The EU has no practical interest in causing a separation of the Internet. I do think that the DNS should be decentralized, but not run by governments. This isn't the GovNet, it's the Internet. We are all the "owners" of it. But the EU won't let the Internet fail. It would be suicide for them. With a stronger US dollar, the EU makes more profit on exports to the US. Businesses would shit if the EU tried to do this. Besides, the organization is so backwards that it can't even ratify a Constitution in three prominet countries (France, Brussels, and the Netherlands). The EU is really a joke. If Europeans really can come together under a Franco-German dominated alliance and not begin killing each other or brawl like guests on a Jerry Springer episode, then maybe the EU would work. As of now (and forever) it is just weak and powerless. As long as Germany and France don't hold to their own strict rules, the EU will just be a wastebasket of free trade blocs. This threat is completely unfounded and is a typical European threat. They can't really think that the rest of the world will fall for that. We'd be just as good without a European Union. In a global world, they have no choice but to submit.
I read an article about a year and a half ago about Microshaft's move toward the home-entertainment market. The article was actually about the TV DRM. It basically asked what if Microsoft 10 years from then (8.5 years from now) used its power to control the media industry. Essentially it boiled down to just this. If Microsoft's TV DRM were required for use and had to play on equipment through a service provider, compatible (either forcibly or through coersion) with the Microsoft DRM, if internet content had to be sent with the same DRM crap, and if home entertainment is completely obliterated by Microsoft, we will be left with something worse than a dictatorship; we'd have all-out 1984. And (of course) ignorant people said, "I don't think that they would do that." But M$ is quite capable of such atrocities. What we need is a claim that the government can't file. The company is a monopoly and needs to be stopped before it is too late. The government had its shot, but since the Bush Administration has sold its soul to the devil, it just let the weak judgement pass (something like $100 million in fines, chump change for M$). I don't hate the company, but I dislike it with a passion. What I fear the most is that such an ambitious company can, in the name of capitalism, lead to the exact problems of communism. And the reason? No competition!
Hey, dude, that's cool. You sure clarified some of the points I attempted to make. I'm glad we can have a civilized debate here without screaming at each other or emotionally attacking. Thanks!
I thought that these were rights that were protected by the Constitution in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution? One is supposed to be informed of his crime before investigation can begin. The Writ of Habeas Corpus also applies here; since a crime hasn't been committed, there is no way that they can just listen because someone might commit a crime. Someone might talk about committing murder and how they plan to do it, but no one has the right to listen in on the conversation because one of the parties might conspire to commit murder. The Constitution protects rights of "criminals" by saying that a) to run an investigation a crime must be committed (habeas corupus) b) the accused must be told what his or her crime is (5th amendment) c) the person must be informed by the government with a cause and substantiation for search and seizure (4th amendment) d) the person is free from penalty of self-incrimination (5th amendment) e) the person is entitled to trial by jury (7th amendment and article 3) f) the person is granted the right to a fair punishment that fits his or her crime (8th amendment) g) the person has a right to a trial that quickly follows his or her endictment for the crime, as well as reasonable bail (6th amendment). So, wiretapping and using it in court would violate ALL of these. Since there is no proof of a crime that has been committed, the rest of the claims that would even validate a wiretap are false. If people knew that their phones were being tapped, they would clearly invoke the fifth amendment. This is a clear violation of authority and needs to be stopped. I'm sure a good corporate interest group would actually agree with us on this one.
Shame to you and all who are self-righteous "Christians". We are tired of your blasphemy and false-teaching. Christ himself said to beware of the false-prophets, and I have learned in my years who He meant. The fundamental theory of science is that there are only natural interactions in the universe. What you are suggesting is like saying my cold is caused by an imaginary troll living in my chest. It can't be proven, or even provided concrete evidence, therefore it violates the scientific method. No one ever said that Religion, science, and philosophy were the same thing. I am a man who follows the christian faith, follows various philosophies (most of which share many ideals with the Bible), and I follow what science says. Science is never concrete solid fact. That is the point of science. Theories cannot be proved, but evidence can support them. If some new evidence comes up, the theory is altered. Religion is different. You don't alter your faith every time someone speaks out against christianity. I'm not sure that someone with such a hateful message has faith, however. Christ specifically said to the Pharisees, the self-righteous of his time, that "tax-collecters and prostitutes" were entering heaven all the time. He also said that the rich have less of a chance of getting to heaven than a camel has of going through the eye of a needle. Many literalists contend He meant the wealthy, but I am inclinded to believe that he meant "rich" as in an Earthly person. Wealth is not evil; idolitry is the evil. Jesus in fact promoted freedom of thought, but obviously people like you have fallen victim to the opposite. I wish "Christians" (especially the self-righteous bastards like you) would read the Bible and not just listen to your propaganda preachers. In fact, up the ante. Why not go and read the original Greek and Aramaic. The messages will no doubt surprise you and might upset you. You are the work of Satan! Get thee behind me!
Amen. Mod up, please. This man (though he be a coward) is telling the truth. "da Vinci" means "of Vinci". Lots of people lived in Vinci through the ages; it would be a bit unfair to say that Leonardo was the only inhabitant of Vinci. Imagine if years from now someone from New York city is commonly called "of New York". Obviously that would apply to a lot of people.
The fact that they need tax breaks for hybrids means that they do not make finacial sense, and frankly, makes me livid.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree here. The US seeks to lose a great deal from high gas prices. In fact, the minor effects seem to be perking up already in the economy. I ordered a pizza the other day, and for the first time ever my charge included a delivery fee. It seems small and irrelevant, but fuel affects the entire market. If gas prices go up, then shipping costs rise, cost of finished goods rise, and we end up paying more so our salaries go up and then we have to pay higher taxes and so on. This is what happened to the US economy in the 1970's because of the over-strict government regulations that caused businesses to fold. Because of this mega-inflation, fuel costs can cause the same problems if left unchecked, which leads me to my next point. It is said that "whatever you tax you get less of and whatever you subsidize you get more of." For example, President Carter attempted to levy a "luxury tax" on luxury watercraft in the 1970's. What happened? The wealthy folks who bought luxury watercraft stopped buying them, and the watercraft market imploded. Now some of the subsidies governments give are absurd, such as crop subsidies to agribusinesses. But this one actually makes sense. Consider that most people do some city commuting daily and that this is more efficient on a hybrid (the electric motor takes over for the gas engine in stop-go driving). The government isn't saying that hybrids don't make financial sense. They're attempting to encourage the purchase of hybrids. Now I don't really know if what you're saying is true, but you're not using the term "subsidize" and "tax break" correctly. A tax break is a cut in taxes for a given action. This is quite possilby the provision for hybrids, but this is not the same thing as a subsidy. A subsidy is money paid to private citizens or organizations in order that they continue to do what they are asked to do. For example, the lab where I work, Jefferson Lab, a particle accellerator lab, is subsidized by the US Department of Energy. You are paying for the operation of JLab. You aren't paying for folks x, y, and z to get hybrids. Perhaps you're paying the difference, but usually the difference is made up by foriegn investment. After all, we do have a very large Federal deficit now. Now I do agree with you that people drive too much. On the other hand, the American culture has grown that way, and there isn't much that anyone can do about that.
Exactly. There is no fucking way in Hell that a physical object should have less "rights" than a virtual one. I own the fucking CD it came on. The company can't come and fuckin take it away. So, if I own the atoms of the software, then I own the software. This "buying the license" logic is like saying that the dictionary is insulting me because it contains all the words of an insult. Someone may own the right to be creative, but no one can steal that (yet, anyway). As long as I own the CD or the software is on my hard drive, I own the individual atoms of it, therefore owning what they represent to the CPU, in effect owning the software. I don't buy this fucking "license" shit one bit. It will go away. It has no choice but to.
You're absolutely correct. If the supplier is in one state and the consumer is in another, neither state can collect a sales tax. The Articles allowed states to apply taxes to interstate goods, but the Constitution strictly prohibits it. In effect, the states are collecting tariffs, tax on imports. They can call it "sales tax" or whatever they wish, but it is interstate commerce, out of the states' governments' hands. The Federal govermnent is the only group that can impose these taxes on interstate goods, just as the Federal government investigates interstate and Federal crimes. In the end, either some private citizen or the Federal government could take these states to court.
Well, yeah, that's my whole point--sort of. One man's liberator is another man's terrorist. Of course if we take "terrorist" to mean someone who uses "terror" to influence politics. The Sons of Liberty were very much a terrorist organization, but if you look at the results, the Sons really didn't have too much political influence other than things like the Boston Massacre or the Boston Tea Party. Paine had influence. Jefferson had influence. The acts that the King enforced had influence. Actually, if you look at the history books, John Adams, the second US president, defended the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre to their acquital. The Sons of Liberty in many ways wasn't a terrorist organization, but rather a group of organized thugs who history has come to glorify. They didn't scare people into action. The government is both a terrorist organization and scared of terrorism. Look at the Patriot Act. Not only did the government show it was afraid of terrorism by passing it, they also scare the citizens into not criticizing the government. So, there's my 2 cents. Probably about what it's worth, too.:-)
Remember when they teach you that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and that "endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."? They often seem to neglect the part about dissolving political bonds in favor of new ones or the fact that the ruler derives his or her power from the consent of the governed. I'm all against "terrorists", but how about we take some real action against them instead of stupid shit, like keeping VoIP from using encryption. Us law-abiding citizens will have to and terrorists will go on encrypting it. Who the hell would ever know? They would likely use an encryption scheme above the NSA threshold, so it would look more like garbage data than a meaningful phone conversation. Obviously DC has taken the name "Washington" and tarnished it by throwing it in the mud. It was a mistake to name the capital city after him; almost everything the government does is in direct opposition to what George Washington personally and politically believed in. Balance of powers has become blurred (the FCC and other executive bureaus can arbitrarily impose jurisdiction without Congressional consent.) I think everything that America stands for is being torn down and propaganda is making it happen. The government is engaging in terror just as much as radical islamists and other terrorists. All of this shit about "protecting America" is ineffective and futile. You can't preemptively stop terror. You can only deter it or freeze it. Foreignly the US has done an excellent job at this: Saudi is cooperating with us, Libya is growing balls, Iran now knows we have a backbone, Lebanon and Syria are finally coming to some resolution. What the government is doing internally is destroying America. These acts such as PATRIOT Act and the Wire Tap act are tantamount to the Alien and Sedition acts.
My/. commrades, we must consider the mathematics of it. At first, FX was used by such a small percentage of people that it didn't deserve any distinguishment from the Mozilla Suite. Then, around version 8, the geek world truly adopted Firefox. In fact, I know no geeks or nerds (/. type fodder) who don't prefer FX to IE. It has better features and is standards compliant. OSS also improves it.
I consider security an issue, but I also think that because OSS inherently allows for ubiquitous bug-checking, the problems with FX are being ironed out early, whereas IE has had problems since its inception, and the rate of change of the new problems is greater than the rate of change of the problems solved (in a given time duration). So, we can infer that because Firefox is still growing, the people who analyze the code is growing as well, and the more bugs will be ironed out earlier. The number of users is directly proportional to the number of bugs found and fixes implemented. With IE, the more people who use it (and do not have access to the code), the fewer chances there are for a given user to fix the code. Therefore, the debugging base is a small (constant) contingent at M$ (who probably doesn't really debug all that often until a flaw is actually announced on cracker sites.) And at that, M$ has had a few (about 8) years to debug IE whereas Firefox has been in existence about 2 (correct me if I'm wrong). Do the math. The new bugs in IE should be far smaller than they are at this stage. Firefox is doing well at eliminating its bugs early on. But security is just one of the mathematical issues.
Another would be the "growth rate." Knowing calculus, the growth rate can be defined as the derivative of function f where f(x) is number of users at a time t. d/dx[f(x)] would be the growth rate function. d^2/dx[f(x)] would give the rate of growth rate function. This is what WSS is trying to say. What they don't do, however, is give valid reasons. They assume that most of us are ilnumerate -- that we are incapable of doing math. What they fail to realize is that math is only a model of the real world and that with the correct stats we can then predict what will likely happen. Obviously there is a continuum of web users from those who know the on and off buttons to those of us who know what the difference between a client and server is to those of us who know the different requests HTTP can transmit. The geekiest of the geeky were the first to adopt FX. That is a fact. It followed a regular exponential growth model. At first, the number of users was incredibly small. Then as WoM started spreading, more downloads came. And these downloads compounded, much like interest on your mortgage payment or rabbits whose sole task is to multiply. The population was really booming. The second derivative, d^2/dx[f(x)] was very very positive. Now, it seems, the geeks are still downloading it, but the second derivative is now negative, because the rate of change of growth rate is actually decreasing. I believe once Firefox reaches that 1st precentile of geekdom, possibly sooner, firefox will begin to catch on with the mere mortal web-users and the corporate users. I would venture that the corporate users would come on first and then the personal users, but who knows. Obviously the aforementioned security is an issue too, and it plays into our mathematical model. The main point is that we can fit data to various functions, but the function is only part of the model. We can say "well, the total number of firefox users has increased at a declining rate." This is just a statistic; it is so misleading that it follows lies and damn lies. One wouldn't analyze what their expected server load would be using the prior load as the sole determinant. Organization 'x' may decide to roll out its full website on some day during the month, and users begin flocking there. Using the old data for the "page under construction" page and extrapolating the next month's usage would be futile. Statistics is very useful, but I fin
Try one of your Senators. It isn't automatically made law or anything. Laws have to pass both the House and Senate, and the appropriations bills all originate in the House. The Senate is much less of a rubber-stamp than the House is.
Is it ironic that the judges, those who the citizens do not directly elect are the ones most on consumers' sides? I thought about it and reallized that judges don't have to worry about huge campaigning bills and therefore can "afford" to be honorable. Even though we know that elected officials could be honorable too. But then the media would have to get off of its fat lazy ass and begin working. I think it has forgotten how to spell "Kosovo."
Agree 100%, but I'd like to put my 2 cents in. Instead of RITA, I call them RICA for Recording Industry Cartel of America. Rica is also Spanish for "rich" which adequately describes the organization. Fuck them. They are lazy rich greedy bastards. Mr. Ballmer should have said "I'm going to fucking kill RICA, I'm going to fucking bury them!"
To have only one price point is not fair to our artists
Ah, yes, because studios are models of fairness toward artists. If you ask me, giving 15 cents on every dollar to the artist is very greedy. Not to mention that the studio takes money out of artists' accounts when they pay for radio play and things like that. Then they corporatize it so that every 2 years the entire playing field is different. It is worse than professional sports, where the turnover time is about 15 years. I would hate to be a major studio artist today. And one further thing, why is the RIAA and its components bitching about pricing?.99 per song is very decent and is also more than a regular album would cost. There is no way in fuck that people are going to pay 3 bucks for one frigging song. Apple has every right to step in and refuse. In fact, Apple should lower their costs on music if the music industry keeps bitching. Or at least remove DRM. Apple would separate itself from M$ if it did that and we would love it. The music industry would shit its pants, but they need a good bedwetting. Fuck those bastards, they deserve to burn in hell for their gluttony.
If we remember what American history and philosophy says, as well as "precedents", we'll recognize that in the early years America violated almost every "property right" that there was. We were a fledgling nation and needed to violate the rights in order to establish ourselves. Now because of media dirtbags the ideas have been bastardized and perverted into this "intellectual property" bullshit, that isn't even mentioned in the US Constitution. Contrary to what one poster said, the founders of the US did have economic ideas and they had significant education. Stating that they had taken only "economics 101" is a complete fallacy. Hamilton successfully established our national bank and we are still in his debt, no pun intended. The issue is this: John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, conceived of the modern ideals of property. He believed that people had the rights to own land and own personal property. This was in stark contrast to the traditional European system where Serfs and Vassals served their Lords and the Lords served the Kings under the feudal system. Locke believed that individual rights encompassed all things, and that every individual, in order to "Pursue Happiness", had the right to make money. This is the birth of the idea of the so-called intellectual property. America's forefathers understood this and therefore they established a clause in the constitution enumerating a system for copyright. What the constitution also enumerates, however, is that the copyright is established for the "the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts." In other words, the authors are not made to benefit alone; science and/or art must also benefit. These are dual requirements, just as "creul and unusual" must both be true. The founding fathers also had no way to conceive the internet or any global communication/integration system. My view is that "intellectual property" is the grey matter in one's head. No one can steal what's in one's head from that person. They have neither the right nor the ability, and even if they did have the ability, they would not have the right. That would undermine the principles of freedom. The idea of a patent is good: it promotes innovation (in theory). What should be provided is a means for less litigation and lawsuits. In other words, the language and interpretation should be radically relaxed. It attacks my freedom to say I can't make a derivative work without paying a royalty. It attacks my freedom to say that I, as a creative individual, cannot take a "patented" device and then make improvements upon it. It infringes on my rights and attacks my freedom that major corporations have the ability to monitor me through the use of "trade secrets" that are part of proprietary programs or devices or whatever. I've heard a lot about these "black boxes" that record car data. I have an inherent right to know what code is running on that machine and an inherent right to know what is being recorded. The final dilema is this: if a third world country is battling the AIDS epidemic and they desperately need medication that is patented, why should they get the permission from the creator as well as pay the creator royalties? They obviously don't have the money to pay for the drugs and could much more cheaply manufacture a generic medication than importing it. It may be one's right to own the individual workings of a physica object, but not at the expence of others' rights or lives.
I would refute that. There are those who have the Patrick Henry gene. He was an honor to Virginians and we will remember him forever. But, I must also state that it was Thomas Jefferson (also a great Virginian), not Patrick Henry, who wrote the Declaration of Independence. These were indeed great men and they should be honored forever. In fact, I would say that there are many people who share their spirit or would, but the ones who gain power use the archaic system of political parties that have increasingly lost a cause; they exist to help the corporate entities who have no votes. I endeavor to change that and reestablish the Constitution to how it was meant to be. Also, I peronally believe that the Declaration, the document from which America derives its birth, should be given legal standing alongside the Constitution. It is not a document meant to establish laws; rather it should be valued as the fundamental American document, which it already is, and grant the rights it mentions to all people. Our country was founded on the principle that the people have the right to challenge their government. Anyone who says differently is ignorant to history. In fact, our country was founded on the principle that people have the right to do what they want, insofar as it doesn't take away the rights of others. At that time it meant white male land owners. Now we are blessed that it means everyone. From the end of WWII and the cultural revolution in the 50s, a countermeasure against the "traditional roles", this country has led itself to a dangerous position. I still am proud to say I am American, but I am not so proud that I am blinded from the truth. We can reform, and saying that "no one has the Patrick Henry gene" is giving into their cause. The corporate commies would like you to think that, but they do not run everything. We do! Power is derived from the people! The government answers to the masses.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Hmmmm. IFF the Declaration held the power of law...
Slashdot Mirror
The EU has no practical interest in causing a separation of the Internet. I do think that the DNS should be decentralized, but not run by governments. This isn't the GovNet, it's the Internet. We are all the "owners" of it. But the EU won't let the Internet fail. It would be suicide for them. With a stronger US dollar, the EU makes more profit on exports to the US. Businesses would shit if the EU tried to do this. Besides, the organization is so backwards that it can't even ratify a Constitution in three prominet countries (France, Brussels, and the Netherlands). The EU is really a joke. If Europeans really can come together under a Franco-German dominated alliance and not begin killing each other or brawl like guests on a Jerry Springer episode, then maybe the EU would work. As of now (and forever) it is just weak and powerless. As long as Germany and France don't hold to their own strict rules, the EU will just be a wastebasket of free trade blocs. This threat is completely unfounded and is a typical European threat. They can't really think that the rest of the world will fall for that. We'd be just as good without a European Union. In a global world, they have no choice but to submit.
"Ve vill terminate Gray Davis in CAL-ee-FOR-nya. Hasta la vista, Davie!"
Mod up. For those mods who don't have a sense of humor, parent post is sarcasm.
I read an article about a year and a half ago about Microshaft's move toward the home-entertainment market. The article was actually about the TV DRM. It basically asked what if Microsoft 10 years from then (8.5 years from now) used its power to control the media industry. Essentially it boiled down to just this. If Microsoft's TV DRM were required for use and had to play on equipment through a service provider, compatible (either forcibly or through coersion) with the Microsoft DRM, if internet content had to be sent with the same DRM crap, and if home entertainment is completely obliterated by Microsoft, we will be left with something worse than a dictatorship; we'd have all-out 1984. And (of course) ignorant people said, "I don't think that they would do that." But M$ is quite capable of such atrocities. What we need is a claim that the government can't file. The company is a monopoly and needs to be stopped before it is too late. The government had its shot, but since the Bush Administration has sold its soul to the devil, it just let the weak judgement pass (something like $100 million in fines, chump change for M$). I don't hate the company, but I dislike it with a passion. What I fear the most is that such an ambitious company can, in the name of capitalism, lead to the exact problems of communism. And the reason? No competition!
"Msssssss. Annnnnderssssssonnnn!"
;-)
Had to say it
Hey, dude, that's cool. You sure clarified some of the points I attempted to make. I'm glad we can have a civilized debate here without screaming at each other or emotionally attacking. Thanks!
I thought that these were rights that were protected by the Constitution in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution? One is supposed to be informed of his crime before investigation can begin. The Writ of Habeas Corpus also applies here; since a crime hasn't been committed, there is no way that they can just listen because someone might commit a crime. Someone might talk about committing murder and how they plan to do it, but no one has the right to listen in on the conversation because one of the parties might conspire to commit murder. The Constitution protects rights of "criminals" by saying that a) to run an investigation a crime must be committed (habeas corupus) b) the accused must be told what his or her crime is (5th amendment) c) the person must be informed by the government with a cause and substantiation for search and seizure (4th amendment) d) the person is free from penalty of self-incrimination (5th amendment) e) the person is entitled to trial by jury (7th amendment and article 3) f) the person is granted the right to a fair punishment that fits his or her crime (8th amendment) g) the person has a right to a trial that quickly follows his or her endictment for the crime, as well as reasonable bail (6th amendment). So, wiretapping and using it in court would violate ALL of these. Since there is no proof of a crime that has been committed, the rest of the claims that would even validate a wiretap are false. If people knew that their phones were being tapped, they would clearly invoke the fifth amendment. This is a clear violation of authority and needs to be stopped. I'm sure a good corporate interest group would actually agree with us on this one.
Shame to you and all who are self-righteous "Christians". We are tired of your blasphemy and false-teaching. Christ himself said to beware of the false-prophets, and I have learned in my years who He meant. The fundamental theory of science is that there are only natural interactions in the universe. What you are suggesting is like saying my cold is caused by an imaginary troll living in my chest. It can't be proven, or even provided concrete evidence, therefore it violates the scientific method. No one ever said that Religion, science, and philosophy were the same thing. I am a man who follows the christian faith, follows various philosophies (most of which share many ideals with the Bible), and I follow what science says. Science is never concrete solid fact. That is the point of science. Theories cannot be proved, but evidence can support them. If some new evidence comes up, the theory is altered. Religion is different. You don't alter your faith every time someone speaks out against christianity. I'm not sure that someone with such a hateful message has faith, however. Christ specifically said to the Pharisees, the self-righteous of his time, that "tax-collecters and prostitutes" were entering heaven all the time. He also said that the rich have less of a chance of getting to heaven than a camel has of going through the eye of a needle. Many literalists contend He meant the wealthy, but I am inclinded to believe that he meant "rich" as in an Earthly person. Wealth is not evil; idolitry is the evil. Jesus in fact promoted freedom of thought, but obviously people like you have fallen victim to the opposite. I wish "Christians" (especially the self-righteous bastards like you) would read the Bible and not just listen to your propaganda preachers. In fact, up the ante. Why not go and read the original Greek and Aramaic. The messages will no doubt surprise you and might upset you. You are the work of Satan! Get thee behind me!
Amen. Mod up, please. This man (though he be a coward) is telling the truth. "da Vinci" means "of Vinci". Lots of people lived in Vinci through the ages; it would be a bit unfair to say that Leonardo was the only inhabitant of Vinci. Imagine if years from now someone from New York city is commonly called "of New York". Obviously that would apply to a lot of people.
The fact that they need tax breaks for hybrids means that they do not make finacial sense, and frankly, makes me livid.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree here. The US seeks to lose a great deal from high gas prices. In fact, the minor effects seem to be perking up already in the economy. I ordered a pizza the other day, and for the first time ever my charge included a delivery fee. It seems small and irrelevant, but fuel affects the entire market. If gas prices go up, then shipping costs rise, cost of finished goods rise, and we end up paying more so our salaries go up and then we have to pay higher taxes and so on. This is what happened to the US economy in the 1970's because of the over-strict government regulations that caused businesses to fold. Because of this mega-inflation, fuel costs can cause the same problems if left unchecked, which leads me to my next point. It is said that "whatever you tax you get less of and whatever you subsidize you get more of." For example, President Carter attempted to levy a "luxury tax" on luxury watercraft in the 1970's. What happened? The wealthy folks who bought luxury watercraft stopped buying them, and the watercraft market imploded. Now some of the subsidies governments give are absurd, such as crop subsidies to agribusinesses. But this one actually makes sense. Consider that most people do some city commuting daily and that this is more efficient on a hybrid (the electric motor takes over for the gas engine in stop-go driving). The government isn't saying that hybrids don't make financial sense. They're attempting to encourage the purchase of hybrids. Now I don't really know if what you're saying is true, but you're not using the term "subsidize" and "tax break" correctly. A tax break is a cut in taxes for a given action. This is quite possilby the provision for hybrids, but this is not the same thing as a subsidy. A subsidy is money paid to private citizens or organizations in order that they continue to do what they are asked to do. For example, the lab where I work, Jefferson Lab, a particle accellerator lab, is subsidized by the US Department of Energy. You are paying for the operation of JLab. You aren't paying for folks x, y, and z to get hybrids. Perhaps you're paying the difference, but usually the difference is made up by foriegn investment. After all, we do have a very large Federal deficit now. Now I do agree with you that people drive too much. On the other hand, the American culture has grown that way, and there isn't much that anyone can do about that.
Exactly. There is no fucking way in Hell that a physical object should have less "rights" than a virtual one. I own the fucking CD it came on. The company can't come and fuckin take it away. So, if I own the atoms of the software, then I own the software. This "buying the license" logic is like saying that the dictionary is insulting me because it contains all the words of an insult. Someone may own the right to be creative, but no one can steal that (yet, anyway). As long as I own the CD or the software is on my hard drive, I own the individual atoms of it, therefore owning what they represent to the CPU, in effect owning the software. I don't buy this fucking "license" shit one bit. It will go away. It has no choice but to.
I'd lower the price of all Warner Records music cheaper, say 50 cents per song and maybe 5 bucks an album.
You're absolutely correct. If the supplier is in one state and the consumer is in another, neither state can collect a sales tax. The Articles allowed states to apply taxes to interstate goods, but the Constitution strictly prohibits it. In effect, the states are collecting tariffs, tax on imports. They can call it "sales tax" or whatever they wish, but it is interstate commerce, out of the states' governments' hands. The Federal govermnent is the only group that can impose these taxes on interstate goods, just as the Federal government investigates interstate and Federal crimes. In the end, either some private citizen or the Federal government could take these states to court.
Who really believes that Bush knows what a "root zone file" is? The man can't pronounce "nuclear"!
Well, yeah, that's my whole point--sort of. One man's liberator is another man's terrorist. Of course if we take "terrorist" to mean someone who uses "terror" to influence politics. The Sons of Liberty were very much a terrorist organization, but if you look at the results, the Sons really didn't have too much political influence other than things like the Boston Massacre or the Boston Tea Party. Paine had influence. Jefferson had influence. The acts that the King enforced had influence. Actually, if you look at the history books, John Adams, the second US president, defended the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre to their acquital. The Sons of Liberty in many ways wasn't a terrorist organization, but rather a group of organized thugs who history has come to glorify. They didn't scare people into action. The government is both a terrorist organization and scared of terrorism. Look at the Patriot Act. Not only did the government show it was afraid of terrorism by passing it, they also scare the citizens into not criticizing the government. So, there's my 2 cents. Probably about what it's worth, too. :-)
Remember when they teach you that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and that "endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."? They often seem to neglect the part about dissolving political bonds in favor of new ones or the fact that the ruler derives his or her power from the consent of the governed. I'm all against "terrorists", but how about we take some real action against them instead of stupid shit, like keeping VoIP from using encryption. Us law-abiding citizens will have to and terrorists will go on encrypting it. Who the hell would ever know? They would likely use an encryption scheme above the NSA threshold, so it would look more like garbage data than a meaningful phone conversation. Obviously DC has taken the name "Washington" and tarnished it by throwing it in the mud. It was a mistake to name the capital city after him; almost everything the government does is in direct opposition to what George Washington personally and politically believed in. Balance of powers has become blurred (the FCC and other executive bureaus can arbitrarily impose jurisdiction without Congressional consent.) I think everything that America stands for is being torn down and propaganda is making it happen. The government is engaging in terror just as much as radical islamists and other terrorists. All of this shit about "protecting America" is ineffective and futile. You can't preemptively stop terror. You can only deter it or freeze it. Foreignly the US has done an excellent job at this: Saudi is cooperating with us, Libya is growing balls, Iran now knows we have a backbone, Lebanon and Syria are finally coming to some resolution. What the government is doing internally is destroying America. These acts such as PATRIOT Act and the Wire Tap act are tantamount to the Alien and Sedition acts.
My /. commrades, we must consider the mathematics of it. At first, FX was used by such a small percentage of people that it didn't deserve any distinguishment from the Mozilla Suite. Then, around version 8, the geek world truly adopted Firefox. In fact, I know no geeks or nerds (/. type fodder) who don't prefer FX to IE. It has better features and is standards compliant. OSS also improves it.
I consider security an issue, but I also think that because OSS inherently allows for ubiquitous bug-checking, the problems with FX are being ironed out early, whereas IE has had problems since its inception, and the rate of change of the new problems is greater than the rate of change of the problems solved (in a given time duration). So, we can infer that because Firefox is still growing, the people who analyze the code is growing as well, and the more bugs will be ironed out earlier. The number of users is directly proportional to the number of bugs found and fixes implemented. With IE, the more people who use it (and do not have access to the code), the fewer chances there are for a given user to fix the code. Therefore, the debugging base is a small (constant) contingent at M$ (who probably doesn't really debug all that often until a flaw is actually announced on cracker sites.) And at that, M$ has had a few (about 8) years to debug IE whereas Firefox has been in existence about 2 (correct me if I'm wrong). Do the math. The new bugs in IE should be far smaller than they are at this stage. Firefox is doing well at eliminating its bugs early on. But security is just one of the mathematical issues.
Another would be the "growth rate." Knowing calculus, the growth rate can be defined as the derivative of function f where f(x) is number of users at a time t. d/dx[f(x)] would be the growth rate function. d^2/dx[f(x)] would give the rate of growth rate function. This is what WSS is trying to say. What they don't do, however, is give valid reasons. They assume that most of us are ilnumerate -- that we are incapable of doing math. What they fail to realize is that math is only a model of the real world and that with the correct stats we can then predict what will likely happen. Obviously there is a continuum of web users from those who know the on and off buttons to those of us who know what the difference between a client and server is to those of us who know the different requests HTTP can transmit. The geekiest of the geeky were the first to adopt FX. That is a fact. It followed a regular exponential growth model. At first, the number of users was incredibly small. Then as WoM started spreading, more downloads came. And these downloads compounded, much like interest on your mortgage payment or rabbits whose sole task is to multiply. The population was really booming. The second derivative, d^2/dx[f(x)] was very very positive. Now, it seems, the geeks are still downloading it, but the second derivative is now negative, because the rate of change of growth rate is actually decreasing. I believe once Firefox reaches that 1st precentile of geekdom, possibly sooner, firefox will begin to catch on with the mere mortal web-users and the corporate users. I would venture that the corporate users would come on first and then the personal users, but who knows. Obviously the aforementioned security is an issue too, and it plays into our mathematical model. The main point is that we can fit data to various functions, but the function is only part of the model. We can say "well, the total number of firefox users has increased at a declining rate." This is just a statistic; it is so misleading that it follows lies and damn lies. One wouldn't analyze what their expected server load would be using the prior load as the sole determinant. Organization 'x' may decide to roll out its full website on some day during the month, and users begin flocking there. Using the old data for the "page under construction" page and extrapolating the next month's usage would be futile. Statistics is very useful, but I fin
Try one of your Senators. It isn't automatically made law or anything. Laws have to pass both the House and Senate, and the appropriations bills all originate in the House. The Senate is much less of a rubber-stamp than the House is.
Is it ironic that the judges, those who the citizens do not directly elect are the ones most on consumers' sides? I thought about it and reallized that judges don't have to worry about huge campaigning bills and therefore can "afford" to be honorable. Even though we know that elected officials could be honorable too. But then the media would have to get off of its fat lazy ass and begin working. I think it has forgotten how to spell "Kosovo."
Agree 100%, but I'd like to put my 2 cents in. Instead of RITA, I call them RICA for Recording Industry Cartel of America. Rica is also Spanish for "rich" which adequately describes the organization. Fuck them. They are lazy rich greedy bastards. Mr. Ballmer should have said "I'm going to fucking kill RICA, I'm going to fucking bury them!"
To have only one price point is not fair to our artists
Ah, yes, because studios are models of fairness toward artists. If you ask me, giving 15 cents on every dollar to the artist is very greedy. Not to mention that the studio takes money out of artists' accounts when they pay for radio play and things like that. Then they corporatize it so that every 2 years the entire playing field is different. It is worse than professional sports, where the turnover time is about 15 years. I would hate to be a major studio artist today. And one further thing, why is the RIAA and its components bitching about pricing? .99 per song is very decent and is also more than a regular album would cost. There is no way in fuck that people are going to pay 3 bucks for one frigging song. Apple has every right to step in and refuse. In fact, Apple should lower their costs on music if the music industry keeps bitching. Or at least remove DRM. Apple would separate itself from M$ if it did that and we would love it. The music industry would shit its pants, but they need a good bedwetting. Fuck those bastards, they deserve to burn in hell for their gluttony.
If we remember what American history and philosophy says, as well as "precedents", we'll recognize that in the early years America violated almost every "property right" that there was. We were a fledgling nation and needed to violate the rights in order to establish ourselves. Now because of media dirtbags the ideas have been bastardized and perverted into this "intellectual property" bullshit, that isn't even mentioned in the US Constitution. Contrary to what one poster said, the founders of the US did have economic ideas and they had significant education. Stating that they had taken only "economics 101" is a complete fallacy. Hamilton successfully established our national bank and we are still in his debt, no pun intended. The issue is this: John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, conceived of the modern ideals of property. He believed that people had the rights to own land and own personal property. This was in stark contrast to the traditional European system where Serfs and Vassals served their Lords and the Lords served the Kings under the feudal system. Locke believed that individual rights encompassed all things, and that every individual, in order to "Pursue Happiness", had the right to make money. This is the birth of the idea of the so-called intellectual property. America's forefathers understood this and therefore they established a clause in the constitution enumerating a system for copyright. What the constitution also enumerates, however, is that the copyright is established for the "the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts." In other words, the authors are not made to benefit alone; science and/or art must also benefit. These are dual requirements, just as "creul and unusual" must both be true. The founding fathers also had no way to conceive the internet or any global communication/integration system. My view is that "intellectual property" is the grey matter in one's head. No one can steal what's in one's head from that person. They have neither the right nor the ability, and even if they did have the ability, they would not have the right. That would undermine the principles of freedom. The idea of a patent is good: it promotes innovation (in theory). What should be provided is a means for less litigation and lawsuits. In other words, the language and interpretation should be radically relaxed. It attacks my freedom to say I can't make a derivative work without paying a royalty. It attacks my freedom to say that I, as a creative individual, cannot take a "patented" device and then make improvements upon it. It infringes on my rights and attacks my freedom that major corporations have the ability to monitor me through the use of "trade secrets" that are part of proprietary programs or devices or whatever. I've heard a lot about these "black boxes" that record car data. I have an inherent right to know what code is running on that machine and an inherent right to know what is being recorded. The final dilema is this: if a third world country is battling the AIDS epidemic and they desperately need medication that is patented, why should they get the permission from the creator as well as pay the creator royalties? They obviously don't have the money to pay for the drugs and could much more cheaply manufacture a generic medication than importing it. It may be one's right to own the individual workings of a physica object, but not at the expence of others' rights or lives.
I would refute that. There are those who have the Patrick Henry gene. He was an honor to Virginians and we will remember him forever. But, I must also state that it was Thomas Jefferson (also a great Virginian), not Patrick Henry, who wrote the Declaration of Independence. These were indeed great men and they should be honored forever. In fact, I would say that there are many people who share their spirit or would, but the ones who gain power use the archaic system of political parties that have increasingly lost a cause; they exist to help the corporate entities who have no votes. I endeavor to change that and reestablish the Constitution to how it was meant to be. Also, I peronally believe that the Declaration, the document from which America derives its birth, should be given legal standing alongside the Constitution. It is not a document meant to establish laws; rather it should be valued as the fundamental American document, which it already is, and grant the rights it mentions to all people. Our country was founded on the principle that the people have the right to challenge their government. Anyone who says differently is ignorant to history. In fact, our country was founded on the principle that people have the right to do what they want, insofar as it doesn't take away the rights of others. At that time it meant white male land owners. Now we are blessed that it means everyone. From the end of WWII and the cultural revolution in the 50s, a countermeasure against the "traditional roles", this country has led itself to a dangerous position. I still am proud to say I am American, but I am not so proud that I am blinded from the truth. We can reform, and saying that "no one has the Patrick Henry gene" is giving into their cause. The corporate commies would like you to think that, but they do not run everything. We do! Power is derived from the people! The government answers to the masses.
Exactly. There is a such thing as a "gag order". The court can do whatever it wants.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Hmmmm. IFF the Declaration held the power of law...