Whenever US mainstream media writes about piracy they use the word "illegal" over and over again. For example, the link in TFS, SFGate writes "illegal release". Same thing with NYTimes, Washington Post etc... "illegal filesharing" this and "illegal piracy" that. Whenever a new release group is shut down the media use these words along with "stolen", "illicit" (you get the idea).
Why? I live in Sweden. Our mainstream media sure talk about piracy alot, but I have never seen them talk about "illegal" trading etc, even if it is against the law. I have never seen the word "stolen" in the context of piracy either, in Swedish newspapers. Is this something normal for US papers? Do they write about "illegal murder", "illegal robbery" etc too? Or is this just sligtly modified PR?
I've never heard "illegal piracy;" that would be redundant because piracy is by definition illegal. The reason for explicitly stating "illegal filesharing" is that not all filesharing is illegal. When people refer to "stealing" in the context of filesharing, they do not mean stealing the data itself. They mean stealing the *exclusive rights* to modify and redistribute the data (which is what an author gains when he copyrights his work). If someone illegally copies the data, he hasn't stolen the data; he's stolen the exclusive rights. This means that the copier has taken the exclusivity away from the author, hence "stealing" this right. No one refers to "illegal murder" because, like "illegal piracy," it would be redundant. Think of it sort of like "illegal drugs." Some drugs are legal and others are not; some filesharing is legal and some is not.
I was planning on getting a Treo and setting it up with a Socket Communications barcode reader to explore that kind of functionality in a PDA. I hope they don't outright kill the Palm OS on their devices but rather carry both. I'd like to have an alternative to Microsoft when trying out those kinds of device setups. I keep coming across hardware I want that only works with Windows, like mobile phones and sheet-feed scanners, and it is frustrating.
I agree, that is why GPL 3 should -- wait. Perhaps you meant to post here??
I'd ask you to name me one superpower in the history of humanity that hasn't had this circumstance. Nations of power try to steer things their way. That's the way the world works. Those who are whining about how egregious the U.S. is these days would themselves be steering things their way if they had the power we currently hold.
There never has been a true philanthropic superpower. In fact, the US is one of if not the most benevolent super powers in history. I would be very surprised if another superpower in the future was more selfless than the US.
At the rist of sounding callous, nobody has yet given me any solid reasoning as to why the United States should care about anyone's priorities other than its own. Now, before the knee-jerkers go into apopletic fits over that statement, understand that the U.S. has a vested interest in fostering good relations with other nations. However, that interest is moderated by our desire to marginalize or intimidate nations that are diametrically opposed to our national goals. There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to nation vs. nation.
You raise a very good question. In a sense, the first obligation of countries is to themselves, but IMHO the Declaration of Independence demands that the US consider the interests of the world in the same regard as its own. If we believe that "all men are created equal," do mean that non-Americans are lesser beings? If we have the opportunity to save a million lives in, say, Darfur, at the cost of very few if any American soldiers, would military intervention be worthwhile in Sudan? Yes. Even though it's not in our specific interest, it's in the world's interest. In other words, if we can help out more foreigners, even at the lesser expense of Americans, we ought to. This is especially true of a superpower like ours, because we have so many resources that we will not destroy ourselves through humanitarian activities like a weaker nation might.
Fortunately, as you said, the world's interests usually coincide with ours. I supported the war in Iraq because I believed it would be in the world's interests, but also in the US's interests, as an example.
let's look at this realistically: the USA is struggling to hold down a relatively small resistance in a tiny and weak and already-battered country like Iraq, do you honestly think the US would have a snowball's chance in hell of asserting a position of dominance/control if it had to go to war with, say, China? Of course China's military is much smaller than the US's, but that's besides the point, compare it to the strength of the insurgency in Iraq - it's a thousand Iraqs, and with even more nationalist sentiment that will perpetuate a never-ending (and ever-increasing) resistance to the US if this ever happened.
The problem with the Iraqi insurgency isn't the number of insurgents. It's that the conflict isn't a conventional war. The insurgency could never defeat coalition forces militarily. They can however defeat them politically by wearing down public support for the war. If the US invaded China like it did Iraq, the conventional war would be much more costly (mostly because they have nuclear weapons), but once the dust settled, what would make a Chinese insurgency (if one even arose) more difficult would be that there are so many more *civilians* for them to hide amongst; the size of the Chinese army wouldn't matter in the occupation.
None of the paths you advocate make any sense. The key to a peaceful, prosperous future on Earth lies in looking at what the US did when they literally "united the states" --- get everyone working on the 'same side'. Seems the US has forgotten this though, but that is how the US became so prosperous in the first place.
Actually, the way the US became prosperous was by throwing off the shackles of monarchy by military means and subsequently setting up a democratic government. The United States weren't too "united" during the conflict either. Only one third of the American public supported the revolution. Looking with hindsight now, we realize that choosing democracy was the right decision, even though it bore both a human and economic cost.
Anyway, I think we actually do agree to a certain extent. The US must and should talk with the rest of the world; but it does. The US did go to the UN and everyone recognizes that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions. The question was whether or not the world was going to actually enforce the resolutions, and the US finally decided it would. I'm all for the world getting together decide the rules through diplomacy, but that also means deciding to enforce them. Americans are by no means angels, and they went to war primarily because they believed it was in their interest. But my point is that the UN makes itself irrelevant if it refuses to enforce its own rules, even though those rules were made through international consensus. (Note: I know that some will argue the sanctions placed on Iraq were the enforcement mechanism, but we all know that it was the Iraqi people, not Saddam, who primarily suffered under them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions; I don't think such a costly and still ineffective punishment is worth it.)
Your view is quite under-represented here, and the people modding you as "Funny" to mock you indicate this. These moderators simply can't accept that someone who disagrees with them could possibly be insightful. While I agree with the gist of your post, that the US isn't the warmongering, imperial power that many on Slashdot portray it as, I'm going to disagree with a few of your points.
what has the U.S. done with this power? Have we engaged in wars of conquest across the globe? No, we have not. The United States hasn't conquered, occupied, and retained possession of a single piece of territory since the Spanish-American war! We left Europe after WWI, only to return to liberate it again during WWII. Then, having sacrificed the better portion of an entire generation of American young men, we left again without making any territorial claims. We left Germany after helping to rebuild. We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.
First, Americans are not 100% philanthropic with the military. Nearly every use of American force has been motivated primarily by US national interests. That's not to say that these uses were bad or that there weren't also humanitarian motivations. Let's take WWII for an example. Had the US not joined the Allies, the war may well have been lost and we'd all be living under Nazi rule today. However, the US did not join the fight because it believed it would benefit the world. Americans only began fighting after the Japanese brought them into it with Pearl Harbor. Was American involvement a good thing? Yes, very much so. Did the Americans join to save the world? No, they joined to save themselves (and in the process everyone else).
Second, though this is minor nitpicking, we haven't left Germany, Korea, Kuwait or the Balkans. In fact, we only left the countries in which we effectively lost the fight (Vietnam and Somalia). This doesn't conflict with your general argument, that we didn't stay in these places and form an empire out of them; I'm just saying we haven't left. There are valid reasons for the US to have troops in these places that have nothing to do with imperialism.
1. Microsoft buys up a chair manufacturer in Silicon Valley.
2. Have Ballmer stand in front of Google HQ.
3. Tell him that a few more Microsoft employees are moving to Google.
4. Get out of the way.
While I see (I hope) what you're trying to say and I even agree, I have to poke into your argument (I'm curious):
While we may and must call the deal between one drsquare and one landlord as "agreement" what do we call it when (almost) all the landlors form a "coalition" and all of them enforce very similar "rules" which are... say... more in favor of landlords?
I think we do basically agree, but I'll still argue that enforcing copyright is not an unethical activity. If a bunch of landlords got together and agreed to all simultaneously raise prices, that is price gouging, which is illegal. If the MPAA is facilitating price gouging, I'm all for prosecuting them, but I've yet to hear of this. From what we can tell, movie producers are charging prices as high as they can before they start to lose customers (i.e., maximizing profits), which is how the free, ungouged market is supposed to work.
While I do not like wars I for sure will at least try to fight if someone attacks me. So maybe that's the rationale behing this "Your rights online" and "MPAA/RIAA/..." thing?
Setting terms of use or prices that certain customers don't agree with is not an "attack" on these customers. Perhaps you and I don't care to spend money on movies or music; in that case, we simply don't. We might not have the music or movies that we want, but then again, the MPAA/RIAA don't have the money they want either. That's fair.
This new technology is merely designed to enforce the rules that MPAA customers have already agreed to. If you didn't agree to them (I didn't), don't worry about them.
The reason why DRM isn't a violation of YRO is that no one is forcing you to agree to it. If I draft an agreement stating that I will exchange one penny for you mowing my lawn for the rest of my life, is that an "attack" on you? No, because you will only be hurt by the agreement if you voluntarily agree to abide by it.
What *is* wrong is when consumers buy copyrighted material knowing full well that they're prohibited from redistributing it, and then they go off and blatantly violate the agreement. That is essentially reverse price gouging; the consumers simply agree amongst themselves to arbitrarily set the prices down to $0. Do you not oppose this attack on the recording/movie industry? Do you not think they should attempt to fight this attack?
In other words, if you don't like the price of something, take it illegally instead. It's not your fault for breaking the law, it's someone else's fault for pricing it wrong. After all, Slashdot posters have a god-given right to DEMAND how anyone else does business.
... If you don't like the price of something, don't buy it....
Precisely. This is exactly why I fail to understand why this is story is classified under "Your Rights Online." You might not like the prices of movies or music, but guess what? If you don't like the prices, or if you don't like that the RIAA or MPAA won't let you redistribute copies of their material, no one is forcing you to buy it. But just for fun, let's see what it would be like if we extended this idea of the dictator consumer to the rest of the economy:
Suppose you are looking for a new apartment to rent. You have already decided what you want. You want to install your hot tub in the living room, and you won't pay more than $50/mo. You set an appointment with the landlord of an apartment you are interested in. When you arrive, he/she shows you around the apartment.
Landlord: And here is the living room.
You: Now, if I moved in this weekend, would it be alright if I installed my hot tub on Sunday?
Landlord: What hot tub?
You: I want to install a hot tub. And what's this with this three digit monthly rent I see you hiding behind your back. You know that I demand no more than $50 per month.
Landlord: Uh, I'm sorry, but I can't allow you to install it. It violates my rental agreement. And I've already told you that the rent is $200/mo or best offer.
You: But it is my *right* to install a hot tub! I will be living in this living room, and living rooms must be free as in freedom! And how dare you charge a rent above my arbitrary price range!
Landlord: Actually, I own the living room because I invested in it, and if you want to live here you have to abide by the agreement. Otherwise, you'll have to go find another living room that is "free as in freedom."
You: Hah! You will be hearing shortly from the lawyers at the Living Room Frontier Foundation!
You storm out of the room, and submit a story to Slashdot under the Your Rights in the Hot Tub section, criticizing the Landlord for installing Power Rights Management (an electricity meter) in his apartments to make sure that people aren't installing power sucking devices like hot tubs.
I thought the best "technology" was to make a decent product. Then people would likely feel more inclined to actually pay for it, rather than waste their $$$ on a turd.
Why would you pirate a "turd?" If no one enjoyed the music or movies they were pirating, they wouldn't be pirating it. If people can get away with getting something for free, through either legal or illegal means, they will do it depending on how easy it is. It's harder to get away with, say, shoplifting because it's more difficult to get away with. The reason that piracy is so common is that it's so easy. This new technology is designed to make it harder, and thus reduce it.
Actually, it does look like just a tangent of traditional trigonometry.
Yes, for example, his idea of "spread" substituting for angle seems to be just like the sine of an angle (see page 4). Correct me if I'm wrong, but this basically seems to be renaming a bunch of stuff. He might have found an easier way for people new to trig to learn it, but I can't see how this would make everyone who uses it suddenly begin using spread instead of sine and quadrance instead of distance.
Actually, intellectual property includes all three. There is something called "intellectual property;" it's ownership of ideas.
But "Intellectual Property" is not a term you can use intelligently, only as a way to further the company propaganda-machine. This example clearly shows it is not suitable for intelligent readership. I heard this from RMS last time he visited Norway.
I'm not meaning to troll, but I get the impression that you think that just because you heard this claim from RMS that it becomes self-evidently true. We all know that RMS thinks IP doesn't exist. If you want to argue he's right, tell us why you think so, not "he said it."
You can call it a "company propaganda-machine" idea, but you do nothing to tell us why it's invalid. But I will say that intellectual property is a term you can use intelligently. IP is a way of representing the labor involved in the creation of ideas. There are obviously silly disputes that arise in this system (this story is one of them) and various other silliness (like software patents), but to say that this discredits all intellectual property is an overreaction, to say the least.
It's great to debate this... but if you want to throw out a system that's been around for hundreds of years, you need to justify it with more than "Look, it's got a scratch!" and "RMS said so!"
Use of the word 'property' implies that the products of our intellects - ideas - can be owned in the same way as a chair or a house. The term 'intellectual property' was coined to imply some kind of parity between the rights offered to patent, copyright and trademark holders and those offered to the owners of property. Ditto use of 'theft' instead of 'misapropriation' to refer to copyright infringement. Ideas are not property and they should never become property.
The idea behind intellectual property is that it takes labor to come up with ideas. Copyright allows those who work on creating ideas to make sure that their paid for their labor, just like those who make physical objects like chairs or houses. Were it not for copyright, it would be impossible to make money from actually creating, say, software. Yes, companies like Red Hat are free software companies, but they do not make their money by actually making software. They make money through subscriptions which involve bonuses like support. In other words, other than donations, FOSS makes essentially no money by simply being available in the market.
Look at a carpenter who builds a chair. Does he care whether you get a chair for free or not? No, he cares about getting the money he deserves for building it. Does a musician have a problem with more people hearing his music? No, he has a problem with people not paying him for the work he put into creating it. And if you think that the prices the musician or programmer are charging are too high, you have an easy solution: don't buy their music or software.
I agree that software patents are silly, because it's easy for different people to come up with the same algorithm, putting in the same amount of work. However, there is nothing ethically wrong with copyright. RMS, Linus and others can still write a Unix clone without violating copyright, because they're putting in actual work. I love FOSS as much as anyone, but IP is a perfectly valid system because it's the only effective way of representing the labor involved in idea creation in a market.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but here I go...
What good is the Internet? It lets you shop from Amazon, and not the local mom and pop store in your neighborhood? Or is it because you can get kiddie porn from half way around the world, where it is not illegal?
Let's consider what you're saying. You believe the Internet, a product of science and technology, is a harmful thing because you believe it is (A) increasing competition in the market and (B) people can use it to view child pornography? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this evil Internet the same one that you're using to troll on Slashdot?
The Internet is a tool, and you can use it for noble or not-so-noble purposes. I think that we already agree the Internet is a good thing, and it shows that science and technology are capable of at least *something* good. If you disagree, explain why the heck you're using it.
As for smallpox, I don't know why we have it. Maybe it is like AIDS, and we need to get rid of a certain kind of immoral people?
Er, yeah, just like the "immoral" Indians who were slaughtered by both smallpox and their *Christian* conquerors from Europe.
You and the Bible may not be able to explain why smallpox exists, but science can.
Did you ever think if we did not have fags, we would not be wasting money trying to cure a disease that will cure itself? Maybe we could fight cancer?
Did you ever think that the vast majority of AIDS victims aren't homosexual? Did you ever think that perhaps disease isn't a punishment from a god, but rather a natural occurance in biological systems? Maybe we could fight cancer? I'd like to see how you're going to fight cancer without science.
And what do we have from "splicing" genes? Genetically engineered corn that the rich will never eat, that is only to be forced on the poor? It causes cancer.
From advances in genetics, we are able to use DNA to much more accurately convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. From advances in genetics, we are able to make food safer and cheaper by being less reliant on pesticides. GM food isn't "only forced on the poor." I'm fairly well off, and given a choice I will always eat genetically modified food.
Let me guess, the science changes? One study will negate another.
Science changes because learn new things about the world all the time. Has your view of the world changed at all since you were born? Yes? Perhaps because you learned new things? Exactly. If science insisted that our understanding of the world 2500 years ago, which was gods directing the universe from Mount Olympus, was still accurate in light of all the new knowledge collected by humans in the meantime, is would be as silly as a 30 year old viewing his world like an infant.
This was my first thought but if you read the article it mentions this at the end:
The most popular versions of string theory suggest that there are as many as eight extra dimensions, not just three.
Yes, exactly. Three space dimensions we know exist plus eight extra (including time) equals eleven total dimensions. So apparently, there's no inconsistency between this research and current string theory.
My solution was to get rid of my car, and get a bike!
Hurrah! Someone else who has seen the light! I too ride my bike in conjunction with riding the bus across town for my transportation. Sure, it might not be quite as convenient, but when you consider all of the costs of a car (the car itself, gas, insurance, etc.) it far outweighs the extra time it takes for alternative transportation (because time is money). Not to mention the healthy exercise and environmental brownie points for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. I sure hope that higher gas prices cause more people to look at ways to avoid driving, as you've done, or at least look at driving more efficient vehicles (i.e., getting rid of all of these ridiculous SUVs).
An old professor of mine who was a string theory expert (i very much am not) once told me most of the maths he does deals with 11 dimensions.
Yup, string theory (or more specifically M-theory) requires 11 dimensions. Since string theorists have yet to find truly compelling experimental evidence for the theory, could this possibly provide such evidence (anyone who knows more about string theory?)? (No, I didn't RTFA.)
It is my humble belief that the USSC was our last sane branch of government. Call Reinquist what you will, but he was an honest man of a different generation. I truely believe that with his loss, we will be forced to face a USSC with another younger and less principled justice. I really feel that we are going from a court dedicated to interpitation of the constitution to one that just may be another political tool to enforce a given ideology.
The Constitution is designed to make the Supreme Court reflect shifts in the public opinion, but only very slowly so that temporary jitters are smoothed out. Like it or not (and personally, I don't like a lot of it), the country has moved to the right in many ways in recent years by electing Bush and a Republican Congress. "Interpretation" of the Constitution is a subjective process, and many disagree on how to interpret different aspects of it. These shifts will just result in a different interpretation, which some might call "enforcing ideology."
Rehnquist was honest, but I don't see any point in prejudging Bush's yet-to-be-announced nominee for his spot. Roberts seems to be quite reasonable, and if he is any indication of what Bush will bring, I don't think there's an enormous amount to be worried about (especially since Rehnquist was already conservative).
This is a scary time in the US. We have never had ALL of our branches of government run by a political party with control centered in the hands of so very few. Truly a scary time.
I wouldn't say that we've never had such a situation before, but yes, I agree with you, it is quite worrisome. We need to get some balance sooner rather than later.
The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
Darwinian evolution says that organisms evolve as a result of random, natural variations being naturally selected for. Intelligent design "theory" disagrees with this because it replaces natural selection with "intelligent" selection. It would be like trying to rewrite Einstein's equation E=mc^2 by replacing m with, say, v for volume, and saying that E=mc^2=vc^2. Both the analogy and the claim that intelligent design is compatible with evolution are completely false (the equation is completely ridiculous, but then again, some would say the same of ID).
There is no scientific evidence for this, and its advocates propose no experiments or investigations we can use to even start to test their ideas.
The point here is that supporters of ID like the discovery are not doing any science; they're carrying out a PR campaign that has success because much of the American public knows little or nothing about just how solid the science underlying evolution is. It's much easier to get acceptance of completely unscientific ideas as science in the general public than it is in the scientific community, which will demand empirical scrutiny.
And exemplifies just how evil it really is.
What if we couldn't read Einsteins papers because our key is no longer valid?
We will always be able to read Einstein's papers (as well as all other scientific papers) because science is not like engineering or art. Science doesn't have an economic purpose. It's whole point is to spread knowledge about the world, and restricting it would be pointless.
DRM in libraries is a horrible thought. I don't care if the terms are fair so far, the concept is bad enough on its own to warrant boycott.
When you check a book out at the library, it doesn't become yours. You aren't allowed to scribble in it or keep it forever. If you don't want to accept the terms of borrowing a book, no one's forcing you too. The same is true of DRM. Borrowing DRMed stuff from a library is your choice. If you don't want it, don't borrow it; but there's nothing wrong with borrowing it if the terms suit your needs.
So; my Lotus, which has a Toyota engine, Toyota gearbox, Toyota running gear, and a Lotus-modified Toyota enigine control system, then logically be called a Lotus/Toyota....... or is that Toyota/Lotus, since the engine (kernel) is make by Toyota....
Because GNU is a lot more than an "engine control system." It's a complete operating system (i.e. car) built around the Linux kernel (i.e. engine).
Makes sense.... after all a car without an engine wouldn' t do much, would it?
Nope, and an engine without car doesn't do much more either. That's why almost no one runs Linux without GNU.
Actually, I think you'd still call it OS X because while Mach is the name of its kernel, there is only one Mac OS X.
There is only one GNU...
No-one is trying to deny the contribution of the FSF or the importance of the GNU tool set, but a lot of people find "GNU/Linux" unwieldy, and I'm one of them. So, I'm sorry, but I'll continue using the word "Linux" when meaning "Linux distributions" or similar.
I know, I say "Linux" a lot too, just because I don't usually want to start a debate everytime I talk about it. But if you want a shorthand, call it "GNU" then. I call things all kinds of shorthand in casual discussion, but we ought to agree that the full, formal name of the platform should be "GNU" or "GNU/Linux."
try to tell me there are no Mitsubshi parts in Toyotas.
The point here is that GNU didn't just put a few parts into the OS; they wrote the bulk of the most basic userland utilities included in virtually every "Linux" distro. It would be like calling the Boeing 777 the "GE 777" because they built the engines.
RMS wants a little recognition, and while I understand that, it seems... distasteful to focus so much on squeezing out some small bit of credit.
I agree, he can be obsessive about this. However, even though many of his ideas are ridiculous, he does have a legitimate point on this issue.
So why call it anything? Do I call my Toyota a Ford/Toyota after the father of the production line? I mean, without the modern production line, where would Toyota be? We should give Henry Ford the credit, right?
We don't include "Ford" in Toyota because there are no Ford components in Toyota's cars. But in virtually every Linux distro, there's far more GNU code running than Linux code.
I can't argue that GNU's contribution is insignificant. But who cares what the name is? And prefixing things with GNU is just ridiculous. The point has been made - where do you draw the line? Am I running Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin on my Mac at the moment? Maybe MacOSX is a better name for it, and is more easily marketable.
Actually, using your logic, you wouldn't call OS X "Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin," nor would you call it "MacOS X." You would call it "Mach" because that's the kernel it uses.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever US mainstream media writes about piracy they use the word "illegal" over and over again. For example, the link in TFS, SFGate writes "illegal release". Same thing with NYTimes, Washington Post etc... "illegal filesharing" this and "illegal piracy" that. Whenever a new release group is shut down the media use these words along with "stolen", "illicit" (you get the idea).
Why? I live in Sweden. Our mainstream media sure talk about piracy alot, but I have never seen them talk about "illegal" trading etc, even if it is against the law. I have never seen the word "stolen" in the context of piracy either, in Swedish newspapers. Is this something normal for US papers? Do they write about "illegal murder", "illegal robbery" etc too? Or is this just sligtly modified PR?
I've never heard "illegal piracy;" that would be redundant because piracy is by definition illegal. The reason for explicitly stating "illegal filesharing" is that not all filesharing is illegal. When people refer to "stealing" in the context of filesharing, they do not mean stealing the data itself. They mean stealing the *exclusive rights* to modify and redistribute the data (which is what an author gains when he copyrights his work). If someone illegally copies the data, he hasn't stolen the data; he's stolen the exclusive rights. This means that the copier has taken the exclusivity away from the author, hence "stealing" this right. No one refers to "illegal murder" because, like "illegal piracy," it would be redundant. Think of it sort of like "illegal drugs." Some drugs are legal and others are not; some filesharing is legal and some is not.
that the response was basically an ad?
;)
Yeah, but it was written by the KOffice *Marketing* Coordinator, so that might be expected.
I was planning on getting a Treo and setting it up with a Socket Communications barcode reader to explore that kind of functionality in a PDA. I hope they don't outright kill the Palm OS on their devices but rather carry both. I'd like to have an alternative to Microsoft when trying out those kinds of device setups. I keep coming across hardware I want that only works with Windows, like mobile phones and sheet-feed scanners, and it is frustrating.
I agree, that is why GPL 3 should -- wait. Perhaps you meant to post here??
I'd ask you to name me one superpower in the history of humanity that hasn't had this circumstance. Nations of power try to steer things their way. That's the way the world works. Those who are whining about how egregious the U.S. is these days would themselves be steering things their way if they had the power we currently hold.
There never has been a true philanthropic superpower. In fact, the US is one of if not the most benevolent super powers in history. I would be very surprised if another superpower in the future was more selfless than the US.
At the rist of sounding callous, nobody has yet given me any solid reasoning as to why the United States should care about anyone's priorities other than its own. Now, before the knee-jerkers go into apopletic fits over that statement, understand that the U.S. has a vested interest in fostering good relations with other nations. However, that interest is moderated by our desire to marginalize or intimidate nations that are diametrically opposed to our national goals. There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to nation vs. nation.
You raise a very good question. In a sense, the first obligation of countries is to themselves, but IMHO the Declaration of Independence demands that the US consider the interests of the world in the same regard as its own. If we believe that "all men are created equal," do mean that non-Americans are lesser beings? If we have the opportunity to save a million lives in, say, Darfur, at the cost of very few if any American soldiers, would military intervention be worthwhile in Sudan? Yes. Even though it's not in our specific interest, it's in the world's interest. In other words, if we can help out more foreigners, even at the lesser expense of Americans, we ought to. This is especially true of a superpower like ours, because we have so many resources that we will not destroy ourselves through humanitarian activities like a weaker nation might.
Fortunately, as you said, the world's interests usually coincide with ours. I supported the war in Iraq because I believed it would be in the world's interests, but also in the US's interests, as an example.
I think we basically agree here.
let's look at this realistically: the USA is struggling to hold down a relatively small resistance in a tiny and weak and already-battered country like Iraq, do you honestly think the US would have a snowball's chance in hell of asserting a position of dominance/control if it had to go to war with, say, China? Of course China's military is much smaller than the US's, but that's besides the point, compare it to the strength of the insurgency in Iraq - it's a thousand Iraqs, and with even more nationalist sentiment that will perpetuate a never-ending (and ever-increasing) resistance to the US if this ever happened.
The problem with the Iraqi insurgency isn't the number of insurgents. It's that the conflict isn't a conventional war. The insurgency could never defeat coalition forces militarily. They can however defeat them politically by wearing down public support for the war. If the US invaded China like it did Iraq, the conventional war would be much more costly (mostly because they have nuclear weapons), but once the dust settled, what would make a Chinese insurgency (if one even arose) more difficult would be that there are so many more *civilians* for them to hide amongst; the size of the Chinese army wouldn't matter in the occupation.
None of the paths you advocate make any sense. The key to a peaceful, prosperous future on Earth lies in looking at what the US did when they literally "united the states" --- get everyone working on the 'same side'. Seems the US has forgotten this though, but that is how the US became so prosperous in the first place.
Actually, the way the US became prosperous was by throwing off the shackles of monarchy by military means and subsequently setting up a democratic government. The United States weren't too "united" during the conflict either. Only one third of the American public supported the revolution. Looking with hindsight now, we realize that choosing democracy was the right decision, even though it bore both a human and economic cost.
Anyway, I think we actually do agree to a certain extent. The US must and should talk with the rest of the world; but it does. The US did go to the UN and everyone recognizes that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions. The question was whether or not the world was going to actually enforce the resolutions, and the US finally decided it would. I'm all for the world getting together decide the rules through diplomacy, but that also means deciding to enforce them. Americans are by no means angels, and they went to war primarily because they believed it was in their interest. But my point is that the UN makes itself irrelevant if it refuses to enforce its own rules, even though those rules were made through international consensus. (Note: I know that some will argue the sanctions placed on Iraq were the enforcement mechanism, but we all know that it was the Iraqi people, not Saddam, who primarily suffered under them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions; I don't think such a costly and still ineffective punishment is worth it.)
Your view is quite under-represented here, and the people modding you as "Funny" to mock you indicate this. These moderators simply can't accept that someone who disagrees with them could possibly be insightful. While I agree with the gist of your post, that the US isn't the warmongering, imperial power that many on Slashdot portray it as, I'm going to disagree with a few of your points.
what has the U.S. done with this power? Have we engaged in wars of conquest across the globe? No, we have not. The United States hasn't conquered, occupied, and retained possession of a single piece of territory since the Spanish-American war! We left Europe after WWI, only to return to liberate it again during WWII. Then, having sacrificed the better portion of an entire generation of American young men, we left again without making any territorial claims. We left Germany after helping to rebuild. We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.
First, Americans are not 100% philanthropic with the military. Nearly every use of American force has been motivated primarily by US national interests. That's not to say that these uses were bad or that there weren't also humanitarian motivations. Let's take WWII for an example. Had the US not joined the Allies, the war may well have been lost and we'd all be living under Nazi rule today. However, the US did not join the fight because it believed it would benefit the world. Americans only began fighting after the Japanese brought them into it with Pearl Harbor. Was American involvement a good thing? Yes, very much so. Did the Americans join to save the world? No, they joined to save themselves (and in the process everyone else).
Second, though this is minor nitpicking, we haven't left Germany, Korea, Kuwait or the Balkans. In fact, we only left the countries in which we effectively lost the fight (Vietnam and Somalia). This doesn't conflict with your general argument, that we didn't stay in these places and form an empire out of them; I'm just saying we haven't left. There are valid reasons for the US to have troops in these places that have nothing to do with imperialism.
1. Microsoft buys up a chair manufacturer in Silicon Valley.
2. Have Ballmer stand in front of Google HQ.
3. Tell him that a few more Microsoft employees are moving to Google.
4. Get out of the way.
While I see (I hope) what you're trying to say and I even agree, I have to poke into your argument (I'm curious):
... say ... more in favor of landlords?
While we may and must call the deal between one drsquare and one landlord as "agreement" what do we call it when (almost) all the landlors form a "coalition" and all of them enforce very similar "rules" which are
I think we do basically agree, but I'll still argue that enforcing copyright is not an unethical activity. If a bunch of landlords got together and agreed to all simultaneously raise prices, that is price gouging, which is illegal. If the MPAA is facilitating price gouging, I'm all for prosecuting them, but I've yet to hear of this. From what we can tell, movie producers are charging prices as high as they can before they start to lose customers (i.e., maximizing profits), which is how the free, ungouged market is supposed to work.
While I do not like wars I for sure will at least try to fight if someone attacks me. So maybe that's the rationale behing this "Your rights online" and "MPAA/RIAA/..." thing?
Setting terms of use or prices that certain customers don't agree with is not an "attack" on these customers. Perhaps you and I don't care to spend money on movies or music; in that case, we simply don't. We might not have the music or movies that we want, but then again, the MPAA/RIAA don't have the money they want either. That's fair.
This new technology is merely designed to enforce the rules that MPAA customers have already agreed to. If you didn't agree to them (I didn't), don't worry about them.
The reason why DRM isn't a violation of YRO is that no one is forcing you to agree to it. If I draft an agreement stating that I will exchange one penny for you mowing my lawn for the rest of my life, is that an "attack" on you? No, because you will only be hurt by the agreement if you voluntarily agree to abide by it.
What *is* wrong is when consumers buy copyrighted material knowing full well that they're prohibited from redistributing it, and then they go off and blatantly violate the agreement. That is essentially reverse price gouging; the consumers simply agree amongst themselves to arbitrarily set the prices down to $0. Do you not oppose this attack on the recording/movie industry? Do you not think they should attempt to fight this attack?
In other words, if you don't like the price of something, take it illegally instead. It's not your fault for breaking the law, it's someone else's fault for pricing it wrong. After all, Slashdot posters have a god-given right to DEMAND how anyone else does business.
... If you don't like the price of something, don't buy it. ...
Precisely. This is exactly why I fail to understand why this is story is classified under "Your Rights Online." You might not like the prices of movies or music, but guess what? If you don't like the prices, or if you don't like that the RIAA or MPAA won't let you redistribute copies of their material, no one is forcing you to buy it. But just for fun, let's see what it would be like if we extended this idea of the dictator consumer to the rest of the economy:
Suppose you are looking for a new apartment to rent. You have already decided what you want. You want to install your hot tub in the living room, and you won't pay more than $50/mo. You set an appointment with the landlord of an apartment you are interested in. When you arrive, he/she shows you around the apartment.
Landlord: And here is the living room.
You: Now, if I moved in this weekend, would it be alright if I installed my hot tub on Sunday?
Landlord: What hot tub?
You: I want to install a hot tub. And what's this with this three digit monthly rent I see you hiding behind your back. You know that I demand no more than $50 per month.
Landlord: Uh, I'm sorry, but I can't allow you to install it. It violates my rental agreement. And I've already told you that the rent is $200/mo or best offer.
You: But it is my *right* to install a hot tub! I will be living in this living room, and living rooms must be free as in freedom! And how dare you charge a rent above my arbitrary price range!
Landlord: Actually, I own the living room because I invested in it, and if you want to live here you have to abide by the agreement. Otherwise, you'll have to go find another living room that is "free as in freedom."
You: Hah! You will be hearing shortly from the lawyers at the Living Room Frontier Foundation!
You storm out of the room, and submit a story to Slashdot under the Your Rights in the Hot Tub section, criticizing the Landlord for installing Power Rights Management (an electricity meter) in his apartments to make sure that people aren't installing power sucking devices like hot tubs.
I thought the best "technology" was to make a decent product. Then people would likely feel more inclined to actually pay for it, rather than waste their $$$ on a turd.
Why would you pirate a "turd?" If no one enjoyed the music or movies they were pirating, they wouldn't be pirating it. If people can get away with getting something for free, through either legal or illegal means, they will do it depending on how easy it is. It's harder to get away with, say, shoplifting because it's more difficult to get away with. The reason that piracy is so common is that it's so easy. This new technology is designed to make it harder, and thus reduce it.
I kid you not, Symantec has been saying "Don't use the Mac, it's insecure! Or Linux! Or Mozilla! They're not secure, oh noes!!!"
It's not that I don't trust you, but could you give us some links please?
Actually, it does look like just a tangent of traditional trigonometry.
Yes, for example, his idea of "spread" substituting for angle seems to be just like the sine of an angle (see page 4). Correct me if I'm wrong, but this basically seems to be renaming a bunch of stuff. He might have found an easier way for people new to trig to learn it, but I can't see how this would make everyone who uses it suddenly begin using spread instead of sine and quadrance instead of distance.
There is nothing called "Intellectual Property".
... but if you want to throw out a system that's been around for hundreds of years, you need to justify it with more than "Look, it's got a scratch!" and "RMS said so!"
Either you say: Trademark Copyright Patent
Actually, intellectual property includes all three. There is something called "intellectual property;" it's ownership of ideas.
But "Intellectual Property" is not a term you can use intelligently, only as a way to further the company propaganda-machine. This example clearly shows it is not suitable for intelligent readership. I heard this from RMS last time he visited Norway.
I'm not meaning to troll, but I get the impression that you think that just because you heard this claim from RMS that it becomes self-evidently true. We all know that RMS thinks IP doesn't exist. If you want to argue he's right, tell us why you think so, not "he said it."
You can call it a "company propaganda-machine" idea, but you do nothing to tell us why it's invalid. But I will say that intellectual property is a term you can use intelligently. IP is a way of representing the labor involved in the creation of ideas. There are obviously silly disputes that arise in this system (this story is one of them) and various other silliness (like software patents), but to say that this discredits all intellectual property is an overreaction, to say the least.
It's great to debate this
Use of the word 'property' implies that the products of our intellects - ideas - can be owned in the same way as a chair or a house. The term 'intellectual property' was coined to imply some kind of parity between the rights offered to patent, copyright and trademark holders and those offered to the owners of property. Ditto use of 'theft' instead of 'misapropriation' to refer to copyright infringement. Ideas are not property and they should never become property.
The idea behind intellectual property is that it takes labor to come up with ideas. Copyright allows those who work on creating ideas to make sure that their paid for their labor, just like those who make physical objects like chairs or houses. Were it not for copyright, it would be impossible to make money from actually creating, say, software. Yes, companies like Red Hat are free software companies, but they do not make their money by actually making software. They make money through subscriptions which involve bonuses like support. In other words, other than donations, FOSS makes essentially no money by simply being available in the market.
Look at a carpenter who builds a chair. Does he care whether you get a chair for free or not? No, he cares about getting the money he deserves for building it. Does a musician have a problem with more people hearing his music? No, he has a problem with people not paying him for the work he put into creating it. And if you think that the prices the musician or programmer are charging are too high, you have an easy solution: don't buy their music or software.
I agree that software patents are silly, because it's easy for different people to come up with the same algorithm, putting in the same amount of work. However, there is nothing ethically wrong with copyright. RMS, Linus and others can still write a Unix clone without violating copyright, because they're putting in actual work. I love FOSS as much as anyone, but IP is a perfectly valid system because it's the only effective way of representing the labor involved in idea creation in a market.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but here I go ...
What good is the Internet? It lets you shop from Amazon, and not the local mom and pop store in your neighborhood? Or is it because you can get kiddie porn from half way around the world, where it is not illegal?
Let's consider what you're saying. You believe the Internet, a product of science and technology, is a harmful thing because you believe it is (A) increasing competition in the market and (B) people can use it to view child pornography? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this evil Internet the same one that you're using to troll on Slashdot?
The Internet is a tool, and you can use it for noble or not-so-noble purposes. I think that we already agree the Internet is a good thing, and it shows that science and technology are capable of at least *something* good. If you disagree, explain why the heck you're using it.
As for smallpox, I don't know why we have it. Maybe it is like AIDS, and we need to get rid of a certain kind of immoral people?
Er, yeah, just like the "immoral" Indians who were slaughtered by both smallpox and their *Christian* conquerors from Europe.
You and the Bible may not be able to explain why smallpox exists, but science can.
Did you ever think if we did not have fags, we would not be wasting money trying to cure a disease that will cure itself? Maybe we could fight cancer?
Did you ever think that the vast majority of AIDS victims aren't homosexual? Did you ever think that perhaps disease isn't a punishment from a god, but rather a natural occurance in biological systems? Maybe we could fight cancer? I'd like to see how you're going to fight cancer without science.
And what do we have from "splicing" genes? Genetically engineered corn that the rich will never eat, that is only to be forced on the poor? It causes cancer.
From advances in genetics, we are able to use DNA to much more accurately convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. From advances in genetics, we are able to make food safer and cheaper by being less reliant on pesticides. GM food isn't "only forced on the poor." I'm fairly well off, and given a choice I will always eat genetically modified food.
Let me guess, the science changes? One study will negate another.
Science changes because learn new things about the world all the time. Has your view of the world changed at all since you were born? Yes? Perhaps because you learned new things? Exactly. If science insisted that our understanding of the world 2500 years ago, which was gods directing the universe from Mount Olympus, was still accurate in light of all the new knowledge collected by humans in the meantime, is would be as silly as a 30 year old viewing his world like an infant.
This was my first thought but if you read the article it mentions this at the end:
The most popular versions of string theory suggest that there are as many as eight extra dimensions, not just three.
Yes, exactly. Three space dimensions we know exist plus eight extra (including time) equals eleven total dimensions. So apparently, there's no inconsistency between this research and current string theory.
My solution was to get rid of my car, and get a bike!
Hurrah! Someone else who has seen the light! I too ride my bike in conjunction with riding the bus across town for my transportation. Sure, it might not be quite as convenient, but when you consider all of the costs of a car (the car itself, gas, insurance, etc.) it far outweighs the extra time it takes for alternative transportation (because time is money). Not to mention the healthy exercise and environmental brownie points for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. I sure hope that higher gas prices cause more people to look at ways to avoid driving, as you've done, or at least look at driving more efficient vehicles (i.e., getting rid of all of these ridiculous SUVs).
An old professor of mine who was a string theory expert (i very much am not) once told me most of the maths he does deals with 11 dimensions.
Yup, string theory (or more specifically M-theory) requires 11 dimensions. Since string theorists have yet to find truly compelling experimental evidence for the theory, could this possibly provide such evidence (anyone who knows more about string theory?)? (No, I didn't RTFA.)
It is my humble belief that the USSC was our last sane branch of government. Call Reinquist what you will, but he was an honest man of a different generation. I truely believe that with his loss, we will be forced to face a USSC with another younger and less principled justice. I really feel that we are going from a court dedicated to interpitation of the constitution to one that just may be another political tool to enforce a given ideology.
The Constitution is designed to make the Supreme Court reflect shifts in the public opinion, but only very slowly so that temporary jitters are smoothed out. Like it or not (and personally, I don't like a lot of it), the country has moved to the right in many ways in recent years by electing Bush and a Republican Congress. "Interpretation" of the Constitution is a subjective process, and many disagree on how to interpret different aspects of it. These shifts will just result in a different interpretation, which some might call "enforcing ideology."
Rehnquist was honest, but I don't see any point in prejudging Bush's yet-to-be-announced nominee for his spot. Roberts seems to be quite reasonable, and if he is any indication of what Bush will bring, I don't think there's an enormous amount to be worried about (especially since Rehnquist was already conservative).
This is a scary time in the US. We have never had ALL of our branches of government run by a political party with control centered in the hands of so very few. Truly a scary time.
I wouldn't say that we've never had such a situation before, but yes, I agree with you, it is quite worrisome. We need to get some balance sooner rather than later.
The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
Darwinian evolution says that organisms evolve as a result of random, natural variations being naturally selected for. Intelligent design "theory" disagrees with this because it replaces natural selection with "intelligent" selection. It would be like trying to rewrite Einstein's equation E=mc^2 by replacing m with, say, v for volume, and saying that E=mc^2=vc^2. Both the analogy and the claim that intelligent design is compatible with evolution are completely false (the equation is completely ridiculous, but then again, some would say the same of ID).
There is no scientific evidence for this, and its advocates propose no experiments or investigations we can use to even start to test their ideas.
The point here is that supporters of ID like the discovery are not doing any science; they're carrying out a PR campaign that has success because much of the American public knows little or nothing about just how solid the science underlying evolution is. It's much easier to get acceptance of completely unscientific ideas as science in the general public than it is in the scientific community, which will demand empirical scrutiny.
And exemplifies just how evil it really is. What if we couldn't read Einsteins papers because our key is no longer valid?
We will always be able to read Einstein's papers (as well as all other scientific papers) because science is not like engineering or art. Science doesn't have an economic purpose. It's whole point is to spread knowledge about the world, and restricting it would be pointless.
DRM in libraries is a horrible thought. I don't care if the terms are fair so far, the concept is bad enough on its own to warrant boycott.
When you check a book out at the library, it doesn't become yours. You aren't allowed to scribble in it or keep it forever. If you don't want to accept the terms of borrowing a book, no one's forcing you too. The same is true of DRM. Borrowing DRMed stuff from a library is your choice. If you don't want it, don't borrow it; but there's nothing wrong with borrowing it if the terms suit your needs.
So; my Lotus, which has a Toyota engine, Toyota gearbox, Toyota running gear, and a Lotus-modified Toyota enigine control system, then logically be called a Lotus/Toyota .... ... or is that Toyota/Lotus, since the engine (kernel) is make by Toyota....
Because GNU is a lot more than an "engine control system." It's a complete operating system (i.e. car) built around the Linux kernel (i.e. engine).
Makes sense.... after all a car without an engine wouldn' t do much, would it?
Nope, and an engine without car doesn't do much more either. That's why almost no one runs Linux without GNU.
Actually, I think you'd still call it OS X because while Mach is the name of its kernel, there is only one Mac OS X.
...
There is only one GNU
No-one is trying to deny the contribution of the FSF or the importance of the GNU tool set, but a lot of people find "GNU/Linux" unwieldy, and I'm one of them. So, I'm sorry, but I'll continue using the word "Linux" when meaning "Linux distributions" or similar.
I know, I say "Linux" a lot too, just because I don't usually want to start a debate everytime I talk about it. But if you want a shorthand, call it "GNU" then. I call things all kinds of shorthand in casual discussion, but we ought to agree that the full, formal name of the platform should be "GNU" or "GNU/Linux."
try to tell me there are no Mitsubshi parts in Toyotas.
The point here is that GNU didn't just put a few parts into the OS; they wrote the bulk of the most basic userland utilities included in virtually every "Linux" distro. It would be like calling the Boeing 777 the "GE 777" because they built the engines.
RMS wants a little recognition, and while I understand that, it seems... distasteful to focus so much on squeezing out some small bit of credit.
I agree, he can be obsessive about this. However, even though many of his ideas are ridiculous, he does have a legitimate point on this issue.
So why call it anything? Do I call my Toyota a Ford/Toyota after the father of the production line? I mean, without the modern production line, where would Toyota be? We should give Henry Ford the credit, right?
We don't include "Ford" in Toyota because there are no Ford components in Toyota's cars. But in virtually every Linux distro, there's far more GNU code running than Linux code.
I can't argue that GNU's contribution is insignificant. But who cares what the name is? And prefixing things with GNU is just ridiculous. The point has been made - where do you draw the line? Am I running Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin on my Mac at the moment? Maybe MacOSX is a better name for it, and is more easily marketable.
Actually, using your logic, you wouldn't call OS X "Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin," nor would you call it "MacOS X." You would call it "Mach" because that's the kernel it uses.