Good. One thing I never understood about Americans is their defence of their right to bear arms. Why?
Ironically, that amendment was crafted because of your country.:) Specifically, they wanted to ensure that Americans would be able to prevent a reoccurence of tyrannical rule, as they had just revolted against the Crown and acheived independance. They really should just go ahead and repeal that amendment because these days we couldn't mount an effective revolution for anything. Hell, we can't even keep from attacking each other, nevertheless band together on a scale necessary to overthrow a government. Now we the people are the greatest danger to ourselves.:)
When I saw the police carrying guns when I landed at Manchester I almost turned round and tried to book myself on a flight back out of the country.
Heh, I had a similar experience when I visited the Mega Mall (not sure if that's the actual name, but that's what we called it; it is damned BIG:)) in Manila during a cruise. Walked in the front door and there was a guard holding an assault rifle talking to another guard with a shotgun slung over his shoulder. We were very well behaved during that visit.:)
They probably have a beowulf cluster of Crays humping along there to run 256 person Quake II maps, and all they would have to do to appease us is to let us see a picture of it at work.:)
As a semi-fascist, I truly believe that everyone should ask how their actions could affect the country and their countrymen. You seem to be only interested in what your rights are, and how you can interpret your rights to interfere with the rights of others. This person wanted to cause a scare. He wanted to walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". I have no doubt of that.
Again, I cite The Blair Witch Project and that NBC Y2K travesty of a production; are these also examples of yelling fire in a crowded theater? Was he wrong because he made a demonstration of the abuse of power that could ensue if a government agency decided to break the rules to promote their own agenda (which, ironically, is exactly what happened, only as a quiet censoring rather than a race riot)? No matter his intentions, his actions did not directly threaten anyone's life, unlike your poor example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. At worst, it would cause people to become suspicious of the motivations of those who wield the most power in this country, which is not a bad thing.
The FBI probably asked the site to take a gander at the site and determine whether or not this broke the agreement the site maintainer signed. I would be surprised if it didn't.
I'm afraid I don't understand; how would this mockumentary violate the terms of an ISP hosting agreement? Again, it is not the place of a law enforcement agency to interpret the law, merely to enforce existing laws. That is the job of the courts.
Now, having given 6 years of my life to defending the rights you enjoy, I think you need to consider what affect this person's perceived rights might have on others. If I ran around saying that everything you posted contained an HTML exploit, I would look as silly as this "artist" did. You would also be inconvenienced.
Save the "I protected your hide" crap; I did my four and took my honorable discharge and 20% disability for "God and Country". And now I'm finding out that the country that I served is actively suppressing members of the population for what? The crime of provoking thought? The crime of getting people to question the world around them rather than blindly believing what they're told by the State? The crime of entertaining? And I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about that HTML exploit example, although the only parallel I could draw to the topic is that you are saying that the FBI was inconvenienced in some way by this video. Um, OK... Although, you may be right about that. Let's get rid of the other inconveniences to law enforcement agencies; and since a little bad press by a silly video doesn't really put the FBI out in any way, let's target the things that make enforcing the laws of the land so inconvenient. Let's start by getting rid of those stupid warrants, they just make it harder to "protect and serve"; hell, let's just trash Due Process altogether. That should help remove some of the REAL inconveniences that the FBI has to deal with.
"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - JFK
His wife couldn't trust him, but I can? I may not be the president, but I honor my oaths, even the one that I took years ago that begins, "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC." I'm not going to begin rattling off exerpts from the Constitution mention hear, as it is available in many places online; you're welcome to check it out, particularly the sections detailing the duties of the Executive Branch versus the Judicial Branch and the Bill of Rights.
We all need to live by those words. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.
And had this stupid video actually threatened anyone, I may be inclined to agree, but the only threat demonstated here is the complete disregard of the legal rights of the common citizen (the many) by the FBI (the few). As you stated, you are a semi-fascist, so it is not likely that you will understand why these small violations of independant freedoms cannot be ignored, but then neither did the non-Jewish German citizens when an idiot with a stupid mustache forced their neighbors to start wearing a bright yellow star on their clothing; after all, it didn't hurt anyone, did it?
While I too don't want assult rifles and other fun toys like that being easily available, I would like to say that these weapon regulations are arguably against the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. After all, the Constitution was penned just after the USA had revolted against its government, there was already a respectable army in place, respectable enough to succeed at the aforementioned revolt and the 2nd Amendment is the "2nd" Amendment, put in before most other rights in the Bill of Rights and just after freedom of speech, press, etc. Therefore, I would imagine that the "militia" referred to is by the people to prevent a relapse of government tyranny. These days, the government has soldiers equipped with assault rifles, grenades, missiles, smart bombs and if the fighting gets really nasty, they can pull out chem/bio/nuke weapons. The average citizen has to jump through hoops to get anything more than a revolver.
Some would say that the government is happily pissing all over the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. But like I said above, I certainly don't want assault weapons to be freely available; I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. But to tie this in with the topic of discussion: with the government violating more and more civil liberties on a daily basis, what could we possibly do when they decide to quit playing head games and just come out and declare the USA a socialist state? Not a hell of a lot with a six-shooter when facing body armor clad killers carrying rifles and high explosives who can call on an airstrike at a moments notice.
If you want to do yourselves and your children a favor, just start teaching those around you to recite, "I love the State; the State is love" because if the government decides that you'll say that, then that is what you will say, unless, of course, you escape to another country or die. If it doesn't happen, then good, it doesn't happen, but it never hurts to be prepared, since fighting is pretty much out of the question. Now go ahead and disregard me as a lunatic talking out of his ass; that's what they want you to do anyway, so that's what you will do.
now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened.
I see... so the fact that the ISP feared losing its business doesn't demonstrate an implied threat? When is the business of a government agency to determine what published content should be made available to the public? To label the content of this website as illegal would be as ridiculous as banning the Blair Witch Project or Y2K, the Movie. So where does the FBI get the authority to do this? Maybe they'll take exception to this story and the associated threads that go with it and ask that Slashdot be taken down because of it, and when Rob and Co. tell them to bury it up their asses, the FBI will "ask" Andover.Net to remove the site. Sound silly? Its the same damned thing! The FBI is a law enforcement agency! As this site violated no laws, the FBI has absolutely no right or reason to become involved in its affairs. Perhaps the Department of State would like to do some law enforcement so that Customs can pass some trade legislation while we're at it.
It is legal to be controvertial/against mainstream... But it is plain stupid to expect it to be as easy as conforming. You have no right to the gov't not asking companies to cooperate. The gov't represents the majority of Americans, who generally fear terrorists more than weak encryption, and would say to the disenfrachised website owner "just because you can publish that, why _should_ you"
It is not the job of the FBI to interpret the law; that is the job of the courts. And who are they to question the motivations of the owner of a website that is not violating any laws?!? I don't give a reeking rat's ass if the FBI mailed their request to the website owner and his ISP on perfumed stationary with a box of chocolates, they still had no goddamned reason to have any interactions with anyone involved with the website.
I'm beginning to feel real fear living in America, the land where 13 year old boys are arrested for a paper that they write for class, the land where the creator of a silly Y2K mockumentary is harassed by the government into censorship, the land where the rights and freedoms once held so dear are quickly being rended into smoke and mirrors used only to pacify the masses while our true freedom is being raped right in front of us.
And in the press release, they indicated that they are looking to reduce the size to one-half of what is is now; and it wasn't in that, "You know, someday we might..." way, it was like a simple statement of fact. Jesus, a 9 nanometer transistor may actually be possible soon; could we actually see working nanotechnology within the next 20 years? Despite the vast number of technological advances that have occured over the past 100 years, the prospect of working nanotech just seems too... William Gibson, if you will.:) Like the man said in The Matrix, "This is a very exciting time!".:)
Until the web (or its offspring) can transmit non-written conservation like language pitch and context, and body language - "rich conversation" - I don't think it's going to feasible to cut oneself off entirely from the outside world.
But that isn't the issue either; there are a rare few of us who dream of being able to live like that, without increasing the level of communication above the written word or the occasional phone call. However, people need money to survive in this capitalist world, and folks who get into the position of employer are definately not in the above group, so they will never be able to understand us and employ us in a fashion to allow us to live like we prefer to. Just as I'm sure that most people who read this can't really understand what I'm talking about and just think I'm some kind of freak who SHOULD get out and interact with people face-to-face; nevermind the fact that this is MY preference and that I decided that this is how I would choose to live if at all possible.
The point I'm trying to make is that those of us who would actually want to live cut off from the outside world will NEVER be accomodated in our desire to do so, because everyone else just thinks that we are wrong and need to change our way of thinking, as my mother-in-law so helpfully reminds me of on a regular basis.
Yeah, I'm a little bitter, because I know that despite all of these silly-assed publicity stunts that these media outlets are staging, those of us who WANT to live that way will NEVER be allowed to, because society in general is of the opinion that we are just wrong, plain and simple. Perhaps I'll just let the folks who will respond to this message make my point for me. Go ahead and tell me how wrong that I am for being antisocial, I'm used to it...
While it probably doesn't need mentioning, encryption is the best use of technology to prevent snooping. The problem with this is twofold, however: 1) governments and large corporations have access to resources far beyond what most folks can muster up, and 2) we really have no realistic idea of what government agencies are truly capable of doing; I mean, who really knows if the NSA hasn't found a way to make PGP its bitch? Yes, the chances are that the large businesses and governments of the world don't have the capability to defeat the encryption that we have access to, but do you want to risk your freedom on a maybe?
With all of the ways that your privacy can be compromised, I really can't think of any other uses for technology that would assist in protecting privacy, especially since technological advances always improve the capability for someone to invade the privacy of someone else; when there are huge companies and governments who can churn out things like spy satellites, wiretaps and shotgun microphones, technology only seems to widen the gap rather than even the playing field. Of course, maybe I'm just paranoid.:)
Application design is not limited by the abilities of the programmers, but by the hardware that they have to develop for. You think that Quake 3 is impressive? Its not, really; Carmack and company have had to continually cut corners in order for it to be able to play on a large variety of hardware. Every time they think up a new feature that they can code in, they then have to go through the trouble of figuring out what is realistic within the bounds of the minimum hardware requirements that they set forth.
With hardware, it is never a matter of what you need right now, but what is possible; I won't be impressed until folks like Carmack are complaining that they can't use the full capabilities of the hardware that is available, because they are too powerful. Until then, the hardware just isn't good enough.
Wow! So rare to see a new version of a product that is actually a new version.:) KDE v2 is looking like a very nice little manager; I may even consider switching over from GNOME. It appears that they are really trying to make it more casual user friendly as well as more fully featured for the power user. I can't wait to get hold of the release.:)
Not at all, really. Oh, I'm sure that we've seen the last of Glide-only games, but Glide is still an excellent performer, so it behooves 3dfx to make it more convenient for programmers to utilize it, as their video cards (notice that this only affects the Voodoo 3, and I presume later versions, which is owned wholly by 3dfx, unlike the earlier Voodoos which they only provided processors for) are the only ones that support Glide natively. The more games that support Glide, the better the odds that people will decide to purchase a 3dfx card over a competitor, particularly since the Voodoo 4 will address the concerns that bug the existing cards, such as 32 bit rendering. I would wager that they will release the earlier versions of Glide open sourced once they release the Voodoo 4 as the older cards released by their now-competitors will no longer be produced.
No, actually it was a cheap attempt to make someone laugh and raise my karma by posting something humorous, but I'm guessing that it fell flat on both accounts. My apologies for not being funnier; I will beat myself with a fish-scented rubber hose daily until I can correct this deficiency.
But only if you promise to start taking your medication like the nice doctor asked you to.:)
The proper term is "Slashdotted" or "the Slashdot Effect". Its a common disorder that affects websites privelaged enough to be referenced in a Slashdot story; symptoms range from slow response to odd error messages. The Slashdot Effect has been known to cause sysadmins to go into screaming fits when their systems start crashing from the sheer mass of accesses while marketing people have been known to spontaneously erupt in orgasm when the Slashdot Effect passes through.
Of course, it could just be an NT server running normally.:)
Ooh, ohh, Transmeta news again! So fscking what; its hype like this that leads to vaporware. I want to see a somewhat operating beta, or even a crappy alpha, before I start buying into any rumored tech. It seems a bit odd that Slashdot would be the one's to contribute to the reduction of the signal/noise ratio, as they're usually pretty good about checking rumors. But this one invokes the name of the mighty Linus, so of course people stand up and take notice. I'm as big a Linux fan as the next bloke and would certainly love to see Transmeta as a reality, but all of this fanfare over baseless speculation (um, Transmeta isn't actually scheduled. To quote the article in reference: "Pundits predict Linus Torvalds, Linux operating system creator and Transmeta software engineer, will let the cat out of the bag. That's not the plan." Great source, those pundits) is becoming tiresome.
I understand that getting a finger in every pie is the wave of business today, and that the most popular method of doing so is by absorbing other companies, but is Intel really doing the smart thing here? I mean, their core business, CPUs, is, for the first time in a long while, actually being threatened by serious competition, and this is occuring at a crucial time as the focus on 64-bit processing is broadening, an arena already occupied by others that Intel will have to break into. On the 32-bit front, AMD's Athlon has been very well received by the reviewers and the OEMs are now expanding their sales of Athlon-based systems while Intel is having an apparant problem with meeting the demand for Pentium IIIs as the holiday season approaches, according to this article at ABCNews.com. Perhaps they have gotten too secure in their niche market that they have dominated for so long to recognize when it is beginning to be seriously threatened.
I am curious as to what else this can be used for. I mean, it may run Linux, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can run gcc on it. Does this advertised version operate more as an open platform with specialty software, such as the web browser and telephony software included, or is this more like a WebTV box with a built-in screen that uses Linux to crunch numbers? And what options will OEMs have for modifying its existing fuctionality?
I guess I just really dig the look and would like to have one as a mini-laptop, as it were.:)
The Palm devices only come in 1 basic form. It has a pretty small screen and uses a stylus for input. It's starts up fast of and works easy. It's great for quick notes, but not for a lot of writing. So think about what you want to do.
I use a Palm VII quite a bit (the bennies of supporting them) and I find that it is a very convenient platform; the text input choices are a bit kludgy, but I have become a fair hand with Graffiti (the text recognition method that the Palm uses), but for lots of writing, I use the onscreen keyboard with a modified stylus I made from unscrewing the tip of the stylus and gluing it to a dimestore ring so that I wear the stylus on the end of my finger. I can type a screen of text in a decent amount of time with it.
Browsing the Web. This isn't going to work. Checking a map or email or phone-number or address really quickly over the Internet through a Palm App, etc. is very handy, but not heavy duty browsing.
For web browsing on the Palm VII, I use SnakEyes (from SnakeFeet), which is a pretty decent little Lynx-style browser. Obviously image-heavy pages are rough, but most sites I refer to are mainly text, so its not really an issue. Besides, Slashdot has a PQA, so I don't need it much.:)
Email. With a Palm VII or a modem-equiped Palm, checking email can be great. Then again, so can checking your email with an alpha-numeric pager. Writing email beyond a quick response would be quite a pain, though.
Again, not too bad, although I really wouldn't recommend using your Palm VII for your main email client, as it would become rather expensive, particularly if the Spam commandos get a hold of the addy. Very nice for shooting off a message while traveling, though.
Instant Messaging. Huh? You actually want to "talk" to someone with a stylus over a wireless network. That's really slow and really expensive.
Heh, works great in meetings. We shoot messages to each other all the time while pretending to take notes.:) And ICQ addicts can use ICpQa by Jon Baer (supposedly found here, although the site never seems to be up; you can find it at most sites that collect Palm VII PQAs) to swap messages with their friends; haven't used this myself, as I'm just not into that sort of thing.
The main thing about the Palm is that it takes getting used to. If you use PDAs extensively, this won't be an issue because you'll pick up on Graffiti rather quickly or adapt to the small keyboard. For the casual user, you obviously won't want to compose large messages or do anything intensive, as it will feel unwieldy and difficult. Like anything, there is a learning curve, but with the Palm, it was a lot smaller than I had expected.
Note that I don't work for Palm Computing and don't make anything off of the sales of their products, I just tech support them.
I'm rather fascinated by your response to this, but at the same time, I'm not at all suprised. Looking at all of these questions, particularly the last one, it is clear that the questions themselves are completely meaningless; it is the answers which are important. You chose to disregard the test, likely on the basis of question 11, rather than let your mind wander over the possibilities. Yet even that is a response to the question!
That exam is one of the most meaningful things that I have ever read... wait, didn't I just say that the questions were meaningless? Indeed, I did; those questions could have been rewritten a million ways, but the basic premise remains the same: Technology is what people make of it. You chose to interpret it as a cry for compassion and the irrelevance of technology in the whole of humanity, others will see it as a study in the potential benefits of technology. And that's what makes these questions so great! I had at least 2-3 answers for each question rolling around in my head at the same time! I really couldn't make a definitive answer to any of them, particularly question 11; there was always another angle to be investigated. The beauty of this test is that the only wrong answer is no answer at all, and I feel sorry for anyone who wasn't intellectually, perhaps even emotionally, stimulated by those questions.
If there is any justice in this world, all high school students will be required to take a variant of this exam before being allowed to graduate. One of the finest critical thinking exercises I have ever seen; I still can't stop thinking about some of those questions.:)
I think that there is an important distinction which is very often overlooked here. That is, corporations are not people. The law creates this fiction that they are, but ultimately, a "real" person should have much stronger rights than a "fake" corporation.
The argument could be made that something that affects a corporation directly affects every shareholder in that corporation, but I'd rather avoid that ball of worms. In any case, it wouldn't likely matter how the law regards the difference between individuals and corporations as individuals typically don't have teams of lawyers standing by to defend them.:)
What really bugs me is that the supreme court has declared that corporations have more rights in court than illegal immigrants.
I just can't bring myself to be suprised; illegal immigrants are not citizens and are not subject to the "laws of the land" in the same fashion as a citizen, or a corporation based here for that matter.
As for the wiretap fiasco, making lines inherently wiretappable (if that's a word:)) isn't necessarily wrong, but how will they be used? And what court do the law enforcement agencies go to for approval to use a wiretap that potentially covers many jurisdictions, even overseas locations? And what protections would be put into place to prevent malicious types from using them as their own personal line sniffers?
I believe that there are times when a wiretap is a reasonable measure to use in law enforcement, but it should be very carefully regulated to prevent abuses, as any abuse of wiretapping is a direct and flagrant violation of someone's privacy.
I was actually happy to buy the book, even though I have read the entire run on the website, just because it gave me a feeling of helping to support Illiad and get him to continue taking the time to keep putting out more User Friendly in the future. An HTMLized, keyworded version would be cool, though.:)
Yet consistant attempts have been made to get his side of the story with backing facts by various media outlets, such as the Times, HNN, etc, but to no avail. JP's responses ALWAYS come back sounding like a politician's monologue, full of fluff with no real content. Therefore, I am not really sure what Slashdot is attempting to accomplish with this interview; I just can't accept that they would resort to tabloid-style journalism simply to generate traffic, particularly since they get plenty already. I guess I am just fed up with having someone whose signal-to-noise ratio borders on illegal constantly getting attention for no particular reason.
Its funny you mention architecture, because that's what came to my mind when reading the article. When constructing a building, the designers can create whatever they want and easily adapt it to handicapped use by putting in a couple of ramps, a push button opener for the door and some braille placards by the signs. Websites don't work like that; many are as much form as function; particularly business sites, as they are for the most part advertising. I do often use Lynx when I'm at home and have once again screwed up something in X while trying to "improve" it, and I know that the more complex a site's layout is, the harder it is to navigate with Lynx. Try the Netscape website as an example; took me forever the first time I snagged Communicator with Lynx. Sure looks damn fine with Netscape, though! So, what does this mean to the business site owners who suddenly have to adapt to certain design criteria to accomodate? Either they completely redesign their sites, as you can't just add a ramp and a couple of placards to a website to make it easy to navigate in Lynx, create a duplicate of the website specifically formatted for whatever browsers that blind folks use or they dump the form and make a bland, functional site.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about getting anyone and everyone connected who wants to be, but where do you draw the line? When every website is turned back into a gopher server because the Internet is considered a vital new technology for everyone? When every vehicle is designed to move at 2 mph and equipped with motion sensors because independant transportation is considered vital for everyone? When every publisher must print and distribute materials in print, braille, sound and posted online because access to published information is considered vital for everyone?
And who is going to create the criteria for enforcement of this for websites, and then monitor for violations and handle infractions, particularly since the scope we're talking about here is well over a million sites? If someone could find a cureall that wouldn't knock the Internet back into the early 80's, I might agree, but the requirements to make this a reality are nearly absurd.
Of course, if someone does have that cureall, please let it out, because like I said, I'm all about everyone having access.
Slashdot Mirror
Good. One thing I never understood about Americans is their defence of their right to bear arms. Why?
:) Specifically, they wanted to ensure that Americans would be able to prevent a reoccurence of tyrannical rule, as they had just revolted against the Crown and acheived independance. They really should just go ahead and repeal that amendment because these days we couldn't mount an effective revolution for anything. Hell, we can't even keep from attacking each other, nevertheless band together on a scale necessary to overthrow a government. Now we the people are the greatest danger to ourselves. :)
:)) in Manila during a cruise. Walked in the front door and there was a guard holding an assault rifle talking to another guard with a shotgun slung over his shoulder. We were very well behaved during that visit. :)
Ironically, that amendment was crafted because of your country.
When I saw the police carrying guns when I landed at Manchester I almost turned round and tried to book myself on a flight back out of the country.
Heh, I had a similar experience when I visited the Mega Mall (not sure if that's the actual name, but that's what we called it; it is damned BIG
Deosyne
But they forgot the "Any" key...
Deosyne
They probably have a beowulf cluster of Crays humping along there to run 256 person Quake II maps, and all they would have to do to appease us is to let us see a picture of it at work. :)
Deosyne
As a semi-fascist, I truly believe that everyone should ask how their actions could affect the country and their countrymen. You seem to be only interested in what your rights are, and how you can interpret your rights to interfere with the rights of others. This person wanted to cause a scare. He wanted to walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". I have no doubt of that.
Again, I cite The Blair Witch Project and that NBC Y2K travesty of a production; are these also examples of yelling fire in a crowded theater? Was he wrong because he made a demonstration of the abuse of power that could ensue if a government agency decided to break the rules to promote their own agenda (which, ironically, is exactly what happened, only as a quiet censoring rather than a race riot)? No matter his intentions, his actions did not directly threaten anyone's life, unlike your poor example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. At worst, it would cause people to become suspicious of the motivations of those who wield the most power in this country, which is not a bad thing.
The FBI probably asked the site to take a gander at the site and determine whether or not this broke the agreement the site maintainer signed. I would be surprised if it didn't.
I'm afraid I don't understand; how would this mockumentary violate the terms of an ISP hosting agreement? Again, it is not the place of a law enforcement agency to interpret the law, merely to enforce existing laws. That is the job of the courts.
Now, having given 6 years of my life to defending the rights you enjoy, I think you need to consider what affect this person's perceived rights might have on others. If I ran around saying that everything you posted contained an HTML exploit, I would look as silly as this "artist" did. You would also be inconvenienced.
Save the "I protected your hide" crap; I did my four and took my honorable discharge and 20% disability for "God and Country". And now I'm finding out that the country that I served is actively suppressing members of the population for what? The crime of provoking thought? The crime of getting people to question the world around them rather than blindly believing what they're told by the State? The crime of entertaining? And I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about that HTML exploit example, although the only parallel I could draw to the topic is that you are saying that the FBI was inconvenienced in some way by this video. Um, OK... Although, you may be right about that. Let's get rid of the other inconveniences to law enforcement agencies; and since a little bad press by a silly video doesn't really put the FBI out in any way, let's target the things that make enforcing the laws of the land so inconvenient. Let's start by getting rid of those stupid warrants, they just make it harder to "protect and serve"; hell, let's just trash Due Process altogether. That should help remove some of the REAL inconveniences that the FBI has to deal with.
"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - JFK
His wife couldn't trust him, but I can? I may not be the president, but I honor my oaths, even the one that I took years ago that begins, "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC." I'm not going to begin rattling off exerpts from the Constitution mention hear, as it is available in many places online; you're welcome to check it out, particularly the sections detailing the duties of the Executive Branch versus the Judicial Branch and the Bill of Rights.
We all need to live by those words. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.
And had this stupid video actually threatened anyone, I may be inclined to agree, but the only threat demonstated here is the complete disregard of the legal rights of the common citizen (the many) by the FBI (the few). As you stated, you are a semi-fascist, so it is not likely that you will understand why these small violations of independant freedoms cannot be ignored, but then neither did the non-Jewish German citizens when an idiot with a stupid mustache forced their neighbors to start wearing a bright yellow star on their clothing; after all, it didn't hurt anyone, did it?
Deosyne
While I too don't want assult rifles and other fun toys like that being easily available, I would like to say that these weapon regulations are arguably against the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. After all, the Constitution was penned just after the USA had revolted against its government, there was already a respectable army in place, respectable enough to succeed at the aforementioned revolt and the 2nd Amendment is the "2nd" Amendment, put in before most other rights in the Bill of Rights and just after freedom of speech, press, etc. Therefore, I would imagine that the "militia" referred to is by the people to prevent a relapse of government tyranny. These days, the government has soldiers equipped with assault rifles, grenades, missiles, smart bombs and if the fighting gets really nasty, they can pull out chem/bio/nuke weapons. The average citizen has to jump through hoops to get anything more than a revolver.
Some would say that the government is happily pissing all over the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. But like I said above, I certainly don't want assault weapons to be freely available; I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. But to tie this in with the topic of discussion: with the government violating more and more civil liberties on a daily basis, what could we possibly do when they decide to quit playing head games and just come out and declare the USA a socialist state? Not a hell of a lot with a six-shooter when facing body armor clad killers carrying rifles and high explosives who can call on an airstrike at a moments notice.
If you want to do yourselves and your children a favor, just start teaching those around you to recite, "I love the State; the State is love" because if the government decides that you'll say that, then that is what you will say, unless, of course, you escape to another country or die. If it doesn't happen, then good, it doesn't happen, but it never hurts to be prepared, since fighting is pretty much out of the question. Now go ahead and disregard me as a lunatic talking out of his ass; that's what they want you to do anyway, so that's what you will do.
Deosyne
now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened.
I see... so the fact that the ISP feared losing its business doesn't demonstrate an implied threat? When is the business of a government agency to determine what published content should be made available to the public? To label the content of this website as illegal would be as ridiculous as banning the Blair Witch Project or Y2K, the Movie. So where does the FBI get the authority to do this? Maybe they'll take exception to this story and the associated threads that go with it and ask that Slashdot be taken down because of it, and when Rob and Co. tell them to bury it up their asses, the FBI will "ask" Andover.Net to remove the site. Sound silly? Its the same damned thing! The FBI is a law enforcement agency! As this site violated no laws, the FBI has absolutely no right or reason to become involved in its affairs. Perhaps the Department of State would like to do some law enforcement so that Customs can pass some trade legislation while we're at it.
It is legal to be controvertial/against mainstream... But it is plain stupid to expect it to be as easy as conforming. You have no right to the gov't not asking companies to cooperate. The gov't represents the majority of Americans, who generally fear terrorists more than weak encryption, and would say to the disenfrachised website owner "just because you can publish that, why _should_ you"
It is not the job of the FBI to interpret the law; that is the job of the courts. And who are they to question the motivations of the owner of a website that is not violating any laws?!? I don't give a reeking rat's ass if the FBI mailed their request to the website owner and his ISP on perfumed stationary with a box of chocolates, they still had no goddamned reason to have any interactions with anyone involved with the website.
I'm beginning to feel real fear living in America, the land where 13 year old boys are arrested for a paper that they write for class, the land where the creator of a silly Y2K mockumentary is harassed by the government into censorship, the land where the rights and freedoms once held so dear are quickly being rended into smoke and mirrors used only to pacify the masses while our true freedom is being raped right in front of us.
I'm beginning to fear for my child's future.
Deosyne
And in the press release, they indicated that they are looking to reduce the size to one-half of what is is now; and it wasn't in that, "You know, someday we might..." way, it was like a simple statement of fact. Jesus, a 9 nanometer transistor may actually be possible soon; could we actually see working nanotechnology within the next 20 years? Despite the vast number of technological advances that have occured over the past 100 years, the prospect of working nanotech just seems too... William Gibson, if you will. :) Like the man said in The Matrix, "This is a very exciting time!". :)
Deosyne
Until the web (or its offspring) can transmit non-written conservation like language pitch and context, and body language - "rich conversation" - I don't think it's going to feasible to cut oneself off entirely from the outside world.
But that isn't the issue either; there are a rare few of us who dream of being able to live like that, without increasing the level of communication above the written word or the occasional phone call. However, people need money to survive in this capitalist world, and folks who get into the position of employer are definately not in the above group, so they will never be able to understand us and employ us in a fashion to allow us to live like we prefer to. Just as I'm sure that most people who read this can't really understand what I'm talking about and just think I'm some kind of freak who SHOULD get out and interact with people face-to-face; nevermind the fact that this is MY preference and that I decided that this is how I would choose to live if at all possible.
The point I'm trying to make is that those of us who would actually want to live cut off from the outside world will NEVER be accomodated in our desire to do so, because everyone else just thinks that we are wrong and need to change our way of thinking, as my mother-in-law so helpfully reminds me of on a regular basis.
Yeah, I'm a little bitter, because I know that despite all of these silly-assed publicity stunts that these media outlets are staging, those of us who WANT to live that way will NEVER be allowed to, because society in general is of the opinion that we are just wrong, plain and simple. Perhaps I'll just let the folks who will respond to this message make my point for me. Go ahead and tell me how wrong that I am for being antisocial, I'm used to it...
Deosyne
While it probably doesn't need mentioning, encryption is the best use of technology to prevent snooping. The problem with this is twofold, however: 1) governments and large corporations have access to resources far beyond what most folks can muster up, and 2) we really have no realistic idea of what government agencies are truly capable of doing; I mean, who really knows if the NSA hasn't found a way to make PGP its bitch? Yes, the chances are that the large businesses and governments of the world don't have the capability to defeat the encryption that we have access to, but do you want to risk your freedom on a maybe?
:)
With all of the ways that your privacy can be compromised, I really can't think of any other uses for technology that would assist in protecting privacy, especially since technological advances always improve the capability for someone to invade the privacy of someone else; when there are huge companies and governments who can churn out things like spy satellites, wiretaps and shotgun microphones, technology only seems to widen the gap rather than even the playing field. Of course, maybe I'm just paranoid.
Yet somehow I doubt it.
Deosyne
Application design is not limited by the abilities of the programmers, but by the hardware that they have to develop for. You think that Quake 3 is impressive? Its not, really; Carmack and company have had to continually cut corners in order for it to be able to play on a large variety of hardware. Every time they think up a new feature that they can code in, they then have to go through the trouble of figuring out what is realistic within the bounds of the minimum hardware requirements that they set forth.
With hardware, it is never a matter of what you need right now, but what is possible; I won't be impressed until folks like Carmack are complaining that they can't use the full capabilities of the hardware that is available, because they are too powerful. Until then, the hardware just isn't good enough.
Deosyne
Wow! So rare to see a new version of a product that is actually a new version. :) KDE v2 is looking like a very nice little manager; I may even consider switching over from GNOME. It appears that they are really trying to make it more casual user friendly as well as more fully featured for the power user. I can't wait to get hold of the release. :)
Deosyne
Not at all, really. Oh, I'm sure that we've seen the last of Glide-only games, but Glide is still an excellent performer, so it behooves 3dfx to make it more convenient for programmers to utilize it, as their video cards (notice that this only affects the Voodoo 3, and I presume later versions, which is owned wholly by 3dfx, unlike the earlier Voodoos which they only provided processors for) are the only ones that support Glide natively. The more games that support Glide, the better the odds that people will decide to purchase a 3dfx card over a competitor, particularly since the Voodoo 4 will address the concerns that bug the existing cards, such as 32 bit rendering. I would wager that they will release the earlier versions of Glide open sourced once they release the Voodoo 4 as the older cards released by their now-competitors will no longer be produced.
Deosyne
Time to do the happy dance! Although 3dfx has never been stingy with the code before, this makes things even better. :)
:)
Oh yeah, 1st post.
Deosyne
No, actually it was a cheap attempt to make someone laugh and raise my karma by posting something humorous, but I'm guessing that it fell flat on both accounts. My apologies for not being funnier; I will beat myself with a fish-scented rubber hose daily until I can correct this deficiency.
:)
But only if you promise to start taking your medication like the nice doctor asked you to.
Deosyne
The proper term is "Slashdotted" or "the Slashdot Effect". Its a common disorder that affects websites privelaged enough to be referenced in a Slashdot story; symptoms range from slow response to odd error messages. The Slashdot Effect has been known to cause sysadmins to go into screaming fits when their systems start crashing from the sheer mass of accesses while marketing people have been known to spontaneously erupt in orgasm when the Slashdot Effect passes through.
:)
Of course, it could just be an NT server running normally.
Deosyne
Ooh, ohh, Transmeta news again! So fscking what; its hype like this that leads to vaporware. I want to see a somewhat operating beta, or even a crappy alpha, before I start buying into any rumored tech. It seems a bit odd that Slashdot would be the one's to contribute to the reduction of the signal/noise ratio, as they're usually pretty good about checking rumors. But this one invokes the name of the mighty Linus, so of course people stand up and take notice. I'm as big a Linux fan as the next bloke and would certainly love to see Transmeta as a reality, but all of this fanfare over baseless speculation (um, Transmeta isn't actually scheduled. To quote the article in reference: "Pundits predict Linus Torvalds, Linux operating system creator and Transmeta software engineer, will let the cat out of the bag. That's not the plan." Great source, those pundits) is becoming tiresome.
Deosyne
I understand that getting a finger in every pie is the wave of business today, and that the most popular method of doing so is by absorbing other companies, but is Intel really doing the smart thing here? I mean, their core business, CPUs, is, for the first time in a long while, actually being threatened by serious competition, and this is occuring at a crucial time as the focus on 64-bit processing is broadening, an arena already occupied by others that Intel will have to break into. On the 32-bit front, AMD's Athlon has been very well received by the reviewers and the OEMs are now expanding their sales of Athlon-based systems while Intel is having an apparant problem with meeting the demand for Pentium IIIs as the holiday season approaches, according to this article at ABCNews.com. Perhaps they have gotten too secure in their niche market that they have dominated for so long to recognize when it is beginning to be seriously threatened.
Deosyne
I am curious as to what else this can be used for. I mean, it may run Linux, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can run gcc on it. Does this advertised version operate more as an open platform with specialty software, such as the web browser and telephony software included, or is this more like a WebTV box with a built-in screen that uses Linux to crunch numbers? And what options will OEMs have for modifying its existing fuctionality?
:)
I guess I just really dig the look and would like to have one as a mini-laptop, as it were.
Deosyne
The Palm devices only come in 1 basic form. It has a pretty small screen and uses a stylus for input. It's starts up fast of and works easy. It's great for quick notes, but not for a lot of writing. So think about what you want to do.
:)
:) And ICQ addicts can use ICpQa by Jon Baer (supposedly found here, although the site never seems to be up; you can find it at most sites that collect Palm VII PQAs) to swap messages with their friends; haven't used this myself, as I'm just not into that sort of thing.
I use a Palm VII quite a bit (the bennies of supporting them) and I find that it is a very convenient platform; the text input choices are a bit kludgy, but I have become a fair hand with Graffiti (the text recognition method that the Palm uses), but for lots of writing, I use the onscreen keyboard with a modified stylus I made from unscrewing the tip of the stylus and gluing it to a dimestore ring so that I wear the stylus on the end of my finger. I can type a screen of text in a decent amount of time with it.
Browsing the Web. This isn't going to work. Checking a map or email or phone-number or address really quickly over the Internet through a Palm App, etc. is very handy, but not heavy duty browsing.
For web browsing on the Palm VII, I use SnakEyes (from SnakeFeet), which is a pretty decent little Lynx-style browser. Obviously image-heavy pages are rough, but most sites I refer to are mainly text, so its not really an issue. Besides, Slashdot has a PQA, so I don't need it much.
Email. With a Palm VII or a modem-equiped Palm, checking email can be great. Then again, so can checking your email with an alpha-numeric pager. Writing email beyond a quick response would be quite a pain, though.
Again, not too bad, although I really wouldn't recommend using your Palm VII for your main email client, as it would become rather expensive, particularly if the Spam commandos get a hold of the addy. Very nice for shooting off a message while traveling, though.
Instant Messaging. Huh? You actually want to "talk" to someone with a stylus over a wireless network. That's really slow and really expensive.
Heh, works great in meetings. We shoot messages to each other all the time while pretending to take notes.
The main thing about the Palm is that it takes getting used to. If you use PDAs extensively, this won't be an issue because you'll pick up on Graffiti rather quickly or adapt to the small keyboard. For the casual user, you obviously won't want to compose large messages or do anything intensive, as it will feel unwieldy and difficult. Like anything, there is a learning curve, but with the Palm, it was a lot smaller than I had expected.
Note that I don't work for Palm Computing and don't make anything off of the sales of their products, I just tech support them.
Deosyne
ASCI Blue... so that's where Erwin resides. Just hope Dust Puppy has a suit to enter the clean room!
*ducks flying tomatoes*
Deosyne
I'm rather fascinated by your response to this, but at the same time, I'm not at all suprised. Looking at all of these questions, particularly the last one, it is clear that the questions themselves are completely meaningless; it is the answers which are important. You chose to disregard the test, likely on the basis of question 11, rather than let your mind wander over the possibilities. Yet even that is a response to the question!
:)
That exam is one of the most meaningful things that I have ever read... wait, didn't I just say that the questions were meaningless? Indeed, I did; those questions could have been rewritten a million ways, but the basic premise remains the same: Technology is what people make of it . You chose to interpret it as a cry for compassion and the irrelevance of technology in the whole of humanity, others will see it as a study in the potential benefits of technology. And that's what makes these questions so great! I had at least 2-3 answers for each question rolling around in my head at the same time! I really couldn't make a definitive answer to any of them, particularly question 11; there was always another angle to be investigated. The beauty of this test is that the only wrong answer is no answer at all, and I feel sorry for anyone who wasn't intellectually, perhaps even emotionally, stimulated by those questions.
If there is any justice in this world, all high school students will be required to take a variant of this exam before being allowed to graduate. One of the finest critical thinking exercises I have ever seen; I still can't stop thinking about some of those questions.
Deosyne
I think that there is an important distinction which is very often overlooked here. That is, corporations are not people. The law creates this fiction that they are, but ultimately, a "real" person should have much stronger rights than a "fake" corporation.
:)
:)) isn't necessarily wrong, but how will they be used? And what court do the law enforcement agencies go to for approval to use a wiretap that potentially covers many jurisdictions, even overseas locations? And what protections would be put into place to prevent malicious types from using them as their own personal line sniffers?
The argument could be made that something that affects a corporation directly affects every shareholder in that corporation, but I'd rather avoid that ball of worms. In any case, it wouldn't likely matter how the law regards the difference between individuals and corporations as individuals typically don't have teams of lawyers standing by to defend them.
What really bugs me is that the supreme court has declared that corporations have more rights in court than illegal immigrants.
I just can't bring myself to be suprised; illegal immigrants are not citizens and are not subject to the "laws of the land" in the same fashion as a citizen, or a corporation based here for that matter.
As for the wiretap fiasco, making lines inherently wiretappable (if that's a word
I believe that there are times when a wiretap is a reasonable measure to use in law enforcement, but it should be very carefully regulated to prevent abuses, as any abuse of wiretapping is a direct and flagrant violation of someone's privacy.
Deosyne
I was actually happy to buy the book, even though I have read the entire run on the website, just because it gave me a feeling of helping to support Illiad and get him to continue taking the time to keep putting out more User Friendly in the future. An HTMLized, keyworded version would be cool, though. :)
Deosyne
Yet consistant attempts have been made to get his side of the story with backing facts by various media outlets, such as the Times, HNN, etc, but to no avail. JP's responses ALWAYS come back sounding like a politician's monologue, full of fluff with no real content. Therefore, I am not really sure what Slashdot is attempting to accomplish with this interview; I just can't accept that they would resort to tabloid-style journalism simply to generate traffic, particularly since they get plenty already. I guess I am just fed up with having someone whose signal-to-noise ratio borders on illegal constantly getting attention for no particular reason.
Deosyne
Its funny you mention architecture, because that's what came to my mind when reading the article. When constructing a building, the designers can create whatever they want and easily adapt it to handicapped use by putting in a couple of ramps, a push button opener for the door and some braille placards by the signs. Websites don't work like that; many are as much form as function; particularly business sites, as they are for the most part advertising. I do often use Lynx when I'm at home and have once again screwed up something in X while trying to "improve" it, and I know that the more complex a site's layout is, the harder it is to navigate with Lynx. Try the Netscape website as an example; took me forever the first time I snagged Communicator with Lynx. Sure looks damn fine with Netscape, though! So, what does this mean to the business site owners who suddenly have to adapt to certain design criteria to accomodate? Either they completely redesign their sites, as you can't just add a ramp and a couple of placards to a website to make it easy to navigate in Lynx, create a duplicate of the website specifically formatted for whatever browsers that blind folks use or they dump the form and make a bland, functional site.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about getting anyone and everyone connected who wants to be, but where do you draw the line? When every website is turned back into a gopher server because the Internet is considered a vital new technology for everyone? When every vehicle is designed to move at 2 mph and equipped with motion sensors because independant transportation is considered vital for everyone? When every publisher must print and distribute materials in print, braille, sound and posted online because access to published information is considered vital for everyone?
And who is going to create the criteria for enforcement of this for websites, and then monitor for violations and handle infractions, particularly since the scope we're talking about here is well over a million sites? If someone could find a cureall that wouldn't knock the Internet back into the early 80's, I might agree, but the requirements to make this a reality are nearly absurd.
Of course, if someone does have that cureall, please let it out, because like I said, I'm all about everyone having access.
Deosyne