the spirit of the law did not provide for an income for the offspring. I would like to recall that, for the reasonings that were given to include copyright, it was meant to be very restrictive. It was NOT meant to be a nearly-perpetual income for corporations, nor a sustainable income for the offspring of the author.
Why ypour example would make bleed our harts, there are a lot of ppl after all, that are in the same position without that refuge. Copeyrights should not be a replacement for a solidarity icome for those left behind; that's what a state should care for in a social context. The law of copyright was never intended to be used for that, even if, in some occasional circumstances, one could see a proper use for it.
I think it's best when we let the original goal of the law supercede above the current speudo-income reason that is actually the root of the reasoning these days.
So, they could as well say 'Let's extend it to a billion years', and the courts would have agreed to it too?
I think there is a difference to the letter and to the spirit of things. Clearly, the founding fathers meant only to give a very limited amount of time, so that it would STIMULATE them for making more inventions. when it becomes so extended that it has the averse effect of stiffling, and when it is clearly nowhere to the original intentions anymore, then one has some right in saying that the true meaning has been corrupted, and the law should go back for what it was intended.
Apart from that, there is still the 'to the authors' phrase. I think the supreme court should have ruled that no copyrights may be granted after the death of the original author.
Your rights may become even far less, if the EU gets away with it's latest round of internet-despotism.
...
... organized by BxLug
Soon, scientists and others all over europe may become sued when exposing flaws or reverse-engineering stuff. I therefor urge everyone to react, and this is how:
*PLEASE HELP TO WIDESPREAD*
14-15 April 2004 : Brussels is the Hub to go
Conferences and LUG in Brussels European Parliament Chaired by Dany Cohn-Bendit MEP
http://plone.ffii.org/events/2004/bxl04
http://www.greens-efa.org/agenda
http://laurence.domainepublic.net
Most legal frame related to new technologies is cooked up at Brussels. To get a feet into European Parliament's door and show that you care right before the election. Its future Members will decide on the patentability of software, on data privacy issues, TPRM, and so on), join an install party within parliament (and bring your favourite MEP with you), attend a panel with eg Alan COX, Georg GREVE, Jon Lech JOHANSEN (of decss fame), participate in a guided tour through brussels (anti-swpats "demo"), meet LUGs and programming rights groups from all over the place, and some chaotic nerds of FFII. A Wiki DSL connection will be available.
On 14 April evening, there will be a diner/party at restaurant La Tentation, in the center of Brussels. http://plone.ffii.org/events/2004 (also to book you hotel).
Entrance is free however to access the building you have to register online before 7 April http://www.greens-efa.org/agenda
Contact : lvandewalle@europarl.eu.int
euroG/LUGparty
Brussels European Parliament room ASP 1G2
15 April 2004
The Greens in European parliament invite representatives of GNU/Linux Users Groups of the 25 Member States of the European Union to come to Brussels to
- enhance the networking among the free software community in Europe(in particular with the New Member states)
- prepare the second reading on the software patents directive
- show inside EP what free software is, how it works and what ideas lie behind
- participate to the FFII conference and demo against software patents on 14 April
Programme and registration on http://www.greens-efa.org
lvandewalle@europarl.eu.int
PROGRAMME
9.00-11.00 25 G/LUGs for a Free Europe
Gathering European GNU/Linux Users Groups and associations for the promotion of free software : BxLUG - Belgium, RWO - Plug - Poland, Vrijschrift - The Netherlands, LiLux - Luxemburg, FFS Software - Austria, APRIL - HNS-info.net - France, GUUG - Germany, SSLUG - Sweden&Denmark, LUGOS - Slovenia, Debian - Latvia, AKL - Lithuania, LugRoma - Italy, Grece, Cyprus, Finland, Estonia,
11.00-12.30 Linux Install Party for MEps with Monica Frassoni Dany Cohn-Bendit, Hiltrud Breyer, Bart Staes,
15.00 PANEL I: FAIR USE/COPIE PRIVEE
Gwen Hinze(Electronic Fronteer Foundation), Laurence Lebersorg(Test-Achat Belgium), Jon Lech Johansen(DVD-Jon)
16.00 PANEL II: FREE/OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE
Cristiano Paggetti(Italy): eGovernment,Andrea Glorioso (Italy) : Free Content, Herman Bruynickx(Belgium): Free software in education, Jens Muhlhaus(Germany): Public administration: Linux fur Munchen
17.00 PANEL III : FREE AS IN FREEDOM
Georg Greve, FSF Europe (Germany) Agenda 1910
17.30 Alan Cox www.linux.org.uk co-signatory of the letter sent by Linus Torvalds to the President of EP against software patents(UK)
The link didn't come through: fairshare
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
I doubt any space-agency will put people on Mars without extensive testing, including experimenting with domes on earth, basic research on the necessary techologies, etc.
I did not make a plee for the immediate grabbing of the nearest rocketbooster and tossing something together. But ultimately, true testing of humans living in space (or on a planet) can only be done by actually living in space, thus, to close all human space-related projects untill 'things are sorted out' is going to be counterproductive. As is diverting all money to non-human space-endeavours, like some would wish.
What you propose is: let us follow a sensible course of humanitary exploration. Well, I'm all for that, but in my view that isn't possible if one is going to stop all human spacetravel/experiments.
I wasn't complaining about democracy. ;-) The problem with a one-ruler is that he's seldom 'enlightened' and freedom for the people is often the first thing to fall, together with being treated equal and given equal chances. But one should be realistic, and acknowledge the fact that there are some drawbacks to a democracy too.
:-)
As for the pyramids thing... that's why it's always so difficult to purely base a project on it's economic value. Where there better things to spend it on? Perhaps, depending on your definition of better. All those things that you describe if they had spend it on something else, could well have happend, but at the same time, the opposite might have happened.
People have a strangely distorted view on the building of the pyramids, which has been abandoned by archeologists a long time ago. Forget the picture of numerous slaves being whipped into work under inhumane slave-drivers... In fact, the building of the piramids were mostly done during the periods that the Nile didn't overflow. Thus, during periods the population did not need to work on the fields, and, in fact, had a difficult time getting enough work/food. The pyramid-project was welcommed by most, and they were treated as workers, not slaves.
The immense work provided enough food for all the workers for years, it had a strong unifying influence on the egyptian populace and culture, they created something that endured time and now generates income, even thousands of years after it was build - even if that wasn't the original purpose.
Was it that bad a project, then, one might wonder?
Maybe things could have gone better, but for the same token, egypt may have otherwise fallen apart by internal turmoil, and cultures inspired by it may not have achieved what they have now, and we might be off worse then we are today. So, really, it's speculation.
Apart from that, the difference with the colonisation of planets and the pyramids, is that the first is linked to our *survival* as a race, while one can't say the same of the pyramids.
But anyway, it were interesting points you raised, and brought in a rational manner, so I would say: mod it up!
But they *do* generate income for the population *now*, don't they?
;-).
So, argumentation for not building them back then, purely based on economic motives, fall short when you look at it *today*.
And, btw, if GWB would promise to drop dead the moment I agreed to sponsoring his tombe, I would consider giving a considerable amount of money
Warm fuzzy feelings, like, say, when having a house, cars, tv's and internet? ;-) And you *did* say 'need', not more pleasant (and even then, are the pyramids making your life more pleasant?)
I'm not USA, and in fact, am not pro-USA at all (certainly not with the current government), so we can keep nationalistic feelings out of it. Would I feel it's a great accomplishement of/for the human race? Well certainly. But the main reason for my pro-stance is exactly that, which I have argumented in my above posts. I therefor take a bit of offence to the tone of your post.
You seem to be implying that your argumentation, which is primarely based on the economic benefits/science output is somehow worth more then my arguments. Well, that's rather easy. I could just say your reasoning is hogwash too, but it's rather meaningless as an argumentation. The truth is, it all comes down on how much one values one premise above another, and economic efficiency of spacetravel can be regarded as worthless or worthwhile as anything else. The values given to it are subjective.
And, btw, I already knew your 'FYI'.
Furthermore, you seem to mix two points: indeed, I am implying that a manned Mars mission would be the *FIRST STEP* for colonization. I fail to see how it wouldn't be a first step, since, obviously, one has to go to a planet a first time, if one ever want to colonise it.
That said, I did not imply that the very first marsmission will have the result of immediate colonisation of a planet. Hence; first step. You have to walk before you can run. Will additional research, in first instance robotic in nature, be necessary? Certainly. Contrary to some, I'm not claiming robotic probes should be abolished because it drains on human-based initiatives; rather I think they both have their place. But robots should be used to serve the goals of humans, and in my view, the ultimate goal is not being economical proficient or have the maximal science-output just for the sake of science, but for humans to colonise other planets and augment the chances of the human race and earths' ecosystem.
One objective does not exclude the other, IMHO, but it does mean there remains a hierarchy of priorities.
Now, I do understand your argument of 'maybe later, when things will be cheaper', and it has some validity. But then again, one can not claim the drive for expanding the human presence in space is alive and kicking, when you completely halt human exploration. And, in fact, the argument used that it's not economical beneficial in regard to robotic probes is ALWAYS going to be true: when hardware/etc costs are going to be only a 10th of today in the future, it STILL will be far more expensive to send humans then to simply send robotic probes.
So the argument is mute, in the sense that, if you accept the premisse, it's always going to be true. The real question thus becomes: what do you want to spend on human exploration, first steps or not? Clearly you seem to think the price is too high, while I think it's not. It does not follow, however, that my argumentation is false and 'hogwash', while yours is the only correct viewpoint on the matter.
And they form a huge income of (tourist)resources to Egypt now.
We don't need the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxery, etc.
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
While I'm in principle all for democratic values and the lot, you cite the one major drawback of democratic governments.
If the pharao's had been presidents, and had had to pass their idea of a tombe (and the budget for it) through parliament and senate, we would never have had the pyramids.
Democracies are really bad in creating and sustaining truelly grand projects and visions.
That said, the populace isn't really totally opposed to the idea of spacetravel, otherwise it wouldn't be popular to say so (by politicians) and NASA would have closed down a long time ago.
In any case, it's not my job to sell it to people; I only want to point out the fallacies used when argumenting against it with motives that are purely based on economic motives.
The treat to conquer new grounds is not a tell-tale sign of a virus, but of life in general.
;-), we, humans, could be seen as merely the spermcells of Earth, and are the means to propagate itself so that the galaxy will eventually contain myriads of earths.
And frankly, the exploration of earth (or its ecology) is hardly that of a virus killing it's host, though the ultra-greens may often portray it that way. Earths' ecology ALWAYS changes; species appear and dissapear, and those that are most suited (and have spread the most around the globe) have the most chance of surviving.
The fact that a lot of current change is done by humans, may give it an air of artificiality, but to that idea I don't subscribe. Humans are still biological identies, and as such, need an ecology to survive in. 'Nature' or 'the world' does not care what particular ecology it sustains; as long as there is biological life, it exists, period.
Your premise that being self-aware is not a reason to colonise the solar system and then the galaxy is based on...what? I would claim it DOES (though it would not excuse us from being responsable - to alien life - while colonising).
If alien life is not omni-present on the planet, but only in small niches, I think it's worth considering to protect those niches, or create articial enclosures to preserve it - but still go on with the colonisation. Things would only be different if it's a planetwide alien ecology, or if there is alien sentient life involved.
As for your argument that it does not benefit the host; allow me to contradict. The mere fact that we would colonise other planets and introduce earths' ecology there, would augment the chances of earths' 'nature' to survive...therefor, it would benefit from our actions.
Infact, viewed from the point of 'Nature' (if it had a viewpoint, that is
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
;-)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
Meanwhile, in Russia; fishy killers without bucks have no balls!
It's always amazing how the people in charge (or that sponsor the project) seem to 'forget' this little detail. But, in fact, the critics are right. Billions and billions are wasted, on something that they know full well will never amount to a working fusion reactor that actually delivers energy to the market. The design (and goals, btw) are extremely unsuited to accomplish that, especially compared to the JET-project - http://www.jet.efda.org/ - (or actually the ITER-project).
And all the 'new things that have been learned' does not weigh up against the billions spend on it. The REAL reason (which they never mention) that they have gone through with this, is because of military pressure and animousity between the EU and USA on some key issues. Because, while a tokamak design yields the best results and opportunities for actual energy-output in a sustained, marketable way, the laser-pellet system is a lot more usefull in one respect: the study and experimentation of atomic/hydrogen fussions as they occur in bombs (explosive output). THAT is why they went for that project, because for usefull civilian experimentation, other ways of attaining nuclear fusion are far better suited.
Strange how you never seem to hear that aspect from the scientists/politicians involved.
(sorry, reposting this because my nick wasn't attached to my former post, and I would like to see eventual reactions)
;-).
I have had this idea since long, was a bit reluctant to share it, but hey, it's doubtfull I'll get a patent on it anyway (?):
"However, both goals - heating and thickening - could be achieved together, say researchers. One idea is to build a large mirror, many miles in diameter, and place it orbit above Mars...."
"The alternative would be to construct plants for generating super-greenhouse gases - made of complex combinations of carbon, chlorine and fluorine, and which are thousands of times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat."
Giant mirrors? Plants? I'm amazed at the lack of reality that those scientists have with comming up ways to terraform. Am I the only one to see this? Apart from the question if and when one should terraform (see other post), it is ludicrous to propose these sorts of things. A giant mirror would take ages to build, and years untill accomplishement...plants would take centuries to have any real impact.
There is a MUCH more efficient and cheap way of terraforming, wich, strangely enough, never seems to come to the mind of those terraforming-experts: use gentically modified bacteria.
On earth, we already have bacteria who produce methane. We also have extremophiles which can endure extremely harsh conditions (as are found on Mars). Combine the two points in a gentically modified bacteria, which thrives in the martian atmosphere, and produce methane.
Since no predators, nor food shortage (at least untill the atmosphere is satured) would be present, the amount of bacteria (and thus, the producing of methane) would grow in an exponetial rate. Within 15 years, the atmosphere would contain enough methane to augment the average temperature with 3-4 degrees, enough to melt the dry-ice of the polarcaps in a permanent way.
This in turn, would augment the pressure of the atmosphere, and, combined with steadely augmenting temperature, would lead to running surface water within 50 years. (At which time, one should note, an additional large amount of gases would be released, through the reaction of the surface water (and possible rain) with the elements of the corrosive ground of Mars. The chemical reaction would lead, once again, to a considerable extra input of gases, which in turn would make the atmosphere even more thicker.
Instead of billions and hundreds of years, with this sheme, one would only need millions and decennia at most.
The additional terraforming to make it habital for open *human* life would take more time, but even here are possible shortcuts with genetically modified bacteria (for instance, if one could establish a simple biological balance between oxygen-producing bacteria and co2-producing ones in the same amount as on Earth). In any case, the use of genetically modified bacteria, that have the survival-characteristics of extremophiles, could fasten the terraforming a thousandfold, with minimal costs, compared to any other sheme I have ever seen from the so-called scientific experts.
I hereby take a patent on it
Seriously though; the concept of terraforming being extremely expensive and long-term is only true when limiting oneself to giant mirrors, putting black dust on the poles, creating massive co2-producing factory-plants on Mars and a lot of other totally unrealistic stuff that I have seen mentionned as possible ways for terraforming.
My way would be vastly cheaper and vastly more effcient/rapid.
How comes my nickname isn't attached to my post above?
:-/
I submitted it with 'N3wsbyt3', but it didn't show up?
Though the scientific potential of finding alien life is staggering, and one should do everything first to detect it, when push comes to shove, it's a matter of balancing things.
This implies that, when reasonable efforts are done to detect it, and none are found, I think one should go through with human colonisation. Anything else would amount to a moratorium: you are NEVER completely sure that there is no niche somewhere on a planet where life (as we know it or not, jim!) exists. Infact, those planets that have the most potential to sustain (alien) life, will often be those that have the most potential to be fterraformed.
And, while some may dispute it, human life (or at least intelligent life) comes first, period. We can see that in the reality on earth as well. While I'm all for procedures and inventions that reduce the medical experimenting on animals, for example, I do not subscribe to the idea of the ultra-greens that evrything in this regard should be forbidden and abolished. It's doubtfull that animal experiments can be totally abolished, and I have no problem with the necessary experiments, to ensure medicines are as safe as possible for human use. I think most would agree. This established one thing clearly: ultimately, humans come first (at least over non-sentient other beings).
In practical terms, what does this imply? Well, science certainly must have it's shot, and the discovery of alien life would be wonderfull and potentially very important, even in our daily lives. But, if, say, in 20 years of searching, nothing is found, and one can be reasonably sure that there is no life (or it's in such remote niches that it will not rapidely be contaminated anyway), I think one should start terraforming the planet, so that humans (and the earth ecology to sustain them) may thrive on another planet, thereby augmenting our survival (and that of the earth ecology).
If life IS found, however, things become more difficult. Certainly the timeframe in which to colonise/terraform would be much longer (if ever), depending on the level of alien ecological presence on the planet (small niches or not). Certainly, one could not let that alien life die, so, even if one did decide to terraform, then only after an artificial, viable surroundings is developped (sort of closed zoo, thus), where the alien ecology may be sustained indefinately.
I'm not going into safety-concerns here, since that's another topic.
But let's face it: when/if there are other alternatives in keeping alien (non-sentient) life in existence, then one should do that and go on with what is of most use to the human race anyway.
it could be better spend saving kids in africa from starvation. Idem for robotic probes-money. Or money to maintain our cities' statues.
And btw, it does 'invent', but the inventions are more based on the human condition and needs then on the purely technical ones you envision probes would deliver.
I'm agreeing that, on a purely technological front, probes can deliver more bang for their bucks.. but to state that human spacetravel is completely useless and doesn't lead to any inventions is that typical black&white portraying of things, again.
And, as said earlier, there is more to consider then economics or science.