That other list isn't exactly "fair and balanced" either. NYT? Give me a break! At least/. has no pretenses and puts up the link bar at the very top to links toward OSS sites. NYT doesn't tell you that it panders to liberal bleeding-hearts (I'm really not saying that you are among this group, but NYT does tend to cover this type of news.) I like/. because it is a free place to speak your mind and every now and then have an intelligent and civilized debate. There is something you cannot ignore. The fundamental theorem of capitalism: Do not use a good or service if you do not benefit from it. If there is no favorable alternative, then create your own service that gives what you want. If people took the time they spent bitching and used it toward things productive, we'd have a much better world. Take the media: they are the most biased of any organizations. But look at their work: they basically bitch at different groups except the ones that matter most. The media doesn't hold politicians accountable, nor does it adequately analyze "news", nor does it cover newsworthy material, nor does it willingly admit error. Consider the thing about bitching. Our society is so obsessed with it that everyone, not just "lazy teenagers" are astoundingly irresponsible. A friend of mine says, "they didn't lick it off a tree!" Just consider it.
Uhm, not quite. I'm not rich and I listen to NPR, occasionally watch PBS. I merely think that people who want to spend spend spend on things like war and defense at the expense of services that society needs are just delusional. I was replying to the parent who said that the government funds NPR and insinuated that the government wholely owns NPR. It doesn't. It simply provides grant funds, just as grants are provided to other non-profits. I said that the reinvestment in society is crucial, because people are too lazy/stingy/self-centered/scared to help society out. It sounds like "we can spend money better than you can" but in a sense, science and art is like this. There is no guarentee that a given hypothesis will be correct. That's certainly not the case at the lab where I work. But the research is crucial to our understanding of physics. Consider NASA. So many people say "why do we spend billions of dollars to go into space?" But they fail to recognize the innovations that NASA has come up with. They also fail to recognize the knowledge that we have gained about our universe because of NASA. I think state-sponsorship is all-out bad. It's literal communism, and it's utterly biased. But I think the government has the right to fund certain institutions or purposes. In fact, if you look at it, libertarianism is not rooted in paying taxes, it's in liberty itself. Libertarianism suggests that all liberties ought be negative, and the government's role is to ensure that no power becomes too powerful to coerce. We happen to favor few if any taxes at all. In fact, I sometimes favor a profitable government or at least an investment system in which the government would fund itself. But that's a digression for another day. The bottom line is that art and science always stimulate progress in civilizations, and unless art and science somehow become profitable, funding is the best way out.
Besides S.Korea has a huge gaming culture and within 12 hours of moving to Linux you would have thousands of teenagers shivering from game withdrawal symptoms.
Smear campaigns only work a) if you are M$ and that is all you are capable of (can you blame them? They can't seem to make any good software, so smearing the other guy is the only acceptable solution) or b) you are against SCO, in which case nothing is actually accomplished. Well, the only thing that is accomplished is lawyers have more job-security. Smear campaigns don't work when in business. It's not like an election, when the choice is made only every term. People choose to buy or not all the time. So if you say something like Satan uses Linux, and then a few years later you state that Linux is (of course) a very good OS, then people will take it and your own words will bite you in the ass. Businesses should spend more time training the troops rather than shouting from the bleachers. If they just made reliable goods or rendered useful service and used decent marketing to inform about each, we'd have a better market economy. But as long as monopolies like M$ are able to coerce, it is a lost cause...
Can't agree more. Especially when half of the channels are "PPV" so you have to pay more to view them. Cut out the numerous "home shopping" channels and you don't have many left. If lucky, you'll have about 200 real channels of content (including about 10 iterations of discovery, 10 iterations of business channels (CNBC, BLOOMBERG, etc.), 15 "News" channels (CNN, MSNBC), other intellectual channels (about 20 or so), and the rest "entertainment"). Stick it to "the man"!
You know, I actually resent that comment. Arts and sciences are two of the areas that America should invest in, even with tax dollars. NPR is not state-sponsored. That's like saying that C-SPAN or the local access channels are state-sponsored. NPR does recieve Federal money, but if you look at the break-down about 1/8 of their budget is covered by Federal funds. I work at a particle physics lab and it's similar. The only difference is that the DoE actually owns the place. A consortium of universities in the Southeast US run the place. It receives money from the government and is "owned" by the government, but is run by private entities. NPR is similar, but NPR isn't owned by the government. It doesn't answer to a specific agency or anything like that. There is no "party representative" per se. I am actually very much for the subsidising of arts and sciences. Art and science are integral components of progress, but their speculative nature makes them unattractive to the private sector. To keep the two areas really functioning, we actually need government. This is the rare exception when I put aside my libertarian views.
Elected officials like to be reelected, and someone has to fund their campaigns. In return, legislation about regulating invasion of privacy is ignored. I agree with the "general public" that the information is not legal to be sold, just as "trade secrets" are illegal to be sold. My beef is this: if my information is sold without my explicit knowledge multiple times based on just one registration card, how can we be confident that the votes being cast by our voting machines are not being tampered with by the proprietary software? And another thing, since my information is being sold, I feel I am entitled to a cut.
Two words: Bush Doctrine. "Compromise" seems to be a curse word in the White House, but "covert CIA agent" seems to be spewed like water from a fountain. All of this is garbage. Bush understands foreign policy (in my opinion) but he is inadequate when it comes to decision making. He's got a good model of what has happened, but what is going to happen? He matches his blank facial expressions. As a US citizen born abroad and having lived overseas for a good amount of time, I understand the feelings of the dissenting governments. On the other hand, I can understand the US's motives. I think the US is being a bit of a big shot, however. The Republican old-boys in power are just set on one course of action and are so stubborn that they'll do anything to get there. The US just makes these unilateral statements when so many other groups are concerned. It has no right to do that. Not in a country that was formed because another country didn't allow them representation. The US has the right to look out for itself, but not at the expense of other nations. Foreign policy is not a clean art by any means; black-mail and other "corruption" are key components. But this unilateral tyranny of it is just, well, for lack of a better term, bullshit. I am a Virginian, and we are a proud state. I am by no means a "confederate" or anything, but I think Virginia makes a lot of sense. Our motto is "sic semper tyrannis," Latin for "thus always to tyrants." It depicts a "common man" standing on an assassinated king, whose crown has fallen off. Many Virginians were instrumental in the revolution and disjunction from Britain. It appears that this Texan, with previous experience and training amounting to owning a baseball team and being governor of Texas, wants to just have it his way or the highway, unless people on his staff are corrupt and dishonest. And, this same idiot preaches "christianity" while he makes these greedy moves and nurtures corrpution. This is why the US is declaring the Internet its domain (no pun intended). Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The control of the internet is power, and this Texas tyrant doesn't want to relinquish anything he can get his hands on. The US invented the internet; now that it is truly "inter" let us share it with everyone. How about a loose framework of computer networks regulated by the individual users. If governments jointly rule, we may cede all say in the matter. UN is corrupt, but perhaps a new organization whose sole purpose is to run the internet, and composed of delegates, one per nation, who each have one vote and act as legislators and enforcers?
I agree, but... I'd say that the iPod is cool and appeals to the market because it is sexy. Let's face it, it just looks hot. And the easy-to-use UI helps greatly. In fact, the first time I used an iPod (back in 2G), I was struck by how much of a great gadget it really was. It played music easily and rid me of the need to carry my CDs everywhere. It didn't have the radio, but that didn't bother me (nor does it now). No one has come up with an i-ssassin, and therefore iPod is ubiquitous and ever-growing.
Basically, you're right about the iPod being a "plug in and work" type device, but it also has the sexy factor. Before the Apple Renaissance around `99 && 2000, gadgets were geek toys built with function and perhaps some ergonomics in the designers' minds. Then the "cute" iMac came out, which still ran the outdated "Classic OS". It was the first Apple anyone paid attention to in years. Then the iBooks came out. Again, they were considered "cute". OS X came and its twin iPod were born and Apple went on the map. The iPod took till about 3G to get hugely popular. Now you can't go in a NY Metro without seeing the token white ear-buds. Computers are now made with form and function in mind, as are gadgets. Remember the old Palm's? Look at them now. Impressive! No one argues that Windows looks nicer than Mac. Some argue it's easier to use (and without a right-click I can agree somewhat). However, no one aruges that Mac is less stable than Windows, at least not anyone who has experience with security.
Making a high-capacity mp3 player run on OSS is a great idea in my opinion. The trick is like parent said, the player must be easy to use. My iPod is easy to use. It has five buttons and the wheel function, and I can do whatever I want with it. It's intuitive to use and doesn't require opening the instruction manual. I reiterate: doesn't require opening the instruction manual. Americans have a phobia of instruction manuals and technical jargon. I don't blame them: if I had to read comparable literature studying a subject I didn't really care about, I'd want to give up too. The iPod just works. And anything like it should. Even we geeks favor technology that "just works", we'd just like to see how it works. I am interested in technology and how it works rather than just that it works. I figure if I can do something for myself, I'd be much better off than paying someone a profit to do it. My contribution to stopping inflation:-). Basically, geeks like to see how stuff works and tinker. Average Joe Consumer doesn't really give a damn about how it works, but he wants it to work. The formula for an iPod killer is this: a company must make a device that runs user-friendly UI, performs music-playing like a butler, is easy to control quickly and smoothly, and is sexy. Until then, Apple will dominate.
As for OSS, it's a great cause because it is the right cause. To those who really don't care about it, we can only get them to use OSS. If people reallized the potential and the reasons, or if they can simply get over the fact that OSS communities "donate" their code because of "good will", then maybe the movement will extend beyond a few esoteric branches of geekdom. I'd honestly like to have a system that just runs how I want it to. I also like to tweak it, but a system that can do what is required out of the box is great. If this company understands that concept, they have the potential to sell a good amount of players. The original Apple really ceased to exist when Jobs took over again in '99. Now the New Apple is going strong and is ubersuccessful. To me Apple represents the ideology of capitalism. They need to make profit so instead of bitching or other dishonest means, they actually innovate and come up with a kickass product. That's why I like Apple. I also applaud this company for adopting OSS, another great innovation. Not only will it cut their costs, but it will empower the OSS community to check out the player.
"The more you tighten your grip, the more [control] slips through your fingers." -- Princess Leia
Quite seriously, that's what I think will end up happening. The law must get so tough and so bloated, that someone will challenge the Constitutionality of it, and all of the laws will be struck down. If it gets really bad and people are pissed off enough, Constitutional Amendments can be made, but that'd be really really really pissed off to the nth degree, as n approaches infinity. Based on what these greedy bastards are capable of, that may just happen. Content is content. An idea becomes public when it leaves one's mind. The only "intellectual property" I claim to own is the functioning brain inside of my head. I have the right to do with it what I want, and no one can coerce me or compel me to do with it what I need. Sadly, this property is being stolen, while public property is being plundered. Artists are screwed by big cartels; the real intellectual property is raped while pseudo-property is given rights, so that an elite can benefit and profit. Sounds like an oligarchy to me. As a result, talent isn't valued, consumerism is rampant, and "American culture" is a contradiction.
This is outrageous. Who is behind the contraoversy? The borg at the top of this pane. M$ is the only one to lose, because M$ Word documents are supported by OO.o. The fact is, competition should force M$ to innovate, but competition seems to cause them to bitch. When Linux started gaining some ground, M$ did nothing to improve Windoze, it just attacked Linux. Of course it is their perogative to say that they are the best, but don't write a check if you can't cash it. The only somewhat good response from the Giant is that they restarted the IE project after Firefox was introduced. Of course, they ignored it for a great deal of time. Now the growth seems to have "stagnated", but the data is very inconclusive as of yet. Growth on par with Firefox is rare if not anomolous. Back to OO.o. Massachusetts is jokingly referred to by some of its constitutants as "the People's Republic of Taxachusetts". With a Republican Governor who inherited a bad economy, cost-cutting measures were needed. So, ditch the expensive, erroneous, bloated software in favor of a free Open Source solution. Hell, I'd move for a bill to make all government software to be open source. You can still buy and sell software, and it is still able to be profitable, it is just that no one has developed an outstanding business model. I applaud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for upholding their title and supporting the citizens over big business.
Anyone heard that Greenday song "American Idiot"? This is what it's fucking talking about! Don't listen to this shit. Bush may be a radical, but he's like the stupidest man ever. He's from Texas, where not going to death row is like a high-school diploma. (Imagine if he wrote the declaration of independence: "King George (hehe, that's my name, too), we really hate ya, and we're gonna kick your ass preemptively!") The real problem is that small factions run the country. From the radical right to the radical left to the radical special interests to the radical media. The real "moderates" aren't given a chance to step up. Oligarchy sadly has taken over America. Now the various factions war with each other. Media calls the right names. The left and the media team up. The right, left, and special interests have a three-way. The Media feels left out and bashes all three. This is insanity, like trying to balance a CD thorugh its central hole. Anyone who claims to be Christian should know that the Gospel Matthew clearly states that one is to "Love the LORD [his or her] God with all [his or her] heart, mind, and soul." Basically, don't check your brain at the door (of course, Texans weren't very well endowed in tha respect). This ignorance is insanity. In times of the bible, this was known as blasphemy or false-prophesy. Today we are more gracious, and so I am hopeful that these people will recant their wicked ways and their terror tactics. Christianity is perhaps one of the most positive and most elightening lifestyles, yet a few loud Jesus-freaks give it a bad name. Quite a shame, really.
Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns.
Sounds like Forbes feels threatened. Bloggers seem to have taken what the media has done for years and just done it on the grass-roots level.
It's not easy to fight back... Ok, so who exactly is the victim? this ambiguous sentence reaffirms Forbes' percieved threat. Often a bashing victim can't even figure out who his attacker is. No target is too mighty, or too obscure, for this new and virulent strain of oratory. Oh, yes, because the media is such a bastion of ethics and morals .::cough cough:: Not that I'd mention any names::cough cough:: Michael Shiavo, Gary Condit::cough cough::. Because the media certainly these people out. Michael Shiavo now has this undeserved stardom and is the object of hate for radicals. Gary Condit was basically ruinned by the media (although his competance is questionable) because he had this affair (a common task of wealthy and powerful men).
Microsoft has been hammered by bloggers; so have CBS, CNN and ABC News, two research boutiques that criticized IBM's Notes software, the maker of Kryptonite bike locks, a Virginia congressman outed as a homosexual and dozens of other victims--even a right-wing blogger who dared defend a blog-mob scapegoat. Refer to the comments above. Not only has the media meddled in areas it has no right to, but it hasn't gone into areas it needs to. Is the media pissed that people actually question what they right::shock!::::cough cough::. I really should get this cold checked out, that avian flu is supposed to be in Asia. Oh, wait, some more media hype about a disease that has only really affected people in Vietnam who have come in close contact with cattle dung. Sorry, Forbes, ya lose. The media will have to adapt to the blogosphere. Hell, the blogosphere is actually a source of good in the media. Dan Rather's bluff was called by a blogger, and the blogger was right on. I for one hate the media and its self-importance. The media a) reports no relevant news, b) is guilty of more "terrorism" crimes than bin Laden himself, c) is horribly biased, d) is so arrogant that corrections MUST go on the second page in small print, e) doesn't hold officials accountable (can anyone say "Abu Ghraib" or "Kosovo"? Anyone...? Anyone...?) f) gives only some actual facts, and usually distorted ones at that, with no indepth analysis whatsoever g) is so concerned about being "first to cover", or have "breaking news" or whatever bullshit of the week to pander to viewers. I'm really tired of all of the big media establishment. They're bunch of pompous, arrogant shitheads who think far too idealistically and are willing to pin blame on their dead mother's gravestones. I am tired of them, and demand change. Bloggers of the world...well, keep blogging!
Doesn't this seem somewhat of a paradox? An anti-trust suit brings about the split into the baby-bells. SBC, a congolmeration of former bells (Pacific Bell, etc.), buys its antediviso company. That's just irony there. The paradox is that even though the phone system was no longer a "monopoly" per se, the restructuring allowed for many smaller monopolies to exist. Utilities are monopolies, albeit "regulated". In effect, splitting up the Monopoly into smaller monopolies just put the end result off longer. Of course, we no longer are required to buy phones made by AT&T, and we are no longer subject to service by AT&T. But the real issue is that we don't really have a choice as to whom we get local telephone service through. I think that local phone service is actually quite decent, but the problem with the breakup is that now they're just acting like one big happy family like they always were. Nothing forced them to compete, and so the old mindset never changed. In the US it would be better if each phone provider collectively held a share in the physical phone system (i.e. was the "board of directors" per se). Then each individual company could provide telephone service wherever they wanted to, and capitalism would do the rest. The issue would be that this trust could become a cartel, so the government would have to use its power to stop this. It is possible, and it is better than the current iteration.
Unless your "soles" are Nikes, in which case, they're very cheap indeed. I think you meant "soul"; a man in a Chinese prison camp doesn't make my soul. I actually approve of this. I'd much rather have some eager students competing rather than having tax dollars wasted in junk-science research.
Dude, good luck with that. I agree with you about the consumerism, but I would utterly disagree that TV is simply the cause of it. Consumerism comes from the highest levels of corporate aristocracy. It comes from the highest levels of government. It is the fallacal equation of "the American Dream" with fads, materialism, and stinginess. Advertisements are just one avenue of this. Do you think that Congress really gives a rat's ass about Digital TV versus the old Analog stuff? No way in Hell. They care because corporate communists are very wealthy and help them get reelected. They care because these corporate bastards have the ability to lobby with their money. They say that property requirements have been cast away for elections, but it seems now that only those with property are heard. Consumerism isn't some conspiracy by the government, it's a conspiracy by the corporate communists. Not that the government is just peaches, it isn't. The PATRIOT Act is evidence of that. This only reflects lobbying by the cable providers, TV manufacturers, and content producers to cut costs on their part, because they fear either a) having to cut prices or b) losing people to other media such as the web, IPTV, etc.
You may be wondering about "corporate communists." WTF is that, you may ask? Well the way I see it, communism is the system in which competition is eliminated in order that absolute unification perserveres. The result? No competition drives the manufacturing of crappy products. So how are corporations communist? Because their eventual goal is to be the one and only monopoly. Do you think that Apple at all wants to see other MP3 players? No way in hell. The others are forcing it to innovate, and that erodes their bottom line. Why does M$ make shit products? Because they can. Because they are the only one, and they can charge whatever they want for it. What must change in the government must come from the people. We must rise up and stop the government. But there hasn't been anything yet to really anger enough of the population to do that. I feel that I should some day run for office to perhaps instill some sort of honor and dignity. But I'd never get elected; a libertarian is "too radical" compared to the power-hungry and wasteful Democrats and Republicans.
Can Someone Please Tell Me... why Homeland Defense (sic) is so eager to pursue the "criminals, terrorists and spies" lurking in this country, and so afraid to pursue them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other nations where they obviously exist in great abundance?
Because they're "power hungry fucktards" and they are "corrupt filthy bastards". Actually though, Mr. Clemens words of wisdom do not apply. Remember that the FCC somewhat has the ability to select its rules and regulations. Because of its status, it can just assume run things from its little corner. The Congress is actually not a part of this. Congress had to pass a law allowing the FCC to exist, but the FCC pretty much determines its own methods of despotism. This is really garbage though. We have this idiot from Texas (and seeing he actually stands out as an idiot, that says something) running the show with bastards all around him. He has no idea what the fuck is going on! In fact, if we look at the moves the overgrown Bush has taken, we'll notice that he knows nothing about domestic policy and knows only a little about foriegn policy. In fact, he lies, but unlike our former President, he doesn't stick to them. America invaded Iraq: a) to keep Saddam from using WMD b) to liberate the Iraqi people and c) to build a Mid-eastern Democracy. None of these are true. In fact, the Bush Administration has taken a very clear action, aimed at Saudi. We invaded Iraq to pressure Saudi from aiding al-Quaeda. Remember, a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi. The people there are subsidized by the government, and foriegn workers are brought in to take care of Saudi's functions. America was getting lip-service from Saudi, but al-Quaeda was getting silent aide from Saudi as well. Bush is just a moron, he knows nothing about politics nor how to run the country. His daddy got him into Yale and got him the good grades. Yes, even Yale does this. He has no experience to be a president. He was what, a baseball owner? Of a crappy team? If he were Steinbrenner (another major asshole) that would be one thing, but owner of the Texas Rangers. Woohoo::twirls finger::. Basically, the executive branch is power-hungry, the legislative is run by special interests and political party cronies, and the judicial only gets to make decisions when people ask them to.
In America we seem so concerned over what might happen, due to Political Correctness and blood-sucking lawyers, that the other extreme (uber liberals vis a vis uber conservatives) has profited by it. One could call that a conspiracy. Lawyers continue to be employed and the government gets to rule more autocratically. I'm tired of this bullshit in American Politics. Libertarian never sounded so good.
Couldn't agree more. "Terrorists" aim at instilling fear in populations in order that they acheive political aims. Is it ironic that in the name of democracy, the US has eroded civil rights in order that we are "protected" from terrorists? It seems to me that we are succumbing to the terrorists' wills by being afraid of what *might* happen. I speak for myself, but if I hear that the NYC subway is succeptable to terrorism, I'd be more inclined to ride it than normal. Why let our fears rule us? No one gets out of this world alive. To me this seems much more like a measure of control than anything. The government doesn't really care about stopping terror, they would much rather exploit the fear and derive power from that. I'm sick of this garbage.
The old Jay Leno line comes to mind: "A chicken walked into a McDonalds and ordered a box of Chicken McNuggets. When he opened it he said, 'I find nothing in here that offends me.'"
The US has now granted 1/5 of all human genes to be copyrighted. In the next 5 years estimates show the number of genes patented to extend to nearly 7/8ths of all genes. Therefore by the year 2014, nearly 99% of the human genome will be patented (and most of those patents will be held by faceless corporations). So, in an effort to bring China to its knees, the US has adopted its one child per family policy. But, being the blasphemous Americans that we are (of which I am "proud" to be), the US Government will begin filing lawsuits against those who are born without the express permission of patent holders. Then, each person born in the US will have a small stamp affixed to their birth certificates stating that they are the results of intellectual property of various corporation, and a small fee, lets say, a stamp tax will be payed as royalties, as part of its law, called the STIMP Act (Stamp Tax for Accounting of Intellectual Property). Then, if someone claims that they themselves are prior art, the government will apply Eminent Domain and terminate the person's life. Because we support the death penalty! But abortion is morally wrong! And the result of this awesome energy was euphemistically called the Genesis Planet, a secret base from which to launch the annihilation of creativity and self-expression. We demand the extradition of monopolies, we demand justice!...Remember this well, there shall be no peace as long as [RIAA] "lives"! (You pompous ass!) Yes, we Nerds and Geeks are a proud race, and we will continue on being proud, but that does not mean we stand for principles without reason! We have the right to preserve our race! (You have the right to commit theft!) [RIAA] has been charged with nine violations of copyright legislation. Copyright Legislation! Behold the quinticential devil in these matters, RIAA: renegade and terrorist. Not only is it responsible for the lack of quality, the murder of self-expression. Behold the real plot and intentions. Just as intellectual property was becoming more free, studios were secretly developing DRM and other methods to "protect" the unprotectable: that which was born free.
Ok, having butchered enough of that Klingon debate and rearranged it, I think I've kept myself from falling victim to one of Paramount's copyright raids. I am really outraged by this though. Patents, copyright, trade secrets: all are just manifestations of the same lie. Property is something that one is able to own, to do with what he or she pleases. It doesn't matter if he or she created the object. Let's take coffe for example. Very few people like their coffee exactly the same way. But many people order (overpriced) coffee at Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't (and cannot) place restrictions on how someone fixes their coffee. Someone could drink the doctored coffee and say "that is the worst shit in the world" and slam Starbucks, even though it was the friend who doctored the coffee himself. Coffee is a good example because it's something we can all relate to. We all have the natural rights to do with our property what we please. Property does not extend into the virtual realm. This argument that "intellectual property" can be licensed is absurd. When you buy a cup of coffee, you buy the cup, the liquid, and the various straws and stirs and things. You consume the coffee, then do whatever you want to. You could buy some coffee and share it with someone. You could use it as sculpture or as a political statement (although I'm a bit dumbfounded as to how). The bottom line is that "intellectual property" is actually very narrow. I'd be pissed off if someone came into my head and stole my ideas to profit by that. But this is the one "intellectual property" not protected by law! Ideas can't be protected, only manifestations. So what defines a peice of music? What defines a gene sequence? What defines anything? The answer is that none of it is definable. It is all in a legal sense the same bloddy thing. In fact, everything is made of the 12 fundamental particles and antiparticles. So it's jus
Slashdot Mirror
That other list isn't exactly "fair and balanced" either. NYT? Give me a break! At least /. has no pretenses and puts up the link bar at the very top to links toward OSS sites. NYT doesn't tell you that it panders to liberal bleeding-hearts (I'm really not saying that you are among this group, but NYT does tend to cover this type of news.) I like /. because it is a free place to speak your mind and every now and then have an intelligent and civilized debate. There is something you cannot ignore. The fundamental theorem of capitalism: Do not use a good or service if you do not benefit from it. If there is no favorable alternative, then create your own service that gives what you want. If people took the time they spent bitching and used it toward things productive, we'd have a much better world. Take the media: they are the most biased of any organizations. But look at their work: they basically bitch at different groups except the ones that matter most. The media doesn't hold politicians accountable, nor does it adequately analyze "news", nor does it cover newsworthy material, nor does it willingly admit error. Consider the thing about bitching. Our society is so obsessed with it that everyone, not just "lazy teenagers" are astoundingly irresponsible. A friend of mine says, "they didn't lick it off a tree!" Just consider it.
Heh! Send it to DeBeers. They'd love it. :-)
Uhm, not quite. I'm not rich and I listen to NPR, occasionally watch PBS. I merely think that people who want to spend spend spend on things like war and defense at the expense of services that society needs are just delusional. I was replying to the parent who said that the government funds NPR and insinuated that the government wholely owns NPR. It doesn't. It simply provides grant funds, just as grants are provided to other non-profits. I said that the reinvestment in society is crucial, because people are too lazy/stingy/self-centered/scared to help society out. It sounds like "we can spend money better than you can" but in a sense, science and art is like this. There is no guarentee that a given hypothesis will be correct. That's certainly not the case at the lab where I work. But the research is crucial to our understanding of physics. Consider NASA. So many people say "why do we spend billions of dollars to go into space?" But they fail to recognize the innovations that NASA has come up with. They also fail to recognize the knowledge that we have gained about our universe because of NASA. I think state-sponsorship is all-out bad. It's literal communism, and it's utterly biased. But I think the government has the right to fund certain institutions or purposes. In fact, if you look at it, libertarianism is not rooted in paying taxes, it's in liberty itself. Libertarianism suggests that all liberties ought be negative, and the government's role is to ensure that no power becomes too powerful to coerce. We happen to favor few if any taxes at all. In fact, I sometimes favor a profitable government or at least an investment system in which the government would fund itself. But that's a digression for another day. The bottom line is that art and science always stimulate progress in civilizations, and unless art and science somehow become profitable, funding is the best way out.
Smear campaigns only work a) if you are M$ and that is all you are capable of (can you blame them? They can't seem to make any good software, so smearing the other guy is the only acceptable solution) or b) you are against SCO, in which case nothing is actually accomplished. Well, the only thing that is accomplished is lawyers have more job-security. Smear campaigns don't work when in business. It's not like an election, when the choice is made only every term. People choose to buy or not all the time. So if you say something like Satan uses Linux, and then a few years later you state that Linux is (of course) a very good OS, then people will take it and your own words will bite you in the ass. Businesses should spend more time training the troops rather than shouting from the bleachers. If they just made reliable goods or rendered useful service and used decent marketing to inform about each, we'd have a better market economy. But as long as monopolies like M$ are able to coerce, it is a lost cause...
Can't agree more. Especially when half of the channels are "PPV" so you have to pay more to view them. Cut out the numerous "home shopping" channels and you don't have many left. If lucky, you'll have about 200 real channels of content (including about 10 iterations of discovery, 10 iterations of business channels (CNBC, BLOOMBERG, etc.), 15 "News" channels (CNN, MSNBC), other intellectual channels (about 20 or so), and the rest "entertainment"). Stick it to "the man"!
You know, I actually resent that comment. Arts and sciences are two of the areas that America should invest in, even with tax dollars. NPR is not state-sponsored. That's like saying that C-SPAN or the local access channels are state-sponsored. NPR does recieve Federal money, but if you look at the break-down about 1/8 of their budget is covered by Federal funds. I work at a particle physics lab and it's similar. The only difference is that the DoE actually owns the place. A consortium of universities in the Southeast US run the place. It receives money from the government and is "owned" by the government, but is run by private entities. NPR is similar, but NPR isn't owned by the government. It doesn't answer to a specific agency or anything like that. There is no "party representative" per se. I am actually very much for the subsidising of arts and sciences. Art and science are integral components of progress, but their speculative nature makes them unattractive to the private sector. To keep the two areas really functioning, we actually need government. This is the rare exception when I put aside my libertarian views.
Elected officials like to be reelected, and someone has to fund their campaigns. In return, legislation about regulating invasion of privacy is ignored. I agree with the "general public" that the information is not legal to be sold, just as "trade secrets" are illegal to be sold. My beef is this: if my information is sold without my explicit knowledge multiple times based on just one registration card, how can we be confident that the votes being cast by our voting machines are not being tampered with by the proprietary software? And another thing, since my information is being sold, I feel I am entitled to a cut.
Two words: Bush Doctrine. "Compromise" seems to be a curse word in the White House, but "covert CIA agent" seems to be spewed like water from a fountain. All of this is garbage. Bush understands foreign policy (in my opinion) but he is inadequate when it comes to decision making. He's got a good model of what has happened, but what is going to happen? He matches his blank facial expressions. As a US citizen born abroad and having lived overseas for a good amount of time, I understand the feelings of the dissenting governments. On the other hand, I can understand the US's motives. I think the US is being a bit of a big shot, however. The Republican old-boys in power are just set on one course of action and are so stubborn that they'll do anything to get there. The US just makes these unilateral statements when so many other groups are concerned. It has no right to do that. Not in a country that was formed because another country didn't allow them representation. The US has the right to look out for itself, but not at the expense of other nations. Foreign policy is not a clean art by any means; black-mail and other "corruption" are key components. But this unilateral tyranny of it is just, well, for lack of a better term, bullshit. I am a Virginian, and we are a proud state. I am by no means a "confederate" or anything, but I think Virginia makes a lot of sense. Our motto is "sic semper tyrannis," Latin for "thus always to tyrants." It depicts a "common man" standing on an assassinated king, whose crown has fallen off. Many Virginians were instrumental in the revolution and disjunction from Britain. It appears that this Texan, with previous experience and training amounting to owning a baseball team and being governor of Texas, wants to just have it his way or the highway, unless people on his staff are corrupt and dishonest. And, this same idiot preaches "christianity" while he makes these greedy moves and nurtures corrpution. This is why the US is declaring the Internet its domain (no pun intended). Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The control of the internet is power, and this Texas tyrant doesn't want to relinquish anything he can get his hands on. The US invented the internet; now that it is truly "inter" let us share it with everyone. How about a loose framework of computer networks regulated by the individual users. If governments jointly rule, we may cede all say in the matter. UN is corrupt, but perhaps a new organization whose sole purpose is to run the internet, and composed of delegates, one per nation, who each have one vote and act as legislators and enforcers?
I agree, but... I'd say that the iPod is cool and appeals to the market because it is sexy. Let's face it, it just looks hot. And the easy-to-use UI helps greatly. In fact, the first time I used an iPod (back in 2G), I was struck by how much of a great gadget it really was. It played music easily and rid me of the need to carry my CDs everywhere. It didn't have the radio, but that didn't bother me (nor does it now). No one has come up with an i-ssassin, and therefore iPod is ubiquitous and ever-growing.
Basically, you're right about the iPod being a "plug in and work" type device, but it also has the sexy factor. Before the Apple Renaissance around `99 && 2000, gadgets were geek toys built with function and perhaps some ergonomics in the designers' minds. Then the "cute" iMac came out, which still ran the outdated "Classic OS". It was the first Apple anyone paid attention to in years. Then the iBooks came out. Again, they were considered "cute". OS X came and its twin iPod were born and Apple went on the map. The iPod took till about 3G to get hugely popular. Now you can't go in a NY Metro without seeing the token white ear-buds. Computers are now made with form and function in mind, as are gadgets. Remember the old Palm's? Look at them now. Impressive! No one argues that Windows looks nicer than Mac. Some argue it's easier to use (and without a right-click I can agree somewhat). However, no one aruges that Mac is less stable than Windows, at least not anyone who has experience with security.
Making a high-capacity mp3 player run on OSS is a great idea in my opinion. The trick is like parent said, the player must be easy to use. My iPod is easy to use. It has five buttons and the wheel function, and I can do whatever I want with it. It's intuitive to use and doesn't require opening the instruction manual. I reiterate: doesn't require opening the instruction manual. Americans have a phobia of instruction manuals and technical jargon. I don't blame them: if I had to read comparable literature studying a subject I didn't really care about, I'd want to give up too. The iPod just works. And anything like it should. Even we geeks favor technology that "just works", we'd just like to see how it works. I am interested in technology and how it works rather than just that it works. I figure if I can do something for myself, I'd be much better off than paying someone a profit to do it. My contribution to stopping inflation :-). Basically, geeks like to see how stuff works and tinker. Average Joe Consumer doesn't really give a damn about how it works, but he wants it to work. The formula for an iPod killer is this: a company must make a device that runs user-friendly UI, performs music-playing like a butler, is easy to control quickly and smoothly, and is sexy. Until then, Apple will dominate.
As for OSS, it's a great cause because it is the right cause. To those who really don't care about it, we can only get them to use OSS. If people reallized the potential and the reasons, or if they can simply get over the fact that OSS communities "donate" their code because of "good will", then maybe the movement will extend beyond a few esoteric branches of geekdom. I'd honestly like to have a system that just runs how I want it to. I also like to tweak it, but a system that can do what is required out of the box is great. If this company understands that concept, they have the potential to sell a good amount of players. The original Apple really ceased to exist when Jobs took over again in '99. Now the New Apple is going strong and is ubersuccessful. To me Apple represents the ideology of capitalism. They need to make profit so instead of bitching or other dishonest means, they actually innovate and come up with a kickass product. That's why I like Apple. I also applaud this company for adopting OSS, another great innovation. Not only will it cut their costs, but it will empower the OSS community to check out the player.
"The more you tighten your grip, the more [control] slips through your fingers." -- Princess Leia
Quite seriously, that's what I think will end up happening. The law must get so tough and so bloated, that someone will challenge the Constitutionality of it, and all of the laws will be struck down. If it gets really bad and people are pissed off enough, Constitutional Amendments can be made, but that'd be really really really pissed off to the nth degree, as n approaches infinity. Based on what these greedy bastards are capable of, that may just happen. Content is content. An idea becomes public when it leaves one's mind. The only "intellectual property" I claim to own is the functioning brain inside of my head. I have the right to do with it what I want, and no one can coerce me or compel me to do with it what I need. Sadly, this property is being stolen, while public property is being plundered. Artists are screwed by big cartels; the real intellectual property is raped while pseudo-property is given rights, so that an elite can benefit and profit. Sounds like an oligarchy to me. As a result, talent isn't valued, consumerism is rampant, and "American culture" is a contradiction.
This is outrageous. Who is behind the contraoversy? The borg at the top of this pane. M$ is the only one to lose, because M$ Word documents are supported by OO.o. The fact is, competition should force M$ to innovate, but competition seems to cause them to bitch. When Linux started gaining some ground, M$ did nothing to improve Windoze, it just attacked Linux. Of course it is their perogative to say that they are the best, but don't write a check if you can't cash it. The only somewhat good response from the Giant is that they restarted the IE project after Firefox was introduced. Of course, they ignored it for a great deal of time. Now the growth seems to have "stagnated", but the data is very inconclusive as of yet. Growth on par with Firefox is rare if not anomolous. Back to OO.o. Massachusetts is jokingly referred to by some of its constitutants as "the People's Republic of Taxachusetts". With a Republican Governor who inherited a bad economy, cost-cutting measures were needed. So, ditch the expensive, erroneous, bloated software in favor of a free Open Source solution. Hell, I'd move for a bill to make all government software to be open source. You can still buy and sell software, and it is still able to be profitable, it is just that no one has developed an outstanding business model. I applaud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for upholding their title and supporting the citizens over big business.
Anyone heard that Greenday song "American Idiot"? This is what it's fucking talking about! Don't listen to this shit. Bush may be a radical, but he's like the stupidest man ever. He's from Texas, where not going to death row is like a high-school diploma. (Imagine if he wrote the declaration of independence: "King George (hehe, that's my name, too), we really hate ya, and we're gonna kick your ass preemptively!") The real problem is that small factions run the country. From the radical right to the radical left to the radical special interests to the radical media. The real "moderates" aren't given a chance to step up. Oligarchy sadly has taken over America. Now the various factions war with each other. Media calls the right names. The left and the media team up. The right, left, and special interests have a three-way. The Media feels left out and bashes all three. This is insanity, like trying to balance a CD thorugh its central hole. Anyone who claims to be Christian should know that the Gospel Matthew clearly states that one is to "Love the LORD [his or her] God with all [his or her] heart, mind, and soul." Basically, don't check your brain at the door (of course, Texans weren't very well endowed in tha respect). This ignorance is insanity. In times of the bible, this was known as blasphemy or false-prophesy. Today we are more gracious, and so I am hopeful that these people will recant their wicked ways and their terror tactics. Christianity is perhaps one of the most positive and most elightening lifestyles, yet a few loud Jesus-freaks give it a bad name. Quite a shame, really.
Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns.
Sounds like Forbes feels threatened. Bloggers seem to have taken what the media has done for years and just done it on the grass-roots level.
It's not easy to fight back... Ok, so who exactly is the victim? this ambiguous sentence reaffirms Forbes' percieved threat. Often a bashing victim can't even figure out who his attacker is. No target is too mighty, or too obscure, for this new and virulent strain of oratory. Oh, yes, because the media is such a bastion of ethics and morals . ::cough cough:: Not that I'd mention any names ::cough cough:: Michael Shiavo, Gary Condit ::cough cough::. Because the media certainly these people out. Michael Shiavo now has this undeserved stardom and is the object of hate for radicals. Gary Condit was basically ruinned by the media (although his competance is questionable) because he had this affair (a common task of wealthy and powerful men).
Microsoft has been hammered by bloggers; so have CBS, CNN and ABC News, two research boutiques that criticized IBM's Notes software, the maker of Kryptonite bike locks, a Virginia congressman outed as a homosexual and dozens of other victims--even a right-wing blogger who dared defend a blog-mob scapegoat. Refer to the comments above. Not only has the media meddled in areas it has no right to, but it hasn't gone into areas it needs to. Is the media pissed that people actually question what they right ::shock!:: ::cough cough::. I really should get this cold checked out, that avian flu is supposed to be in Asia. Oh, wait, some more media hype about a disease that has only really affected people in Vietnam who have come in close contact with cattle dung. Sorry, Forbes, ya lose. The media will have to adapt to the blogosphere. Hell, the blogosphere is actually a source of good in the media. Dan Rather's bluff was called by a blogger, and the blogger was right on. I for one hate the media and its self-importance. The media a) reports no relevant news, b) is guilty of more "terrorism" crimes than bin Laden himself, c) is horribly biased, d) is so arrogant that corrections MUST go on the second page in small print, e) doesn't hold officials accountable (can anyone say "Abu Ghraib" or "Kosovo"? Anyone...? Anyone...?) f) gives only some actual facts, and usually distorted ones at that, with no indepth analysis whatsoever g) is so concerned about being "first to cover", or have "breaking news" or whatever bullshit of the week to pander to viewers. I'm really tired of all of the big media establishment. They're bunch of pompous, arrogant shitheads who think far too idealistically and are willing to pin blame on their dead mother's gravestones. I am tired of them, and demand change. Bloggers of the world...well, keep blogging!
Doesn't this seem somewhat of a paradox? An anti-trust suit brings about the split into the baby-bells. SBC, a congolmeration of former bells (Pacific Bell, etc.), buys its antediviso company. That's just irony there. The paradox is that even though the phone system was no longer a "monopoly" per se, the restructuring allowed for many smaller monopolies to exist. Utilities are monopolies, albeit "regulated". In effect, splitting up the Monopoly into smaller monopolies just put the end result off longer. Of course, we no longer are required to buy phones made by AT&T, and we are no longer subject to service by AT&T. But the real issue is that we don't really have a choice as to whom we get local telephone service through. I think that local phone service is actually quite decent, but the problem with the breakup is that now they're just acting like one big happy family like they always were. Nothing forced them to compete, and so the old mindset never changed. In the US it would be better if each phone provider collectively held a share in the physical phone system (i.e. was the "board of directors" per se). Then each individual company could provide telephone service wherever they wanted to, and capitalism would do the rest. The issue would be that this trust could become a cartel, so the government would have to use its power to stop this. It is possible, and it is better than the current iteration.
Does Visual Studio Rot the Brain?
Is M$ a monopoly?
if (USER_OS == "Microsoft")
{
printf("Your brain is being rotted!!!\n");
}
Unless your "soles" are Nikes, in which case, they're very cheap indeed. I think you meant "soul"; a man in a Chinese prison camp doesn't make my soul. I actually approve of this. I'd much rather have some eager students competing rather than having tax dollars wasted in junk-science research.
Dude, good luck with that. I agree with you about the consumerism, but I would utterly disagree that TV is simply the cause of it. Consumerism comes from the highest levels of corporate aristocracy. It comes from the highest levels of government. It is the fallacal equation of "the American Dream" with fads, materialism, and stinginess. Advertisements are just one avenue of this. Do you think that Congress really gives a rat's ass about Digital TV versus the old Analog stuff? No way in Hell. They care because corporate communists are very wealthy and help them get reelected. They care because these corporate bastards have the ability to lobby with their money. They say that property requirements have been cast away for elections, but it seems now that only those with property are heard. Consumerism isn't some conspiracy by the government, it's a conspiracy by the corporate communists. Not that the government is just peaches, it isn't. The PATRIOT Act is evidence of that. This only reflects lobbying by the cable providers, TV manufacturers, and content producers to cut costs on their part, because they fear either a) having to cut prices or b) losing people to other media such as the web, IPTV, etc.
You may be wondering about "corporate communists." WTF is that, you may ask? Well the way I see it, communism is the system in which competition is eliminated in order that absolute unification perserveres. The result? No competition drives the manufacturing of crappy products. So how are corporations communist? Because their eventual goal is to be the one and only monopoly. Do you think that Apple at all wants to see other MP3 players? No way in hell. The others are forcing it to innovate, and that erodes their bottom line. Why does M$ make shit products? Because they can. Because they are the only one, and they can charge whatever they want for it. What must change in the government must come from the people. We must rise up and stop the government. But there hasn't been anything yet to really anger enough of the population to do that. I feel that I should some day run for office to perhaps instill some sort of honor and dignity. But I'd never get elected; a libertarian is "too radical" compared to the power-hungry and wasteful Democrats and Republicans.
Hahahahaha! We forgive you. 'B' is next to 'N' after all. ;-) That was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.
Can Someone Please Tell Me ... why Homeland Defense (sic) is so eager to pursue the "criminals, terrorists and spies" lurking in this country, and so afraid to pursue them in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other nations where they obviously exist in great abundance?
Because they're "power hungry fucktards" and they are "corrupt filthy bastards". Actually though, Mr. Clemens words of wisdom do not apply. Remember that the FCC somewhat has the ability to select its rules and regulations. Because of its status, it can just assume run things from its little corner. The Congress is actually not a part of this. Congress had to pass a law allowing the FCC to exist, but the FCC pretty much determines its own methods of despotism. This is really garbage though. We have this idiot from Texas (and seeing he actually stands out as an idiot, that says something) running the show with bastards all around him. He has no idea what the fuck is going on! In fact, if we look at the moves the overgrown Bush has taken, we'll notice that he knows nothing about domestic policy and knows only a little about foriegn policy. In fact, he lies, but unlike our former President, he doesn't stick to them. America invaded Iraq: a) to keep Saddam from using WMD b) to liberate the Iraqi people and c) to build a Mid-eastern Democracy. None of these are true. In fact, the Bush Administration has taken a very clear action, aimed at Saudi. We invaded Iraq to pressure Saudi from aiding al-Quaeda. Remember, a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi. The people there are subsidized by the government, and foriegn workers are brought in to take care of Saudi's functions. America was getting lip-service from Saudi, but al-Quaeda was getting silent aide from Saudi as well. Bush is just a moron, he knows nothing about politics nor how to run the country. His daddy got him into Yale and got him the good grades. Yes, even Yale does this. He has no experience to be a president. He was what, a baseball owner? Of a crappy team? If he were Steinbrenner (another major asshole) that would be one thing, but owner of the Texas Rangers. Woohoo ::twirls finger::. Basically, the executive branch is power-hungry, the legislative is run by special interests and political party cronies, and the judicial only gets to make decisions when people ask them to.
In America we seem so concerned over what might happen, due to Political Correctness and blood-sucking lawyers, that the other extreme (uber liberals vis a vis uber conservatives) has profited by it. One could call that a conspiracy. Lawyers continue to be employed and the government gets to rule more autocratically. I'm tired of this bullshit in American Politics. Libertarian never sounded so good.
Couldn't agree more. "Terrorists" aim at instilling fear in populations in order that they acheive political aims. Is it ironic that in the name of democracy, the US has eroded civil rights in order that we are "protected" from terrorists? It seems to me that we are succumbing to the terrorists' wills by being afraid of what *might* happen. I speak for myself, but if I hear that the NYC subway is succeptable to terrorism, I'd be more inclined to ride it than normal. Why let our fears rule us? No one gets out of this world alive. To me this seems much more like a measure of control than anything. The government doesn't really care about stopping terror, they would much rather exploit the fear and derive power from that. I'm sick of this garbage.
The old Jay Leno line comes to mind: "A chicken walked into a McDonalds and ordered a box of Chicken McNuggets. When he opened it he said, 'I find nothing in here that offends me.'"
Unbelievable.
The US has now granted 1/5 of all human genes to be copyrighted. In the next 5 years estimates show the number of genes patented to extend to nearly 7/8ths of all genes. Therefore by the year 2014, nearly 99% of the human genome will be patented (and most of those patents will be held by faceless corporations). So, in an effort to bring China to its knees, the US has adopted its one child per family policy. But, being the blasphemous Americans that we are (of which I am "proud" to be), the US Government will begin filing lawsuits against those who are born without the express permission of patent holders. Then, each person born in the US will have a small stamp affixed to their birth certificates stating that they are the results of intellectual property of various corporation, and a small fee, lets say, a stamp tax will be payed as royalties, as part of its law, called the STIMP Act (Stamp Tax for Accounting of Intellectual Property). Then, if someone claims that they themselves are prior art, the government will apply Eminent Domain and terminate the person's life. Because we support the death penalty! But abortion is morally wrong! And the result of this awesome energy was euphemistically called the Genesis Planet, a secret base from which to launch the annihilation of creativity and self-expression. We demand the extradition of monopolies, we demand justice!...Remember this well, there shall be no peace as long as [RIAA] "lives"! (You pompous ass!) Yes, we Nerds and Geeks are a proud race, and we will continue on being proud, but that does not mean we stand for principles without reason! We have the right to preserve our race! (You have the right to commit theft!) [RIAA] has been charged with nine violations of copyright legislation. Copyright Legislation! Behold the quinticential devil in these matters, RIAA: renegade and terrorist. Not only is it responsible for the lack of quality, the murder of self-expression. Behold the real plot and intentions. Just as intellectual property was becoming more free, studios were secretly developing DRM and other methods to "protect" the unprotectable: that which was born free.
Ok, having butchered enough of that Klingon debate and rearranged it, I think I've kept myself from falling victim to one of Paramount's copyright raids. I am really outraged by this though. Patents, copyright, trade secrets: all are just manifestations of the same lie. Property is something that one is able to own, to do with what he or she pleases. It doesn't matter if he or she created the object. Let's take coffe for example. Very few people like their coffee exactly the same way. But many people order (overpriced) coffee at Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't (and cannot) place restrictions on how someone fixes their coffee. Someone could drink the doctored coffee and say "that is the worst shit in the world" and slam Starbucks, even though it was the friend who doctored the coffee himself. Coffee is a good example because it's something we can all relate to. We all have the natural rights to do with our property what we please. Property does not extend into the virtual realm. This argument that "intellectual property" can be licensed is absurd. When you buy a cup of coffee, you buy the cup, the liquid, and the various straws and stirs and things. You consume the coffee, then do whatever you want to. You could buy some coffee and share it with someone. You could use it as sculpture or as a political statement (although I'm a bit dumbfounded as to how). The bottom line is that "intellectual property" is actually very narrow. I'd be pissed off if someone came into my head and stole my ideas to profit by that. But this is the one "intellectual property" not protected by law! Ideas can't be protected, only manifestations. So what defines a peice of music? What defines a gene sequence? What defines anything? The answer is that none of it is definable. It is all in a legal sense the same bloddy thing. In fact, everything is made of the 12 fundamental particles and antiparticles. So it's jus
Sorry, Belgium is the country. It's BeNeLux, not BrNeLux :-)
--Andrew Elgert