I don't think intelligence has much to do with it. LSD projects your inner world to your senses. It does some really amazing things.
I have found in my experiance with LSD (which is personally limited, I have done it maybe 8-10 times so far) that the persons emotional stability and self image are the most important thing. If one takes LSD foolhardeled, not believing that it has the power to alter them forever in a real personal sense...they can be shocked when it shows them what a mess their internal world is.
You can't fight LSD. I have seen 2 differnt bad trips where the person dealt with death. One was a good friend with very low self image. He crumbled. he tried to fight the drug and stop the emminent death he percieved (its a long story, he was in no real danger of death, all imagined due to some stupid urban legends someone had told him). This person was caught in loops (an LSd effect) and caused himself long lasting psychological trauma.
The other person realized they "were dead". They lashed out and screamed violently. However, after a time sat and "accepted death". They realized (through some guidence of mine) that they were dead and that it doesn't matter...that they can not do anything about death comming and they calmed down and stopped fighting it.
This second person suffered only some fear for a day afterwards, and then settled back to relative normalcy. She seems to have come out better off for the experiance.
As I read at the bookstore today in a book whose forward was written by the Dali Lama. Death is inevitable. Once you realize that and accept it, then you don't need to live your life in fear of it. It is that outlook that separates, in my mind, the person who will be traumatized by these drugs easily, and one who wont.
LSD tho doesn't help matters. It is a very "Pushy" drug. As one person I turned on recently said, "This stuff has alot of pep to it". Its not a drug that holds your hand and walks you calmly through the doors of perception, it is a drug that sneaks up behind you as you start to peep through the door and kicks you through the door and says "Deal with it bitch". (of course...I love the stuff. So far it is the favorite of anything I have tried...with the possible exception of mescaline (well a cactus preparation actually). which I only got a small taste of but showed much beauty and promise))
> What's the connection to computer culture? I'd > agree with the earlier poster that computer > people do less drugs. Maybe because mostly > 'cool' kids do drugs and computer geeks don't > fit that profile. Maybe because it's difficult > to use a computer while high.
Well perhaps I can offer a differnt perspective for you.
I was never "cool". There were always circles and groups I was partially accepted in, I wasn't a total outcast. However, I never truely felt I fit in. I was always on the fringe, to sum I prefered sitting with a few friends discussing philosophy then throwing spitballs around at lunch.
Ever since I first read about drugs, I was hooked. It was over a year later when I smoked my first joint, 5 years before my first hit of acid. However, from the first text files I found, I knew I had found something that I will spend the rest of my life with.
The human mind and the mystic of the world of drugs amazes and enthrawls me. It is like a whole new world. It is a way for me to explore the worlds within my own mind. A way to exist where fantasy is reality.
In truth, I am not a heavy user. I smoke pot maybe a couple of times a week at most, other drugs maybe once a month (hardly ever less than 2 weeks apart). I am fascinated as much by my own mind as by the computers I make my living programming on.
To me a good drug is like a good book, or a good poem, it takes you to a new realm and lets your imagination take hold. That is the way I view them.
Interestingly, DARE, the program in the US where police are sent into schools to teach kids that drugs are bad, has been shown to have a curious effect. Kids who graduate from DARE are MORE likely to use drugs as teenagers, than studtens who didn't!
Why? Well some have postulated (and I agree) that it is becuase DAREs founders, like many, have forgotten that drugs are interesting. You can't teach about them without exposing people to the idea of them....and making many interested.
It was also postulated that in 20 years someone will ask the Next Alexander Shulgin why he became a chemist and began researching psychedelic drugs and he will reply that he was interested ever since he heard about acid in DARE. (if you have an opionon about drugs...go read Shulgins book Pihkal, it is likely to change your perspective a bit)
Funny... my sister dropped out of high school, got her GED and went to colledge a year ahead of all her friends and maintains a 3.5 GPA (no I don't know what she is studying...I forget)...all while smokiking 3 fat bones or more each day.
I have found that the user is what really matters. How a person reacts to drugs is more a function of them, their personality, and their self image then any drug.
Differnt people use drugs for totally differnt reasons, and have totally differnt effects.
As flashbacks and LSD were mentioned. An old friend of mine went that route. However, everyone else I know who has done acid several times including myself) have had no problems.
Talking with him through his bad trips has given me a better understanding of the differences in people. He used drugs because his self image was low. The same reason he was constantly seducing women and jumping from girl to girl.
One of the effects of Acid is to project your inner world onto your senses outer world. If you are happy or emotionally eccstatic, you will see lights and nice warm colors all over. If you are down, you will project that.
He faced death during his trip and, because of low self image, became afraid. He fought this (Imaginary) death. He was severly traumatized.
Even now, over 3 years "clean", he still has his low self image. He has joined a christian church which is very invasive (they have been called a cult by some, but I don't know enough to say for sure - Boston Church Of Christ if you have heard of them).
Im not sure if I am making my point but, he seems to be addicted to church the way he was once addicted to pot. Its like he has traded one life runner for another.
All mof my experiance has been with more people then him that it is how individuals aproach drugs and WHY they use them that determines whether they will be harmful to ones life.
> Really. And did some crystal ball tell you > during the cold war (This happened during the > cold war, remember)
Ahh yes the Cold War....Its good to have an enemy so we can easily justify hoards of Military Spending. However, any rational person with half a brain would have realized long before the end of the cold war that thats all it would ever be.
Course...its really silly anyway. I am sure "Enemy" spies knew enough about most of those secrets anyway. Which is a good thing in my book as long as spies on both sides were able to keep the battle field even...neither side would be too willing to initiate (frankly...in the cold war I wouldn't trust the US much more than its Enemies)
> So you're saying if you are a witness to a mafia > crime, and you are put in the witness protection > program, then any taxpayer has the right to your > address;
Congradulations on comming up with the most convoluted twist of words I have seen in a while. There is QUITE a difference between personal data on an individual and technological advances funded by public money.
Of course I find it fairly humerous to ask the big Maffia Gang to "protect you" from the smaller ones. Of course I supose you would hold that the governments use of force against people to achieve their ends is somehow magically more justified then the maffia's. The maffias force is done to further personal profit of the "Bosses" the Governments is to further the personal...oops I mean to help society and everyone.
Hmmmm.... I don't see how your comment has any real relevance. Yes, the country which values profit the most has the highest standard of living. And?
As for France... When some french citizens opposed the ways of capitalism and tried to setup a community in Paris based on production for Use and solid socialist ideas, the french government put a quick stop to it by slaughtering 20,000 people.
That was a long time ago, I am not sure to what extent things have changed since, I supose maybe they ar ebetter now?
> He could have been "courageous" and put in more > material that was classified, but he understands > that sometimes things get classified for a > reason, like to protect our soldiers in the line > of fire. I can respect that.
I have 2 real problems with this line of thinking:
A) There are no soldiers in the line of fire In times of peace, there is no reason to have soldiers in the line of fire.
B) Taxpayers paid for these things, they have a RIGHT to know. Security be damned! They have no right to take my money and not tell me exaxtly what they did with every single dollar of it. (actually they have no right to take my money in the first place, but I wont argue that one now)
> (Indeed, IIRC he was asked to change several of > his books because his informed guesses about > certain top-secret weaponry were too accurate > for the Navy's comfort...)
That fact disgusts me to no end. I certainly hope he didn't change a word. Or better yet I changed it...the tells all about what he was asked to change in detail.
> For another, courts have sometimes drawn the > line as to whether code is speech or not by > whether it is machine readable.
I don't think JUST being machine readable is a problem. In this case it IS a story and source code.
I would think that is human readable enough to be protected. The fact that it is machine readable does not change the fact that it is a story and is human readable "fiction".
> The laws--European and American--clearly state > that the copyright holder has the right to > dictate the means of playback
Actually... Thats not entirely true.
There is debate over whether "Fair Use" covers making personal copies of copyrighted works in differnt mediums.
In fact, the question was so hotly debated that it was decided that a law needed to be made to clarify the issue wrt audio recordings. The new law granted specific rights to make copies. (of course...that new law was vague enough that new debate came over whether it is legal to make a copy for a friend)
The law is clearly vague on the issue of personal copies and use.
> If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, > it doesn't have to and you can't legally do > anything about it
Not necissarily. Again, this applies to audio and I am unsure if it applies to other areas but... copyright holders in some specific circumstances are required to provide mandatory licencing..even for distribution (usually it requires paying of royalties) - of course...in this case that may or may not be aplicable... IANAL.
> Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be > learned: maintain the high road
Which begs the question...why is the legal high road the only high road? I, and others, believe that "when the law is wrong it is right to break the law". Your viewpoint is very legalistsic. You must remember that not everyone is a legalist.
More to the point, why should I trust J random Corperation enough to run proprietary binaries on my machine. I have no idea what they do. What have they done to get that level of trust from me?
> People have to make a living, and that includes > those who write commercial software.
There are lots of ways to "Make a living". I am not aware of any universal right to have your favored way of making money be viable.
> Would you expect Ford to give away their cars? > Or Intel give away processors?
Well im not a proponent of capitalism and believe production should be for use not profit. So in essense, yes I would prefer that they did, it would make money obselete. About time if you ask me.
> This crusade by some folks to deprive me and > tens of thousands of other software engineers of > their livelihoods
It is not a crusade to deny you livelyhood. It is a crusade to better the software "industry". It is a crusade to further the rights of the person using the system.
Again. It is espousing production for USE. When I write free software, I am not writting it because I want money, I write it because it fills a need. I write it for use. If others use it then thats great.
I LOVE to hear from users telling me that some bug I fixed, or some software that I worked on is making their life easier. That is all the profit I need. Knowing that something I worked on is making the world a better place. Thats more incentive to write code then all the money in the federal reserve banks.
And yes...I do write code for a living. I write code to solve the problems our group has. I expect to be asking for permission (and knowing my boss and the people I work with, expect to get it) to release some of the stuff I have written under the GPL.
Also, RMS and the other Free Software advocates tend to be anything but "14-year old" kids
> As to my store club cards - I've got the cards, > but I don't fill out the applications
I don't even bother... lately when I goto the store (Star Market usullay) when the cashier asks if I have a card...I say no... then she picks up her own card and scans it!
Has happend several times from several cashiers. I don't know if they are suposed to do it but... they do.
> Perhaps a start is to not do business online > with companies that don't have clearly stated > privacy policies...
And what exactly does that mean?
Anyone can write up a privacy policy. noone is ever going to say in big letters "Give us your buisness and we will resell your information"
The question is whether they do it or not. If I do buisness with companies X Y Z and then suiddenly start getting adds in the mail from company W...how do I know who spilled the beans?
Recently I discovered that my own bank is selling my contact info. i found out when due to a mixup at the bank, my fathers mailing adress got changed to be the same as mine (dunno how they did that) and I started getting his account statments.
Shortly after..,.I began recieving credit card advertisments in his name, at my adress.
Now I am sure that if I call my bank they will have a "privacy statment" and will swear that they do not sell the names of their customers. However, I KNOW they do.
All that an evesdropper would be able to tell is that you sent an email through remailer A.
Since it is encrypted, they would first need to break the encryption (IDEA or RSA...I doubt it) Just to find out what the second remailer is. and then it has to be broken again to get the next step.
Since noone knows what you are sending prior to it reaching the final remailer, there is no reason for them to suspect anything and go through the effort. (and breaking the encryption of PGP is most probably very hard work...even for the NSA)
Even if the NSA themselves could break PGP easily and decode every message going to every remailler....they would gain nothing and lose alot by admitting to the fact that they can... so it wont matter anyway.
That is of course unless you are releaseing source code to an algorithem that can factor large primes in linear time. Then you can expect to arouse their attention.
anyway... 6 hops through remailers in at least 3 differnt countries should do the trick.
Find encrypting anonymous remailers. Get their public keys.... encrypt the message a few times over with them.... then bounce it through 6-10 of them, all in differnt countries, then into a mail to usenet gateway.
Is this still viable? I havn't checked out anonymous remailers in years but...I would imagine that tracing back to you would be nearly impossible if done right.
Too bad annon.penet.fi is gone. (am I the only one still lamenting their demise? whats it been 4 years now?)
Ok...I have to ask what their angle is? How do they stand to gain from doing this?
I think this is An attempt to clean up their name in the Unix world so that people might be more receptive to releases of their software (think Office) in the future. (Operating systems are not their only money maker)
Afterall...Unix based systems are a growing market and one where alot of users are not all warm and fuzzy about the Microsoft name.
Microsoft isn't exactly tottally foreign to the Unix world...remember Xenix? (anyone ever actually used Xenix?)
Will be interesting to see what they do and how successfull they will be at this. Of course that assumes this isn't total vaporware.
> No offense, but you sound like a warez kiddie > trying to justify your thefts,
Can't speak for the person you are replying to however, I am not a warez kiddie. Have no use for comercial software myself. However...I have a problem with calling copying "theft". In my mind "theft" requires that a "victem" loses a posession. Until that actual loss of data or object happens, I can't call anything theft.
As for Copying "IP". Well...I consider keeping technology from people to be unethical. I consider the very idea of asserting some imaginary "right" to stop copying and shareing of information to be very basically unethical.
> In fact, when I read the front page, the clear > message I saw was that the original author > believed that the material in question was being > distributed illegally, and was asking others to > conspire with him to steal material protected by > legally granted patents.
Hmm. Is that what he said? He said it might be and just in case it is, you better get it while you can. He did not make it clear that he actually believes that it is.
> That would not be protected speech anywhere. No > one has the right to engage in speech which > incites illegal activity,
I disagree. I have that right, and so do you and everyone else. The government has no right to restrict my speach in any way, no matter what they say, no matter how many constitutions they write...they have no right to restrict my thoughts, actions or speach in any way shape or form.
> If a patent is truly violated, I would hope that > any developers out there would honor that patent > and discontinue their [potentially illegal] use > of the code.
Then you and I have differnt hopes.
I hope they stick their finger up at the patent holder and continue right along and make sure that enough copies exist in enough differnt hands that the code can never die.
Its not about screwing over patent holders. Its about the fact that they went through the trouble of writting the code. I don't recognize anyones right to stop someone else from developing and distributing their own software, on their own time, with their own equipment. Patents be damned. Its not their code, they have no right that I recognize to stop development of code they didin't write.
> A jury is only there to decide whether or not a > law was broken.
Not necissarily.
There is a concept known as nullification. It is the idea that "When a person is on trial for breaking the law, the law itself is also on trial"
A Jusrys say is (for the most part) the FINAL word. They are allowd to vote not guilty if the person did the actions. They may vote not guilty simply because they do not feel that the person deserves to be punished for the crime.
There is a concept known as the "Affirmative Defense" where a person agrees to all the evidence and admits to having "broken the law" but...argues that the law is wrong. The jury is allowed (and have in the past) found people not guilty.
> and it has nothing to do with the availability > of information. How many Americans would ever > read the Communist Manifesto?
I read it in High School and thought that was a normal thing. I have since realized it isn't. The ideas most people have about "communism" are really laughable. (like the idea that it is even any 1 single ideology).
> Some, I admit, but the fact of the matter is > that if you teach them young enough and > from all angles that one view is right and the > other is absurd, fringe, radical, or evil, the > vast majority will reject that view outright, > regardless of whether the information is readily > available
Definitly true. Its very interesting the things that we are told and believe. We are told that its important that we can vote and choose good leaders...thats what makes us "free".
Even after we grow up and see that the system encourages our leaders to essentially take bribes and become corrupt and work towards their own self interest...we still believe that the ability to vote makes us free and that we need these leaders.
Ask any american what the "most free country in the world is" and they will tell you that its this one. We are "free". Most will continue to say it long past the time that they have monitors installed in their walls (figurativly speaking of course).
However...it is about availability of information. The world does change, it just happens slowly. The people in power want to keep things rolling. Those people on the fringe are a threat. Ideas can operate alot like viruses. They spread. Once the idea is out there...it can spread from individual to individual.
While I agree with you that early childhood programming which is re-enforced by popular culture, *IS* powerful, It is not the be all and end all. New ideas still have power.
The thing that truly scares the people in power is not that these ideas are out there...it is that with the internet, they are now readily available. If you want to read the communist manifesto...you can do it very easily. Its just a few clicks away (as you demonstrated).
I think this hits on an important point that crosses several types of things that governments do.
Whenever governments try to legislate and curb act which are not violent, and have no victem (in the case of software copying, you could argue that the software company is a "victem" however they don't even know its going on) then they create a big problem.
With "real" crimes, there is a victem. Either a body on the ground with some evidence as to how it happend ot identiy of the killer through fingerprints, or a person who was robbed etc.
ie. the victem brings the attention of the police to the crime. If Joe's store is robbed, surely he isn't going to sit back and hope the police decide to come by and ask him if he has been robbed lately.
Whats my point?
The point is, that with all this "intellectual property" (what a silly term) the crime that is being searched for is almost impossible to identify. Any TCP/IP connection can be one...it can be happening in the privacy of someones bedroom and noone will ever goto the police and complain.
There will NEVER be enopugh manpower to hunt down consensual "crimes". Whether it is stopping "Unauthorized copying", protitution, drugs, or sex with foodstuffs (which is illegal in some states).
The real danger is that things like this will be used as an excuse to give the police more and more powers. It will end up being used (not necissarily intentionally) to erode privacy.
> I am posting anonymously because this opinion is > in the minority and will be unfairly monderated > down. Such is the nature of slashdot.
Why is it that statyments like this make your points seem more thought out and "worthwhile". I guess thats another statment on human nature. (and wholly besides the point)
> it is thouroughly fair to charge money for a > product
Why is it fair?
Is there an absolute scale by which fairness can be judged, regardless of the beliefs of an individual?
Is it fair to judge a Christian as a bad person because of his failure to adhere to Hindu ideals?
It could be argued that charging money for products is itself unfair, and that production is suposed to be done so that people can use them, and requiring money for a product defeats the entire purpose of making products...which is so that people can use them.
what is the "correct" viewpoint?
At least with software and other "intellectual property" (I do despise that term) the author doesn't actually lose anything by use. So I see no real harm done here. He still has his copy, and all his code.
While I agree about the stupid trolls...I just have 2 points about DOS and Script Kiddies.
A) (As others have said) If there are holes, they will be found and fixed. Not a big deal. An activly exploited hole can only survive for so long.
B) Slashdot becomes saturated and stops responding for at least an hour a day or so anyway. The place is so popular that reading it amounts to a DoS attack. What more could a malicous attacker do? how much MORE slow could you make it (try accessing it around 1 pm (EST))
> Have you been to a University lately? We are > very much children in the eyes of the > University. We are ass fucked by these > institutions every day so why not this too.
Actually... I picked up a copy of playboy a few months back for the first time in years, its the one with the jesse ventura interview.
Anyway, they had an article on this. Anyone who is interested may wish to seek it out. It talked about how Parents and legislators are pushing universities backwards on the issues of students rights and some "ugly terms" like "in parentis locis" are making a come back.
> Ben, who is dropping out as soon as my loans > are up
If you want more freedom do just that. I did. A much better idea is to work for a University. The pay sucks but the atmosphere (in my experiance) tends to be more laid back and the benefits are nice (I get to take 2 free courses per semester)
Of course...whether you are truely "free" or not at that point is even more matter of debate... perhaps just a slave to the allmighty dollar, without which you can not live,
However, that would be more aptly discussed in a philosophy course:)
The correct URL for the page is: http://www.theconfessor.co.uk/page0_new.html
If you go to the link in the article, and you do not have javascript (I leave it off in my browser) , it wont load. Just an empty page (they use javascript to emulate a meta reload... which is funny...since page0 as listed above starts a meta reload cycle to show you the other stuff)
However weirdly....at page4.html it stops again and there are no links or forwards or anything just poorly done frames and a promise that I may now contemplate my sins or "type them into the space provided".
However, I see no space to type them in.
Anyway...since I don't believe in "Sin" (not christian) I have nothing to contemplate. However I just thought I would let people know so others can see this site (for religous contemplation or humor...whatever floats your boat) who don't have javascript enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
>Some people, (usually extremely inteligent
> people) react badly to LSD
I don't think intelligence has much to
do with it. LSD projects your inner world to your
senses. It does some really amazing things.
I have found in my experiance with LSD (which
is personally limited, I have done it maybe
8-10 times so far) that the persons emotional
stability and self image are the most important
thing. If one takes LSD foolhardeled, not
believing that it has the power to alter them
forever in a real personal sense...they can be
shocked when it shows them what a mess their
internal world is.
You can't fight LSD. I have seen 2 differnt bad
trips where the person dealt with death. One
was a good friend with very low self image. He
crumbled. he tried to fight the drug and stop
the emminent death he percieved (its a long story,
he was in no real danger of death, all imagined
due to some stupid urban legends someone had
told him). This person was caught in loops (an
LSd effect) and caused himself long lasting
psychological trauma.
The other person realized they "were dead". They
lashed out and screamed violently. However,
after a time sat and "accepted death". They
realized (through some guidence of mine) that they
were dead and that it doesn't matter...that they
can not do anything about death comming and
they calmed down and stopped fighting it.
This second person suffered only some fear for a
day afterwards, and then settled back to
relative normalcy. She seems to have come out
better off for the experiance.
As I read at the bookstore today in a book whose
forward was written by the Dali Lama. Death is
inevitable. Once you realize that and accept it,
then you don't need to live your life in fear of
it. It is that outlook that separates, in my mind,
the person who will be traumatized by these
drugs easily, and one who wont.
LSD tho doesn't help matters. It is a very
"Pushy" drug. As one person I turned on recently
said, "This stuff has alot of pep to it". Its
not a drug that holds your hand and walks you
calmly through the doors of perception, it is
a drug that sneaks up behind you as you start
to peep through the door and kicks you through
the door and says "Deal with it bitch".
(of course...I love the stuff. So far it is
the favorite of anything I have tried...with the
possible exception of mescaline (well a cactus
preparation actually). which I only got a small
taste of but showed much beauty and promise))
> What's the connection to computer culture? I'd
> agree with the earlier poster that computer
> people do less drugs. Maybe because mostly
> 'cool' kids do drugs and computer geeks don't
> fit that profile. Maybe because it's difficult
> to use a computer while high.
Well perhaps I can offer a differnt perspective
for you.
I was never "cool". There were always circles and
groups I was partially accepted in, I wasn't a
total outcast. However, I never truely felt I
fit in. I was always on the fringe, to sum I
prefered sitting with a few friends discussing
philosophy then throwing spitballs around at
lunch.
Ever since I first read about drugs, I was hooked.
It was over a year later when I smoked my first
joint, 5 years before my first hit of acid.
However, from the first text files I found, I knew
I had found something that I will spend the rest
of my life with.
The human mind and the mystic of the world of
drugs amazes and enthrawls me. It is like a whole
new world. It is a way for me to explore the
worlds within my own mind. A way to exist where
fantasy is reality.
In truth, I am not a heavy user. I smoke pot maybe
a couple of times a week at most, other drugs
maybe once a month (hardly ever less than 2
weeks apart). I am fascinated as much by my own
mind as by the computers I make my living
programming on.
To me a good drug is like a good book, or a good
poem, it takes you to a new realm and lets your
imagination take hold. That is the way I view
them.
Interestingly, DARE, the program in the US where
police are sent into schools to teach kids that
drugs are bad, has been shown to have a curious
effect. Kids who graduate from DARE are MORE
likely to use drugs as teenagers, than studtens
who didn't!
Why? Well some have postulated (and I agree)
that it is becuase DAREs founders, like many,
have forgotten that drugs are interesting. You
can't teach about them without exposing people
to the idea of them....and making many interested.
It was also postulated that in 20 years someone
will ask the Next Alexander Shulgin why he
became a chemist and began researching psychedelic
drugs and he will reply that he was interested
ever since he heard about acid in DARE.
(if you have an opionon about drugs...go read
Shulgins book Pihkal, it is likely to
change your perspective a bit)
-Steve
Funny...
my sister dropped out of high school, got her GED
and went to colledge a year ahead of all her
friends and maintains a 3.5 GPA (no I don't know
what she is studying...I forget)...all while
smokiking 3 fat bones or more each day.
I have found that the user is what really matters.
How a person reacts to drugs is more a function
of them, their personality, and their self image
then any drug.
Differnt people use drugs for totally differnt
reasons, and have totally differnt effects.
As flashbacks and LSD were mentioned. An old
friend of mine went that route. However, everyone
else I know who has done acid several times
including myself) have had no problems.
Talking with him through his bad trips has given
me a better understanding of the differences in
people. He used drugs because his self image was
low. The same reason he was constantly seducing
women and jumping from girl to girl.
One of the effects of Acid is to project your
inner world onto your senses outer world. If you
are happy or emotionally eccstatic, you will see
lights and nice warm colors all over. If you are
down, you will project that.
He faced death during his trip and, because of low
self image, became afraid. He fought this
(Imaginary) death. He was severly traumatized.
Even now, over 3 years "clean", he still has his
low self image. He has joined a christian church
which is very invasive (they have been called a
cult by some, but I don't know enough to say for
sure - Boston Church Of Christ if you have heard
of them).
Im not sure if I am making my point but, he seems
to be addicted to church the way he was once
addicted to pot. Its like he has traded one
life runner for another.
All mof my experiance has been with more
people then him that it is how individuals aproach
drugs and WHY they use them that determines
whether they will be harmful to ones life.
> Really. And did some crystal ball tell you
> during the cold war (This happened during the
> cold war, remember)
Ahh yes the Cold War....Its good to have an enemy
so we can easily justify hoards of Military
Spending. However, any rational person with half
a brain would have realized long before the end
of the cold war that thats all it would ever be.
Course...its really silly anyway. I am sure
"Enemy" spies knew enough about most of those
secrets anyway. Which is a good thing in my book
as long as spies on both sides were able to keep
the battle field even...neither side would be
too willing to initiate (frankly...in the cold
war I wouldn't trust the US much more than its
Enemies)
> So you're saying if you are a witness to a mafia
> crime, and you are put in the witness protection
> program, then any taxpayer has the right to your
> address;
Congradulations on comming up with the most
convoluted twist of words I have seen in a while.
There is QUITE a difference between personal
data on an individual and technological advances
funded by public money.
Of course I find it fairly humerous to ask the
big Maffia Gang to "protect you" from the smaller
ones. Of course I supose you would hold that
the governments use of force against people to
achieve their ends is somehow magically more
justified then the maffia's. The maffias force
is done to further personal profit of the "Bosses"
the Governments is to further the personal...oops
I mean to help society and everyone.
Hmmmm....
I don't see how your comment has any real
relevance. Yes, the country which values
profit the most has the highest standard of
living. And?
As for France...
When some french citizens opposed the ways of
capitalism and tried to setup a community in
Paris based on production for Use and solid
socialist ideas, the french government put
a quick stop to it by slaughtering 20,000 people.
That was a long time ago, I am not sure to what
extent things have changed since, I supose maybe
they ar ebetter now?
> He could have been "courageous" and put in more
> material that was classified, but he understands
> that sometimes things get classified for a
> reason, like to protect our soldiers in the line
> of fire. I can respect that.
I have 2 real problems with this line of thinking:
A) There are no soldiers in the line of fire
In times of peace, there is no reason to have
soldiers in the line of fire.
B) Taxpayers paid for these things, they have a
RIGHT to know. Security be damned! They have no
right to take my money and not tell me exaxtly
what they did with every single dollar of it.
(actually they have no right to take my money
in the first place, but I wont argue that one now)
-Steve
> (Indeed, IIRC he was asked to change several of
> his books because his informed guesses about
> certain top-secret weaponry were too accurate
> for the Navy's comfort...)
That fact disgusts me to no end.
I certainly hope he didn't change a word.
Or better yet I changed it...the tells all
about what he was asked to change in detail.
> For another, courts have sometimes drawn the
> line as to whether code is speech or not by
> whether it is machine readable.
I don't think JUST being machine readable is
a problem. In this case it IS a story and
source code.
I would think that is human readable enough to
be protected. The fact that it is machine readable
does not change the fact that it is a story and
is human readable "fiction".
> The laws--European and American--clearly state
> that the copyright holder has the right to
> dictate the means of playback
Actually... Thats not entirely true.
There is debate over whether "Fair Use" covers
making personal copies of copyrighted works in
differnt mediums.
In fact, the question was so hotly debated that
it was decided that a law needed to be made to
clarify the issue wrt audio recordings. The
new law granted specific rights to make copies.
(of course...that new law was vague enough that
new debate came over whether it is legal to make
a copy for a friend)
The law is clearly vague on the issue of personal
copies and use.
> If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine,
> it doesn't have to and you can't legally do
> anything about it
Not necissarily. Again, this applies to audio and
I am unsure if it applies to other areas but...
copyright holders in some specific circumstances
are required to provide mandatory licencing..even
for distribution (usually it requires paying of
royalties) - of course...in this case that
may or may not be aplicable... IANAL.
> Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be
> learned: maintain the high road
Which begs the question...why is the legal high
road the only high road?
I, and others, believe that "when the law is wrong
it is right to break the law".
Your viewpoint is very legalistsic. You must
remember that not everyone is a legalist.
-Steve
> Why should *all* software be open-source?
More to the point, why should I trust J random
Corperation enough to run proprietary binaries
on my machine. I have no idea what they do.
What have they done to get that level of trust
from me?
> People have to make a living, and that includes
> those who write commercial software.
There are lots of ways to "Make a living". I am
not aware of any universal right to have your
favored way of making money be viable.
> Would you expect Ford to give away their cars?
> Or Intel give away processors?
Well im not a proponent of capitalism and believe
production should be for use not profit. So in
essense, yes I would prefer that they did, it
would make money obselete. About time if you ask
me.
> This crusade by some folks to deprive me and
> tens of thousands of other software engineers of
> their livelihoods
It is not a crusade to deny you livelyhood. It
is a crusade to better the software "industry".
It is a crusade to further the rights of the
person using the system.
Again. It is espousing production for USE. When
I write free software, I am not writting it
because I want money, I write it because it fills
a need. I write it for use. If others use it then
thats great.
I LOVE to hear from users telling me that some bug
I fixed, or some software that I worked on is
making their life easier. That is all the profit I
need. Knowing that something I worked on is making
the world a better place. Thats more incentive
to write code then all the money in the federal
reserve banks.
And yes...I do write code for a living. I write
code to solve the problems our group has. I
expect to be asking for permission (and knowing
my boss and the people I work with, expect to get
it) to release some of the stuff I have written
under the GPL.
Also, RMS and the other Free Software advocates
tend to be anything but "14-year old" kids
-Steve
> As to my store club cards - I've got the cards,
> but I don't fill out the applications
I don't even bother...
lately when I goto the store (Star Market usullay)
when the cashier asks if I have a card...I say
no...
then she picks up her own card and scans it!
Has happend several times from several cashiers.
I don't know if they are suposed to do it but...
they do.
I get the savings...they don't get my name.
oh...and I pay in cash.
-Steve
> Perhaps a start is to not do business online
> with companies that don't have clearly stated
> privacy policies...
And what exactly does that mean?
Anyone can write up a privacy policy. noone
is ever going to say in big letters "Give us
your buisness and we will resell your information"
The question is whether they do it or not. If
I do buisness with companies X Y Z and then
suiddenly start getting adds in the mail from
company W...how do I know who spilled the beans?
Recently I discovered that my own bank is selling
my contact info. i found out when due to a mixup
at the bank, my fathers mailing adress got changed
to be the same as mine (dunno how they did that)
and I started getting his account statments.
Shortly after..,.I began recieving credit card
advertisments in his name, at my adress.
Now I am sure that if I call my bank they will
have a "privacy statment" and will swear that they
do not sell the names of their customers. However,
I KNOW they do.
> Factoring primes is easy. I'm sure you knew
:)
> that. But I would hate for anyone else to be
> confused - it's such a common mistake.
Yes I know....slip of the fingers.
Anyway...you know what I meant
Slashdot needs a new posting system that scans
a post, and posts what the author meant instead
of what he typed. It will solve alot of problems.
Why?
All that an evesdropper would be able to tell is
that you sent an email through remailer A.
Since it is encrypted, they would first need
to break the encryption (IDEA or RSA...I doubt it)
Just to find out what the second remailer is.
and then it has to be broken again to get the
next step.
Since noone knows what you are sending prior to
it reaching the final remailer, there is no reason
for them to suspect anything and go through the
effort. (and breaking the encryption of PGP is
most probably very hard work...even for the NSA)
Even if the NSA themselves could break PGP
easily and decode every message going to every
remailler....they would gain nothing and lose
alot by admitting to the fact that they can...
so it wont matter anyway.
That is of course unless you are releaseing
source code to an algorithem that can factor
large primes in linear time. Then you can expect
to arouse their attention.
anyway... 6 hops through remailers in at least
3 differnt countries should do the trick.
Why go through the trouble?
Find encrypting anonymous remailers. Get their
public keys.... encrypt the message a few times
over with them....
then bounce it through 6-10 of them, all in
differnt countries, then into a mail to usenet
gateway.
Is this still viable? I havn't checked out
anonymous remailers in years but...I would
imagine that tracing back to you would be nearly
impossible if done right.
Too bad annon.penet.fi is gone. (am I the only
one still lamenting their demise? whats it been
4 years now?)
Ok...I have to ask what their angle is?
How do they stand to gain from doing this?
I think this is An attempt to clean up their name
in the Unix world so that people might be more
receptive to releases of their software (think
Office) in the future. (Operating systems are
not their only money maker)
Afterall...Unix based systems are a growing market
and one where alot of users are not all warm and
fuzzy about the Microsoft name.
Microsoft isn't exactly tottally foreign to the
Unix world...remember Xenix? (anyone ever actually
used Xenix?)
Will be interesting to see what they do and
how successfull they will be at this. Of course
that assumes this isn't total vaporware.
> No offense, but you sound like a warez kiddie
> trying to justify your thefts,
Can't speak for the person you are replying to
however, I am not a warez kiddie. Have no use for
comercial software myself. However...I have a
problem with calling copying "theft". In my
mind "theft" requires that a "victem" loses a
posession. Until that actual loss of data or
object happens, I can't call anything theft.
As for Copying "IP". Well...I consider keeping
technology from people to be unethical. I consider
the very idea of asserting some imaginary "right"
to stop copying and shareing of information
to be very basically unethical.
> In fact, when I read the front page, the clear
> message I saw was that the original author
> believed that the material in question was being
> distributed illegally, and was asking others to
> conspire with him to steal material protected by
> legally granted patents.
Hmm. Is that what he said? He said it might be
and just in case it is, you better get it while
you can. He did not make it clear that he
actually believes that it is.
> That would not be protected speech anywhere. No
> one has the right to engage in speech which
> incites illegal activity,
I disagree. I have that right, and so do you and
everyone else. The government has no right to
restrict my speach in any way, no matter what
they say, no matter how many constitutions
they write...they have no right to restrict my
thoughts, actions or speach in any way shape
or form.
> If a patent is truly violated, I would hope that
> any developers out there would honor that patent
> and discontinue their [potentially illegal] use
> of the code.
Then you and I have differnt hopes.
I hope they stick their finger up at the patent
holder and continue right along and make sure that
enough copies exist in enough differnt hands that
the code can never die.
Its not about screwing over patent holders. Its
about the fact that they went through the trouble
of writting the code. I don't recognize anyones
right to stop someone else from developing and
distributing their own software, on their own
time, with their own equipment. Patents be damned.
Its not their code, they have no right that I
recognize to stop development of code they didin't
write.
> A jury is only there to decide whether or not a
> law was broken.
Not necissarily.
There is a concept known as nullification. It
is the idea that "When a person is on trial for
breaking the law, the law itself is also on trial"
A Jusrys say is (for the most part) the FINAL
word. They are allowd to vote not guilty if the
person did the actions. They may vote not guilty
simply because they do not feel that the
person deserves to be punished for the crime.
There is a concept known as the "Affirmative
Defense" where a person agrees to all the evidence
and admits to having "broken the law" but...argues
that the law is wrong. The jury is allowed (and
have in the past) found people not guilty.
For more information...
Fully Informed Jury
Association
Of course...I don't know that Patents are Criminal
cases...so there may never be an oppertunity
to get it in front of a Jury.
In any case...when the law is wrong, it is right
to break the law. So download early...just in
case.
> and it has nothing to do with the availability
> of information. How many Americans would ever
> read the Communist Manifesto?
I read it in High School and thought that was
a normal thing. I have since realized it isn't.
The ideas most people have about "communism" are
really laughable. (like the idea that it is even
any 1 single ideology).
> Some, I admit, but the fact of the matter is
> that if you teach them young enough and
> from all angles that one view is right and the
> other is absurd, fringe, radical, or evil, the
> vast majority will reject that view outright,
> regardless of whether the information is readily
> available
Definitly true. Its very interesting the things
that we are told and believe. We are told that
its important that we can vote and choose good
leaders...thats what makes us "free".
Even after we grow up and see that the system
encourages our leaders to essentially take bribes
and become corrupt and work towards their own self
interest...we still believe that the ability to
vote makes us free and that we need these leaders.
Ask any american what the "most free country in
the world is" and they will tell you that its
this one. We are "free". Most will continue to
say it long past the time that they have monitors
installed in their walls (figurativly speaking
of course).
However...it is about availability of information.
The world does change, it just happens slowly.
The people in power want to keep things rolling.
Those people on the fringe are a threat. Ideas
can operate alot like viruses. They spread. Once
the idea is out there...it can spread from
individual to individual.
While I agree with you that early childhood
programming which is re-enforced by popular
culture, *IS* powerful, It is not the be all
and end all. New ideas still have power.
The thing that truly scares the people in power
is not that these ideas are out there...it is
that with the internet, they are now readily
available. If you want to read the communist
manifesto...you can do it very easily. Its
just a few clicks away (as you demonstrated).
I think this hits on an important point that
crosses several types of things that governments
do.
Whenever governments try to legislate and curb
act which are not violent, and have no victem
(in the case of software copying, you could argue
that the software company is a "victem" however
they don't even know its going on) then they
create a big problem.
With "real" crimes, there is a victem. Either
a body on the ground with some evidence as to
how it happend ot identiy of the killer through
fingerprints, or a person who was robbed etc.
ie. the victem brings the attention of the police
to the crime. If Joe's store is robbed, surely he
isn't going to sit back and hope the police decide
to come by and ask him if he has been robbed
lately.
Whats my point?
The point is, that with all this "intellectual
property" (what a silly term) the crime that
is being searched for is almost impossible to
identify. Any TCP/IP connection can be one...it
can be happening in the privacy of someones
bedroom and noone will ever goto the police and
complain.
There will NEVER be enopugh manpower to hunt
down consensual "crimes". Whether it is stopping
"Unauthorized copying", protitution, drugs,
or sex with foodstuffs (which is illegal in some
states).
The real danger is that things like this will be
used as an excuse to give the police more and more
powers. It will end up being used (not necissarily
intentionally) to erode privacy.
> I am posting anonymously because this opinion is
> in the minority and will be unfairly monderated
> down. Such is the nature of slashdot.
Why is it that statyments like this make your
points seem more thought out and "worthwhile".
I guess thats another statment on human nature.
(and wholly besides the point)
> it is thouroughly fair to charge money for a
> product
Why is it fair?
Is there an absolute scale by which fairness can
be judged, regardless of the beliefs of an
individual?
Is it fair to judge a Christian as a bad person
because of his failure to adhere to Hindu ideals?
It could be argued that charging money for
products is itself unfair, and that production
is suposed to be done so that people can use them,
and requiring money for a product defeats the
entire purpose of making products...which is so
that people can use them.
what is the "correct" viewpoint?
At least with software and other "intellectual
property" (I do despise that term) the author
doesn't actually lose anything by use. So
I see no real harm done here. He still has his
copy, and all his code.
While I agree about the stupid trolls...I
just have 2 points about DOS and Script Kiddies.
A) (As others have said) If there are holes, they
will be found and fixed. Not a big deal. An
activly exploited hole can only survive for so
long.
B) Slashdot becomes saturated and stops responding
for at least an hour a day or so anyway.
The place is so popular that reading it
amounts to a DoS attack. What more could a
malicous attacker do? how much MORE slow could
you make it (try accessing it around 1 pm (EST))
> Have you been to a University lately? We are
:)
> very much children in the eyes of the
> University. We are ass fucked by these
> institutions every day so why not this too.
Actually...
I picked up a copy of playboy a few months back
for the first time in years, its the one with the
jesse ventura interview.
Anyway, they had an article on this. Anyone who
is interested may wish to seek it out. It talked
about how Parents and legislators are pushing
universities backwards on the issues of students
rights and some "ugly terms" like "in parentis
locis" are making a come back.
> Ben, who is dropping out as soon as my loans
> are up
If you want more freedom do just that. I did.
A much better idea is to work for a University.
The pay sucks but the atmosphere (in my
experiance) tends to be more laid back and
the benefits are nice (I get to take 2 free
courses per semester)
Of course...whether you are truely "free" or not
at that point is even more matter of debate...
perhaps just a slave to the allmighty dollar,
without which you can not live,
However, that would be more aptly discussed
in a philosophy course
The correct URL for the page is:
http://www.theconfessor.co.uk/page0_new.html
If you go to the link in the article, and you
do not have javascript (I leave it off in my
browser) , it wont load. Just an empty page
(they use javascript to emulate a meta reload...
which is funny...since page0 as listed above starts a meta reload cycle to show you the other
stuff)
However weirdly....at page4.html it stops again
and there are no links or forwards or anything
just poorly done frames and a promise that I may
now contemplate my sins or "type them into the
space provided".
However, I see no space to type them in.
Anyway...since I don't believe in "Sin" (not
christian) I have nothing to contemplate. However
I just thought I would let people know so others
can see this site (for religous contemplation or
humor...whatever floats your boat) who don't
have javascript enabled.