Why is it that in all these stories, it just strikes me that they always seem to be thinking, "what kind of robot devices would be useful to Skynet when it takes over?"
Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?
It depends. The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store. I am of the opinion that a link on the app to a website where you could get the code would have met GPL requirements. In that case, if you had a jailbroken iPhone, iPad, whatever, you could compile that code and run it.
I could definitely see an instance of a developer creating an open source app add submitting it to the app store. If they were the developer in charge of the app they could make the license call themselves. Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl even though the code's creator doesn't care. That, however would be a lot like patent trolling.
As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.
Yes, the DRM is evil. One would hope that Apple would create a method where free apps are totally free. I mean, the DRM is pointless for something anyone can get for free, so why have DRM on them. That would be the best solution.
Back on topic, though, I think Microsoft's open source ban is just due to how much they HATE open source.
The government is stealing money to pay for other things.
That's an understatement!!!
The government has been stealing from the Social Security fund for DECADES.
Which means that while SS payments shouldn't be a problem, they are. And so fixing our budget mess MUST consider SS outlays. Like it or not, the money needed to pay all the Baby Boomers their SS is gone. The workforce will be too small to support them.
I have never ever in my working life believed that I will get a single dime of Social Security.
I would be ok with giving up every dime I've paid in if government can manage to stop overspending.
This effectively means that the govt will eventually need to tear up all the IOUs they've written to SS. It too late now, there really is no way to really fix the SS mess they've made.
I don't think it is odd to have the opinion that if the US military were asked to take over a private company within the US that they would refuse the order.
The military is supposed to provide for the common defence, not be an enforcement arm for the executive branches wishes within the country.
Heck, beyond that China's trains run in areas with population densities far greater than almost all of the US.
High speed rail isn't practical for 90% of the country.
Watching Obama ask for $53 billion for WORTHLESS high speed rail pie in the sky while gutting NASA funding for building the next generation of rockets make me want to vomit.
If Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it. If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.
Just because he is the President doesn't mean he has absolute power. I'm not being partisan here either, Bush tried to abuse his power that way too.
They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power. If not for the pesky two term limit, electing Bush or Obama or Clinton, or Regan continually to office would eventually have lead us to full dictatorship.
As an MS fanboy, and a proponent of choice and freedom in use of hardware I've purchased
So, you're only concerned about hardware freedom and don't care about software freedom, eh? Your comment would make sense if you used the words "Linux Fanboy" instead. MS and their concepts of software licensing are a bane to software choice and freedom. While Apple's walled garden may not be good, it does show the Android folks what they need to do and the ease of managing your applications that is required in the current smartphone arena. Which will be good for software freedom in the long run.
Huh, really? I'm sorry, but malevolent dictators do not deserve the same kind of respect that CEO's, pundits, and even directors of crappy movies deserve.
I teach Database Systems. There's a lot of information in the text and a lot of good problems and graphics that I can use to teach as well. I have a project that is part of the class that the students must complete. The project requires critical thinking and application of skills.
For this class, however, there is a lot of established information and knowledge that needs to be delivered as well. The book and its materials help there.
Now if I were teaching a Software Development methods class, you're right, I wouldn't use a book.
Well, with regards to moderation, we have strayed considerably off-topic.
I fully understand your points on the behavior of people affecting the cost of things and the law of averages and such.
My argument is basically this. It is futile to try to control the behavior of individuals for the purpose of saving money on healthcare/aviation/whatever. People will do what they want to do. Shit, we've been trying to stop EVERYONE from smoking for 50 freaking years and its STILL not working. My contention is that its time to STOP doing this. As you can see with smoking. The failure to get people to stop doing it (ostensibly purely to save money on health care costs, the perfect example for this discussion) has only lead to more and more draconian restrictions on it. Yes, that means more and more meddling with people's lives. Smokers now days feel like second class citizens. Basically the only acceptable place to smoke nowadays is outside on private property. I should note here that I have some pretty profound allergic reactions to second hand smoke and am not a smoker myself, and that I benefit personally from these laws. But I still think we've (as a society) gone too far in regulating what is a personal practice.
This is why I fear the health police so much. Are they going to meddle to the extent of the anti-smoking lobby? Are they going to double the cost of certain foods with taxes to make them more difficult to buy? Are they going to make those foods illegal (see salt ban in NYC). The reason I'm arguing this is that while you are COMPLETELY correct with respect to the cost implications of personal choices, but the only fix that will really work to mitigate those costs is the FUCKING NANNY STATE!! I don't want to live in a FUCKING NANNY STATE! There, does that explain my position well enough.
Sometimes, when it becomes obvious that you can't make the laws draconian enough to make people stop doing things that are bad for them, its time to give up trying. Yes, to be completely blunt and consistent on this issue, I would favor making marijuana legal because the costs and consequences of enforcing its illegality are getting ridiculous. For my last example, there's prohibition, which IMHO was such an abysmal failure at enforcing personal behavior in the populace that it is a shining example of why, for so many many things (bad foods included) we should never try doing that again.
What really should be banned is the use of PowerPoint lectures.
I hear you there. I am quite proud of the fact that I do not use PowerPoint for lectures. Years ago I used overheads for some lectures and was amazed at how easy it was to just burn through the overheads and leave the students in the dust. So, I minimally project graphics from the text and explain and write out the notes on the board for the class to write down too. It is much slower, but like you said it gives the students (and the lecturer) the ability to actually _digest_ the information, which is the real important part.
I understand that in general, statistically, costs are higher for obese people. But, I DO NOT think that that requires the government to regulate people's weight.
The argument "they increase our health care costs", it the perfect foil for those that want to control ACCESS to health care procedures.
With the health care bill and with all this "lifestyle legislation" that is so popular, the real issue was chucked aside.
Most of the American people were not upset about the availability of health care, they were upset about the excessive cost!! But instead of solving the cost problem, the government tried to solve the availability problem. It was the much, much, easier problem to solve. Everyone has to have health care, everyone has to be covered. The health insurance companies got more customers in exchange for covering everything, plus the got to raise their rates too!!
The cost of health care was not addressed with any effectiveness whatsoever. The current health insurance setup in this country today guarantees that we'll get good health care for the highest possible price. There are too many middlemen, too much pressure to increase cost and cut service. The health care bill was done wrong, I'm not sure what is right. It severely bothers me that I consider myself to be libertarian, but can see that perhaps single payer may be one of the better ways out of this health care mess.
Back to the gov. controlling the food you eat angle. Sure I know that for huge groups and for statistical averages my stance is not strong. But as we look at individuals it breaks down. And I hate this issue being looked on as a group issue. Because that means that our health care must then trend towards treating the groups and not the person. And when we get there we will have lost. We'll get to the point where eventually, someone will have to say "you're too fat, we're not going to save you, its too expensive" and I don't want our society to be like that. The only way away from that I see is to increase the productivity, availability, technology, and decrease the costs of health care. And yes I do have ideas about how that can be done, but I've rambled on enough already.
You know what, I am SOOOO pissed at that "but you'll increase our health insurance costs!!!" bullshit.
Until someone who doesn't smoke, exercises regularly, eats only healthy foods, drinks just a little wine but no more, eats fish but not too much, doesn't eat processed foods, doesn't eat too much sugar, etc. manages to not DIE in the end ANYWAY, then you can have that argument back.
I know it can cost more, but it doesn't always. Everyone's life doesn't all fit on the actuarial charts directly. The problem isn't that we don't have enough health care, its that the health care we have costs way too much. It frustrates me that the goal of health care legislation always seems to tilt towards rationing it to save money. Why the HELL can't we try to get more PRODUCTIVE and EFFECTIVE health care instead of clamoring to all try to have LESS. The US manufacturing industry (the parts that have survived) have been increasing their productivity AND lowering their costs for over FOUR DECADES, but the health care industry thinks that stagnant productivity and double digit percentage cost increases every year a just unavoidable. More, cheaper, health care is what is needed, not the same priced health care but less in addition to "you can't eat that" laws that vainly try to decrease the need for health care.
The only reason I'm not for congress passing a net neutrality law is that I have no belief whatsoever that the law they come up with will be any good at all, and very real fears that it will be much worse than having no net neutrality law at all.
This debate is frankly terrifying because I think the users of the internet may very well end up royally screwed either way.
I can't help but get the feeling while watching this debate that I'm watching the internet die in slow motion.
I see it as their own fault if they didn't charge enough in the first place, and personally, they should be very fearful of being hit with common carrier status -- bits is bits, after all, whether it's voice, slashdot, video, or email.
Why would they be fearful of that? The FCC has had the power to make that move for a long time. The courts have told them that that is the only move they can currently make. And yet they try to regulate the internet in a different fashion.
I love all these the stories that claim that the EVIL RIGHT, is completely wrong on this. They are wrong about a lot of things with respect to net neutrality, but not on everything. Again, there is no reason for the FCC to be doing what they are doing when common carrier rules would suffice. So the FCC IS looking for much finer control of the internet. I would not be surprised AT ALL if FCC regulations eventually state that ISPs be REQUIRED to block "illegal" packets, which would mean that they'd have to scan every packet. Oh, but what about encrypted packets? Well, my guess there would be that encrypted packets that aren't on 443 will end up dumped. Of course bittorrent will eventually tunnel through that but don't think for one minute that the RIAA and MPAA won't fight with all their power to ensure that FCC regulation of the net will provide them some of the means to do what they've always wanted to the net.
Oh, look I didn't even mention political websites and such. Yes, indeed, THAT argument by the right IS a red herring, but what I just said about the AA's is not....
They have the power to do common carrier NOW. Notice that that is not what they are doing.
The FCC does not want to make the Internet common carrier.
They are violating a court decision doing regulation the way they are doing it.
It is very telling as to what the FCC is more interested in based on how they are going about this.
I think "fairness" is a big motivator for them, but they're not concerned about packet fairness, I think they're more concerned about content fairness. Thats a path I don't want to see them take.
Slashdot Mirror
If banks could just make infinite copies of every dollar, yes, that would be the same thing.
Of course my argument falls apart completely if you pay any attention to the shenanigans of the Federal reserve.
Damn, I wish I had mod points. Epic post!
Why is it that in all these stories, it just strikes me that they always seem to be thinking, "what kind of robot devices would be useful to Skynet when it takes over?"
Damn, I wish I had some mod points!!
Herbert's novels weren't tarnished by his kin's prequel novels because I've chosen not to read the :-).
But, yes, I agree completely. The "tarnishing" of something is largely in the eyes of the beholder.
Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?
It depends. The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store. I am of the opinion that a link on the app to a website where you could get the code would have met GPL requirements. In that case, if you had a jailbroken iPhone, iPad, whatever, you could compile that code and run it.
I could definitely see an instance of a developer creating an open source app add submitting it to the app store. If they were the developer in charge of the app they could make the license call themselves. Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl even though the code's creator doesn't care. That, however would be a lot like patent trolling.
As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.
Yes, the DRM is evil. One would hope that Apple would create a method where free apps are totally free. I mean, the DRM is pointless for something anyone can get for free, so why have DRM on them. That would be the best solution.
Back on topic, though, I think Microsoft's open source ban is just due to how much they HATE open source.
The government is stealing money to pay for other things.
That's an understatement!!!
The government has been stealing from the Social Security fund for DECADES.
Which means that while SS payments shouldn't be a problem, they are. And so fixing our budget mess MUST consider SS outlays. Like it or not, the money needed to pay all the Baby Boomers their SS is gone. The workforce will be too small to support them.
I have never ever in my working life believed that I will get a single dime of Social Security.
I would be ok with giving up every dime I've paid in if government can manage to stop overspending.
This effectively means that the govt will eventually need to tear up all the IOUs they've written to SS. It too late now, there really is no way to really fix the SS mess they've made.
I don't think it is odd to have the opinion that if the US military were asked to take over a private company within the US that they would refuse the order.
The military is supposed to provide for the common defence, not be an enforcement arm for the executive branches wishes within the country.
Heck, beyond that China's trains run in areas with population densities far greater than almost all of the US.
High speed rail isn't practical for 90% of the country.
Watching Obama ask for $53 billion for WORTHLESS high speed rail pie in the sky while gutting NASA funding for building the next generation of rockets make me want to vomit.
If Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it. If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.
Just because he is the President doesn't mean he has absolute power. I'm not being partisan here either, Bush tried to abuse his power that way too.
They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power. If not for the pesky two term limit, electing Bush or Obama or Clinton, or Regan continually to office would eventually have lead us to full dictatorship.
UNIX was designed to be as scalable, robust, and secure (relative to standards in those days) as they could possibly build it.
Redirection, Pipes, shells, heck the whole IO structure of UNIX was/is IMHO a great work of art.
Then other people started adding stuff to UNIX and eventually Linux that just kept making it better and better like PERL, Apache, X, .... many more.
UNIX is just and has always been good stuff.
As an MS fanboy, and a proponent of choice and freedom in use of hardware I've purchased
So, you're only concerned about hardware freedom and don't care about software freedom, eh? Your comment would make sense if you used the words "Linux Fanboy" instead. MS and their concepts of software licensing are a bane to software choice and freedom. While Apple's walled garden may not be good, it does show the Android folks what they need to do and the ease of managing your applications that is required in the current smartphone arena. Which will be good for software freedom in the long run.
Huh, really? I'm sorry, but malevolent dictators do not deserve the same kind of respect that CEO's, pundits, and even directors of crappy movies deserve.
I don't know....
Third base!!
I was most impressed with the fact that they outran pyroclastic flow from volcanoes (multiple times) in planes (maybe), RVs (no), and on foot (WTF?).
I teach Database Systems. There's a lot of information in the text and a lot of good problems and graphics that I can use to teach as well. I have a project that is part of the class that the students must complete. The project requires critical thinking and application of skills.
For this class, however, there is a lot of established information and knowledge that needs to be delivered as well. The book and its materials help there.
Now if I were teaching a Software Development methods class, you're right, I wouldn't use a book.
Well, with regards to moderation, we have strayed considerably off-topic.
I fully understand your points on the behavior of people affecting the cost of things and the law of averages and such.
My argument is basically this. It is futile to try to control the behavior of individuals for the purpose of saving money on healthcare/aviation/whatever. People will do what they want to do. Shit, we've been trying to stop EVERYONE from smoking for 50 freaking years and its STILL not working. My contention is that its time to STOP doing this. As you can see with smoking. The failure to get people to stop doing it (ostensibly purely to save money on health care costs, the perfect example for this discussion) has only lead to more and more draconian restrictions on it. Yes, that means more and more meddling with people's lives. Smokers now days feel like second class citizens. Basically the only acceptable place to smoke nowadays is outside on private property. I should note here that I have some pretty profound allergic reactions to second hand smoke and am not a smoker myself, and that I benefit personally from these laws. But I still think we've (as a society) gone too far in regulating what is a personal practice.
This is why I fear the health police so much. Are they going to meddle to the extent of the anti-smoking lobby? Are they going to double the cost of certain foods with taxes to make them more difficult to buy? Are they going to make those foods illegal (see salt ban in NYC). The reason I'm arguing this is that while you are COMPLETELY correct with respect to the cost implications of personal choices, but the only fix that will really work to mitigate those costs is the FUCKING NANNY STATE!! I don't want to live in a FUCKING NANNY STATE! There, does that explain my position well enough.
Sometimes, when it becomes obvious that you can't make the laws draconian enough to make people stop doing things that are bad for them, its time to give up trying. Yes, to be completely blunt and consistent on this issue, I would favor making marijuana legal because the costs and consequences of enforcing its illegality are getting ridiculous. For my last example, there's prohibition, which IMHO was such an abysmal failure at enforcing personal behavior in the populace that it is a shining example of why, for so many many things (bad foods included) we should never try doing that again.
What really should be banned is the use of PowerPoint lectures.
I hear you there. I am quite proud of the fact that I do not use PowerPoint for lectures. Years ago I used overheads for some lectures and was amazed at how easy it was to just burn through the overheads and leave the students in the dust. So, I minimally project graphics from the text and explain and write out the notes on the board for the class to write down too. It is much slower, but like you said it gives the students (and the lecturer) the ability to actually _digest_ the information, which is the real important part.
I understand that in general, statistically, costs are higher for obese people. But, I DO NOT think that that requires the government to regulate people's weight.
The argument "they increase our health care costs", it the perfect foil for those that want to control ACCESS to health care procedures.
With the health care bill and with all this "lifestyle legislation" that is so popular, the real issue was chucked aside.
Most of the American people were not upset about the availability of health care, they were upset about the excessive cost!! But instead of solving the cost problem, the government tried to solve the availability problem. It was the much, much, easier problem to solve. Everyone has to have health care, everyone has to be covered. The health insurance companies got more customers in exchange for covering everything, plus the got to raise their rates too!!
The cost of health care was not addressed with any effectiveness whatsoever. The current health insurance setup in this country today guarantees that we'll get good health care for the highest possible price. There are too many middlemen, too much pressure to increase cost and cut service. The health care bill was done wrong, I'm not sure what is right. It severely bothers me that I consider myself to be libertarian, but can see that perhaps single payer may be one of the better ways out of this health care mess.
Back to the gov. controlling the food you eat angle. Sure I know that for huge groups and for statistical averages my stance is not strong. But as we look at individuals it breaks down. And I hate this issue being looked on as a group issue. Because that means that our health care must then trend towards treating the groups and not the person. And when we get there we will have lost. We'll get to the point where eventually, someone will have to say "you're too fat, we're not going to save you, its too expensive" and I don't want our society to be like that. The only way away from that I see is to increase the productivity, availability, technology, and decrease the costs of health care. And yes I do have ideas about how that can be done, but I've rambled on enough already.
You know what, I am SOOOO pissed at that "but you'll increase our health insurance costs!!!" bullshit.
Until someone who doesn't smoke, exercises regularly, eats only healthy foods, drinks just a little wine but no more, eats fish but not too much, doesn't eat processed foods, doesn't eat too much sugar, etc. manages to not DIE in the end ANYWAY, then you can have that argument back.
I know it can cost more, but it doesn't always. Everyone's life doesn't all fit on the actuarial charts directly. The problem isn't that we don't have enough health care, its that the health care we have costs way too much. It frustrates me that the goal of health care legislation always seems to tilt towards rationing it to save money. Why the HELL can't we try to get more PRODUCTIVE and EFFECTIVE health care instead of clamoring to all try to have LESS. The US manufacturing industry (the parts that have survived) have been increasing their productivity AND lowering their costs for over FOUR DECADES, but the health care industry thinks that stagnant productivity and double digit percentage cost increases every year a just unavoidable. More, cheaper, health care is what is needed, not the same priced health care but less in addition to "you can't eat that" laws that vainly try to decrease the need for health care.
The only reason I'm not for congress passing a net neutrality law is that I have no belief whatsoever that the law they come up with will be any good at all, and very real fears that it will be much worse than having no net neutrality law at all.
This debate is frankly terrifying because I think the users of the internet may very well end up royally screwed either way.
I can't help but get the feeling while watching this debate that I'm watching the internet die in slow motion.
I see it as their own fault if they didn't charge enough in the first place, and personally, they should be very fearful of being hit with common carrier status -- bits is bits, after all, whether it's voice, slashdot, video, or email.
Why would they be fearful of that? The FCC has had the power to make that move for a long time. The courts have told them that that is the only move they can currently make. And yet they try to regulate the internet in a different fashion.
I love all these the stories that claim that the EVIL RIGHT, is completely wrong on this. They are wrong about a lot of things with respect to net neutrality, but not on everything. Again, there is no reason for the FCC to be doing what they are doing when common carrier rules would suffice. So the FCC IS looking for much finer control of the internet. I would not be surprised AT ALL if FCC regulations eventually state that ISPs be REQUIRED to block "illegal" packets, which would mean that they'd have to scan every packet. Oh, but what about encrypted packets? Well, my guess there would be that encrypted packets that aren't on 443 will end up dumped. Of course bittorrent will eventually tunnel through that but don't think for one minute that the RIAA and MPAA won't fight with all their power to ensure that FCC regulation of the net will provide them some of the means to do what they've always wanted to the net.
Oh, look I didn't even mention political websites and such. Yes, indeed, THAT argument by the right IS a red herring, but what I just said about the AA's is not....
Sure, because they've never regulated content for the communications they currently manage.......
They have the power to do common carrier NOW. Notice that that is not what they are doing.
The FCC does not want to make the Internet common carrier.
They are violating a court decision doing regulation the way they are doing it.
It is very telling as to what the FCC is more interested in based on how they are going about this.
I think "fairness" is a big motivator for them, but they're not concerned about packet fairness, I think they're more concerned about content fairness. Thats a path I don't want to see them take.
I think the words you're looking for are
Common Carrier