Re:Stallman the visionary vs Stallman the politici
on
RMS on Java and GPL
·
· Score: 2
Stalinist socialism is an oxymoron.
Socialism is a system where the workers own the means for producing goods and hold political power
Stalins system was a system where workers did the work for producing goods, but stalin held all the power.
hardly equivalent. GPL is a very socialist idea. The workers (coders) do the work, they share in the product of the work (the code). Whoever does the work makes the decisions (holds the power) and of course anyone who needs the code, then shares in the fruits of their labor.
nice system...be nice if all industries worked that way.
For public government elections I dislike this idea and would be firmly against it. In fact... it apears that it would even more firmly kill the idea of write in campaigns.
For voting reform I like the libertarians ideas much better (of course...I would much prefer to dissolve government alltogether but...for now its the realistic evil)
They wish to END offically aproved ballots alltogether. This is because it means state aproval of who we can vote for. In reality MOST voters will never look past the offically sanctioned candidates, thus snubbing out any candidates who arn't able to win those all imortant ballot lines.
They call for an end to standardized ballots. Allow peopl eto vote with pre-printed cards that are printed up by their candidate...or they make themselves. (they also call for an "None of the Above" vote which - if it wins- would cause the post to go vacant for that term)
I think the problem is not that these paper computers are a bad idea (which they are. we have enough disposable products around) but that saving money should not be the goal of an election process. Just because its easier, doesn't mean its better.
I realize fully that there is no right answer. My original intent was very simply to state that the article was wrong in saying Hitler doesn't qualify because he wasn't "Positive" (however we chose to define positive...I would personally even argue that historical events are neither positive or negative since there is no way we could know what things would be like had they gone differently)
I was simply refuting the Dismissal of Hitler as important, not to say he is somehow better than Mr Marshall.
> Adolf Hitler, while intensely important for a > short period did not a particularly large impact > outside the second world war.
Certainly not directly. However he is a shining example of what it takes to persuade people. He *WAS* the epitome of what it is to be a politican.
> In fact some will argue that the Treaty of > Versailles made Hitler inevetable.
Certainly the Treaty fueled German anger. However I don't know if Hitler was himself inevitable. Things he did and specifics about him set off chains of events that still haunt us today.
If it were not for his persecution of Jews, one of the largest mistakes in history, the creation of Isreal, would never have taken place. However he did, and it did.
Now, Of course it wasn't Hitler who made the decision to place isral in what is probably one of the 2 or 3 WORST possible places on the face of the earth to put it. That was someone elses bright idea. However if it wasn't for him, the zionists would never have been able to leverage the political pressure ot make it happen.
Still today we suffer because of some morons throwing matches into a powder keg.
> Don't make Jefferson out as a proto-libertarian, > which you're tending towards.
I am simply taking a good quote, and extending it to show the errors of our time.
Whether he was a "Child of scottish enlightenment" or his "rejection of british conceptions of liberalism was a political" is besides the point. He was right.
Our government seems to be on a holy quest to raise the stakes higher and higher proving more and more that, at least in this statment, he was certainly right.
Whether he was a "proto-libertarian" or not... I really can't say. However...I don't think he would have advocated many of the things that go on today. (I have come to viewso-called libertarian solutions as rather short sighted myself...but thats another story)
> The Pope has been quite influential, but how did > he play such a great role in bringing down > Communism?
I hate to nitpick but...what downfal of communism?
The Downfal of communism in the USSR happend right at the begining. Lennin and Stalin were the Downfall of communism. Mostly because, they were not communists.
Communism is a socialist system. It is a system where everyone lives in communities, works for the good of the community and shares in the productivity of the community. A system without classes.
Lenin and Stalin didn't want that. They created a top ruling class for themselves. They were communist in name only. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Stalin was more closly fascist than communist.
There is plenty of "Communism" around. Priests and brothers in most christian churches I know of live communisticly. They all live together in dorms, they share communal vehicls. they take care of each other.
There are even small communes spread throughout the US of people who were disdainful of this capitalistic society and wanted to live together in peace. They got a bunch of land and set up a commune.
THAT is communism (well a form of it...however the Russians NEVER had a form of it)
Personally....I think if Jefferson were alive today, he would be rather pissed off to see what we have done to the system that he and his compatriots set up.
The most insightful quote I have ever heard was by Jefferson. I have seen too many versions of it to hope to get it verbatim, however it goes something like this:
"Those who desire to give up essential liberty for precious safety, do not deserve, nor will they have either one"
I think he is absolutly right. All I need to do is look around the US to see ample evidence of our society giving up a few "Liberties" and losing both our liberty and safety.
I think the Principa Discordia Introduction sums it up best. Any attempt to increase apparent order will in the end increase disorder.
You make alcohol illegal (Liberty Gone: ability to imbibe alcohol freely Safety gained: health is better, less drunkards causing problems and getting in fights) result: moonshine which is often contaminated (health of drinkers gets worst) and Organized crime (instead of the ocasional bar room brawl, there are now organized "turf wars")
Now today...that same model can be aplied to Drug Prohibition, which has brought new gangs like the "Bloods" and whatnot.
The same model works pretty damned well for alot of things our government tries to do. We don't learn from history, and end up repeating mistakes that Jefferson identified and warned people about around 200 years ago.
Adolf Hitler is a perfectly correct person to have listed in the Man of the Century place.
Anyone who has actually READ the Time text, they specifically state the person who singly had the greattest effect "GOOD OR BAD". Thus positive figures are NOT the ONLY allowable figures.
I don't remember who I voted for (may have been Albert Hoffman, but I forget;) ) but Hitler was quite an amazing figure. The few quotes I have seen from Mein Kampf, show me that he, if nothing else, truly understood politics.
I have yet to see another political figure so charismatic and with such a deep understanding of his craft. All successful politicans, even today, even here in the US, use his techniques. (Thats not to say his ideas were all original, or that he was the first to practice them...just that he showed the most deep understanding of them and the best ability to leverage them.
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying Hitler was a great guy. Im not saying he was warm and fuzzy. I am not saying he wasn't responsible for the murder of several million human beings. I am just saying he was a "Great Man" in the sense that he was larger than life and occupies a larger page in history than most men (great meaning large in this sense).
He certainly has a level of infamy that deserves note among the likes of others.
I have thought long and hard about things like this. Here are my thoughts on legal system fixes:
for Civil Suits: The judge should have the power to Rule that the lawsuit is "Frivolous". If this is done then it is trown out of court, loser pays ALL fees for BOTH sides AND compensates the court for its time and paperwork fees.
for criminal cases: Eliminate Private Lawyers, and dedicated DAs office lawyers. Once the DA decides to prosecute, 2 lawyers are randomly selected from a "pool" of eligable, registered "Criminal lawyers". One becomes prosecutor, one Defense Attourny. All of these lawyers are paid BY THE CASE. There should be no incentive to win a case.
The last one needs some explaining. As it stands now, we have a system where people with lots of money can "Buy Justice". You can get away with murder if you have a good defense team.
Also, there is alot of prosecution which shouldn't happen. The criminal system has become less about suposed "Justice" and more about "What can we get them on".
Um... perhaps you don't know the french educational system very well. Unlike here in the US they actually learn languages.
You can expect to write them a letter in French, English, Spanish, or German and expect that they will probably not only be able to read it, but respond to it.
Do not forget...france isn't huge, just to their North is Germany, South is Spain, and West is England.
> He *must* publish his theory and experimental > method sufficient detail for someone to verify > his results.
Agreed. After reading this article, I am not sure what to think however. On one hand he sounds like a crackpot, on the other, there were claims by fairly independant sources (at NASA) that say they did experiment with his device, and DID get more energy out than they put in.
My personal take on this is that I don't think his unified feild theory is necissarily correct, it seems he is jumping to conclusions. However he may have stumbled on to a new way of generating electricity.
It seems to me that verification of his work has been unfairly hampered by the Cold Fusion Fiasco. I think scientists need to build these things, test them, and start publishing their results so real data can be collected.
> Until then no-one can say if he is the next > Edison
I think you mean Tesla:)
> That said, this does look a great deal like > Pons and Fleichman again.
Yes it does sound like a Duck, but this is science it should be dissected and studied to make sure it really is or is not a duck.
> Like charges repell. As such, the electrons will > move as far away from each other as possible. > That means they end up on the outer most surface > of the cage.
Yes but...if it is truely not grounded (In the case of lightning...everything is grounded... afterall...it can make its own ground connection ;) )
Then the static would build up on it...and the next person to come close enough to it that the air between them and it is negligable...would get the hit.
I supose it owuld make a nice security system. Touch the box...die.
> Most of the rest of New York State is made up of > trees, grass, and cows.
Yup I know. Been up there more than once:)
Everyone I have talked to has refered to NYC as a cancer that sucks the life out of the rest of the state and keeps the rest of the state from being viable by sucking up all the resources for itself.
Some have suggested NY state would be alot better off if NYC was cut off and forced to become an independant state.:)
I think Nuking them would have the desired effect too:)
> Perhaps the truth would be leaked by a > community-minded programmer.
A whistle blower would be the ONLY way it would happen.
> It's probably possible to reverse-engineer a > binary to prove, in court, that it is based on > certain source. Didn't say it was easy.
Actually, its probably impossible. Unless there are copious amounts of debugging info stored in the binary, then it would be hard to go from machine language to any sort of higher level code, much less prove that some specific code had to have been used.
Think of compiler optimisations etc. However... in court you could force the company to let you see the source code itself (assuming you had a whistle blower), then you could set about proving it.
> The proper criterion for protest is not how > disruptive it is, but rather how effective it is > in achieving its aims.
Definitly agreed
> I am not in favor of ping-flooding etoys' > servers -- this attack is ineffective
Again agreed. The proper way to protest is to be disruptive. Be disruptive to their bottom line. This is best done by getting the word out and convincing people to vote with their dollars.
If you flood the server and make it impossible for people to go there...thats just as bad as etoys themselves. To be an effective protester you DO have to be "Better than them".
They should fight this thing tooth and nail. They need to get the attention of the media and get positive press. Make the entire incident a PR disaster for etoys, and don't stop until they fold.
> That's the problem with freedom of speech > (supporters? advocates? zealots?). Doing things > like DoS against somebody's server just to > "prove a point" will only hurt freedom more than > help it, in the long run.
The problem is a very vocal minority can ruin things for a silent majority. It happens all the time.
Look at Seattle. A small group, perhaps of 15 people...certainly less than 1/2 of 1% of all the people at the protest, were violent. They broke store windows and did other violent things. This made the entire body of protestors look bad.
Then again...some could argue that it may have been a desired effect...there was an Anarchist Doctrine at the turn of the century whereby places would be bombed etc in an effort to make the government over-react in response - the end result being resentment towards the government response (looked at in that light...it worked brilliently for an excellent movie that adresses this...see The Seige where Denzel Washington says "They Have already won")
In any case...it is almost always a minority who get noticed. In this case, since there is no resonse from the other side really (other than pointing out his childish antics) it makes the whole of etoy supporters look like a bunch of snotty kids.
Those who really advocate "Free Speach" would recognize that etoys.com has a right to their free speach and would attempt to speak louder rather than annoy and silence them. (much the reasoning behind the ACLU regularly defending the Ku Klux Klan in court when they are not allowed by cities to hold parades,...then turning around and fighting for the rights of minorites in other cases)
Have you ever heard that the best place to be during an electrical storm is your car (assuming its not fiberglass)?
Basically the idea is that electricity travels around the outside surface of a structure. (at least static electrictiy does or AC with REALLY HIGH frequency). So...
If you have a large metal box around something.. and you ground th ebox...then lightning can strike the box and ground out...and never have any effect on the inside of the box.
I have seen a person inside a metal cage rub their hand along the inside of the ALL METAL bars while it was being struck by lightning from a huge Van DeGraff generator (the original Van DeGraff actually).
The Faraday Cage also inhibits all electrical signals. It is the reason that computer cases are shielded...its a small faraday's cage to keep RF inside the box.
Remember "The Jar" from Enemy of the State? Faradays Cage
An interesting note...on the Van deGraff generator at the Museam of Science in Boston, Van De Graff himself had his office INSIDE one of the discharge globes at one point. Since Static electricity gathers on the outside of the globe being inside is perfectly safe.
I am sorry, I don't see how you could do that. He did not say that "What amazon is doing is like slavery". It is simply saying that the argument that "Amazon must patent because of its duty to its shareholders" is missing the fact that duty to shareholders is no justification for morallly corrupt actions.
> Their duty (their job!) is to protect > shareholder value.
So? What you are saying then is that Shareholder Value > Morality
I emphaticaly disagree. Yes it *IS* important for them to raise or keep up sharholder value. That is their Job. However, that does not mean that this end justifies ANY means that do this.
Just because it is perfectly legal for Nike to run sweat shops in third world countries, where people are paid slave wages and made to work under inhuman conditions, does not make doing it "OK", even if it does raise shareholder value.
In my eyes, Amazon.com has done something to harm the industry. The patent system is broken and they are exercising it. Therefore, I will NOT buy a thing from them. I refuse to knowingly support any company that feels they have the right to do these sorts of things. As long as an option exists, I will go elsewhere.
> I know it sucks, but the heat should be > primarily on the patent office for allowing such > patents.
The system does need to be changed. However I do not feel that just because the USPTO allows this to go on, that companies that take advantage of it should get off scott free.
Slashdot Mirror
Stalinist socialism is an oxymoron.
Socialism is a system where the workers own the
means for producing goods and hold political
power
Stalins system was a system where workers did
the work for producing goods, but stalin held all
the power.
hardly equivalent. GPL is a very socialist idea.
The workers (coders) do the work, they share in
the product of the work (the code). Whoever does
the work makes the decisions (holds the power)
and of course anyone who needs the code, then
shares in the fruits of their labor.
nice system...be nice if all industries worked
that way.
I have the right to make a profit? cool.
I declare that I am doing you a service by
replying to you. I have a RIGHT to make a
profit.
Please contact me about where I can send you my
bill. To make it truely my right to profit, I
will charge you $10,000 for this reply.
I also have some rocks I would like to sell. If
you don't buy them then you are violating my
right to profit.
I am charging $1000 each for the smooth rocks
and $500 each for the brown rocks.
Please place your order now or you will be hearing
from my lawyer.
For public government elections I dislike this
idea and would be firmly against it. In fact...
it apears that it would even more firmly kill the
idea of write in campaigns.
For voting reform I like the libertarians ideas
much better (of course...I would much prefer to
dissolve government alltogether but...for now
its the realistic evil)
They wish to END offically aproved ballots
alltogether. This is because it means state
aproval of who we can vote for. In reality MOST
voters will never look past the offically
sanctioned candidates, thus snubbing out any
candidates who arn't able to win those
all imortant ballot lines.
They call for an end to standardized ballots.
Allow peopl eto vote with pre-printed cards that
are printed up by their candidate...or they
make themselves. (they also call for an "None
of the Above" vote which - if it wins- would cause
the post to go vacant for that term)
I think the problem is not that these paper
computers are a bad idea (which they are. we have
enough disposable products around) but that
saving money should not be the goal of an election
process. Just because its easier, doesn't mean
its better.
I realize fully that there is no right answer.
My original intent was very simply to state that
the article was wrong in saying Hitler doesn't
qualify because he wasn't "Positive" (however we
chose to define positive...I would personally
even argue that historical events are neither
positive or negative since there is no way we
could know what things would be like had they
gone differently)
I was simply refuting the Dismissal of Hitler as
important, not to say he is somehow better than
Mr Marshall.
> Adolf Hitler, while intensely important for a
> short period did not a particularly large impact
> outside the second world war.
Certainly not directly. However he is a shining
example of what it takes to persuade people.
He *WAS* the epitome of what it is to be a
politican.
> In fact some will argue that the Treaty of
> Versailles made Hitler inevetable.
Certainly the Treaty fueled German anger. However
I don't know if Hitler was himself inevitable.
Things he did and specifics about him set off
chains of events that still haunt us today.
If it were not for his persecution of Jews, one
of the largest mistakes in history, the creation
of Isreal, would never have taken place. However
he did, and it did.
Now, Of course it wasn't Hitler who made the
decision to place isral in what is probably one
of the 2 or 3 WORST possible places on the face of
the earth to put it. That was someone elses bright
idea. However if it wasn't for him, the zionists
would never have been able to leverage the
political pressure ot make it happen.
Still today we suffer because of some morons
throwing matches into a powder keg.
> Don't make Jefferson out as a proto-libertarian,
> which you're tending towards.
I am simply taking a good quote, and extending it
to show the errors of our time.
Whether he was a "Child of scottish enlightenment"
or his "rejection of british conceptions of
liberalism was a political" is besides the point.
He was right.
Our government seems to be on a holy quest to
raise the stakes higher and higher proving
more and more that, at least in this statment,
he was certainly right.
Whether he was a "proto-libertarian" or not...
I really can't say. However...I don't think he
would have advocated many of the things that go
on today. (I have come to viewso-called
libertarian solutions as rather short sighted
myself...but thats another story)
> Most of the population in France can't speak
;)
> anything but french.
Yes but when talking to people at a finance
company, you can generally assume they are more
well educated.
Certainly English, German and Spanish are
fairly standard at their schools.
> BTW, Germany is east of France.
Hmmm I always thought of it as north....
I guess it depends where in france you are
I am SURE I have seen a very similar quote
attributed to Jefferson.
Perhaps it is the similarity that is the reason
I have gotten it so jumbled.
> The Pope has been quite influential, but how did
> he play such a great role in bringing down
> Communism?
I hate to nitpick but...what downfal of communism?
The Downfal of communism in the USSR happend right
at the begining. Lennin and Stalin were the
Downfall of communism. Mostly because, they were
not communists.
Communism is a socialist system. It is a system
where everyone lives in communities, works for
the good of the community and shares in the
productivity of the community. A system without
classes.
Lenin and Stalin didn't want that. They created a
top ruling class for themselves. They were
communist in name only. In fact, I would go as far
as to say that Stalin was more closly fascist than
communist.
There is plenty of "Communism" around. Priests and
brothers in most christian churches I know of live
communisticly. They all live together in dorms,
they share communal vehicls. they take care of
each other.
There are even small communes spread throughout
the US of people who were disdainful of this
capitalistic society and wanted to live together
in peace. They got a bunch of land and set up a
commune.
THAT is communism (well a form of it...however the
Russians NEVER had a form of it)
Personally....I think if Jefferson were alive
today, he would be rather pissed off to see what
we have done to the system that he and his
compatriots set up.
The most insightful quote I have ever heard was
by Jefferson. I have seen too many versions of it
to hope to get it verbatim, however it goes
something like this:
"Those who desire to give up essential liberty
for precious safety, do not deserve, nor will they
have either one"
I think he is absolutly right. All I need to do is
look around the US to see ample evidence of our
society giving up a few "Liberties" and losing
both our liberty and safety.
I think the Principa Discordia Introduction sums
it up best. Any attempt to increase apparent order
will in the end increase disorder.
You make alcohol illegal (Liberty Gone: ability
to imbibe alcohol freely Safety gained: health
is better, less drunkards causing problems and
getting in fights)
result: moonshine which is often contaminated
(health of drinkers gets worst) and Organized
crime (instead of the ocasional bar room brawl,
there are now organized "turf wars")
Now today...that same model can be aplied to
Drug Prohibition, which has brought new gangs
like the "Bloods" and whatnot.
The same model works pretty damned well for
alot of things our government tries to do.
We don't learn from history, and end up repeating
mistakes that Jefferson identified and warned
people about around 200 years ago.
I would just like to note for the record:
;) ) but Hitler was
Adolf Hitler is a perfectly correct person to have
listed in the Man of the Century place.
Anyone who has actually READ the Time text, they
specifically state the person who singly had the
greattest effect "GOOD OR BAD". Thus positive
figures are NOT the ONLY allowable figures.
I don't remember who I voted for (may have been
Albert Hoffman, but I forget
quite an amazing figure. The few quotes I have
seen from Mein Kampf, show me that he, if nothing
else, truly understood politics.
I have yet to see another political figure so
charismatic and with such a deep understanding of
his craft. All successful politicans, even today,
even here in the US, use his techniques. (Thats
not to say his ideas were all original, or that
he was the first to practice them...just that he
showed the most deep understanding of them and the
best ability to leverage them.
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying Hitler was a
great guy. Im not saying he was warm and fuzzy.
I am not saying he wasn't responsible for the
murder of several million human beings. I am just
saying he was a "Great Man" in the sense that he
was larger than life and occupies a larger page
in history than most men (great meaning large in
this sense).
He certainly has a level of infamy that deserves
note among the likes of others.
I have thought long and hard about things like
this. Here are my thoughts on legal system
fixes:
for Civil Suits:
The judge should have the power to Rule that
the lawsuit is "Frivolous". If this is done
then it is trown out of court, loser pays ALL
fees for BOTH sides AND compensates the court
for its time and paperwork fees.
for criminal cases:
Eliminate Private Lawyers, and dedicated DAs
office lawyers. Once the DA decides to
prosecute, 2 lawyers are randomly selected from
a "pool" of eligable, registered "Criminal
lawyers". One becomes prosecutor, one Defense
Attourny.
All of these lawyers are paid BY THE CASE.
There should be no incentive to win a case.
The last one needs some explaining. As it stands
now, we have a system where people with lots of
money can "Buy Justice". You can get away with
murder if you have a good defense team.
Also, there is alot of prosecution which shouldn't
happen. The criminal system has become less about
suposed "Justice" and more about "What can we get
them on".
Um...
perhaps you don't know the french educational
system very well. Unlike here in the US they
actually learn languages.
You can expect to write them a letter in French,
English, Spanish, or German and expect that they
will probably not only be able to read it, but
respond to it.
Do not forget...france isn't huge, just to their
North is Germany, South is Spain, and West is
England.
Well...
last I checked (Here in the USA anyway) we lived
in a Democratic Republic NOT a democracy.
Really, its the best government money can buy.
> He *must* publish his theory and experimental
:)
> method sufficient detail for someone to verify
> his results.
Agreed. After reading this article, I am not
sure what to think however. On one hand he sounds
like a crackpot, on the other, there were claims
by fairly independant sources (at NASA) that say
they did experiment with his device, and DID get
more energy out than they put in.
My personal take on this is that I don't think his
unified feild theory is necissarily correct, it
seems he is jumping to conclusions. However he
may have stumbled on to a new way of generating
electricity.
It seems to me that verification of his work has
been unfairly hampered by the Cold Fusion Fiasco.
I think scientists need to build these things,
test them, and start publishing their results so
real data can be collected.
> Until then no-one can say if he is the next
> Edison
I think you mean Tesla
> That said, this does look a great deal like
> Pons and Fleichman again.
Yes it does sound like a Duck, but this is science
it should be dissected and studied to make sure it
really is or is not a duck.
> Actually, the cage doesn't have to be grounded.
> Like charges repell. As such, the electrons will
> move as far away from each other as possible.
> That means they end up on the outer most surface > of the cage.
Yes but...if it is truely not grounded (In the
case of lightning...everything is grounded...
afterall...it can make its own ground connection
;) )
Then the static would build up on it...and the
next person to come close enough to it that the
air between them and it is negligable...would get
the hit.
I supose it owuld make a nice security system.
Touch the box...die.
> It would kill the Cancer that is New York City.
:)
:)
:)
:)
Thats what I said
> Most of the rest of New York State is made up of
> trees, grass, and cows.
Yup I know. Been up there more than once
Everyone I have talked to has refered to NYC as a
cancer that sucks the life out of the rest of the
state and keeps the rest of the state from being
viable by sucking up all the resources for itself.
Some have suggested NY state would be alot better
off if NYC was cut off and forced to become an
independant state.
I think Nuking them would have the desired effect
too
Actually....
Nuking times square in NYC sounds like the
best idea I have heard all year.
Could think of it as Chemotherapy to kill the
Cancer of New York State.
> But imagine the descendants..... Personally, I'd
> rather be nuked!
Have you ever thought that perhaps the gene pool
needs a life gaurd?
"Hey you, out of the gene pool now!"
> Perhaps the truth would be leaked by a
> community-minded programmer.
A whistle blower would be the ONLY way it would
happen.
> It's probably possible to reverse-engineer a
> binary to prove, in court, that it is based on
> certain source. Didn't say it was easy.
Actually, its probably impossible.
Unless there are copious amounts of debugging
info stored in the binary, then it would be hard
to go from machine language to any sort of
higher level code, much less prove that some
specific code had to have been used.
Think of compiler optimisations etc. However...
in court you could force the company to let you
see the source code itself (assuming you had a
whistle blower), then you could set about
proving it.
> The proper criterion for protest is not how
> disruptive it is, but rather how effective it is
> in achieving its aims.
Definitly agreed
> I am not in favor of ping-flooding etoys'
> servers -- this attack is ineffective
Again agreed. The proper way to protest is to
be disruptive. Be disruptive to their bottom line.
This is best done by getting the word out and
convincing people to vote with their dollars.
If you flood the server and make it impossible for
people to go there...thats just as bad as etoys
themselves. To be an effective protester you DO
have to be "Better than them".
They should fight this thing tooth and nail. They
need to get the attention of the media and get
positive press. Make the entire incident a PR
disaster for etoys, and don't stop until they
fold.
> That's the problem with freedom of speech
> (supporters? advocates? zealots?). Doing things
> like DoS against somebody's server just to
> "prove a point" will only hurt freedom more than
> help it, in the long run.
The problem is a very vocal minority can ruin
things for a silent majority. It happens all the
time.
Look at Seattle. A small group, perhaps of 15
people...certainly less than 1/2 of 1% of all the
people at the protest, were violent. They broke
store windows and did other violent things. This
made the entire body of protestors look bad.
Then again...some could argue that it may have
been a desired effect...there was an Anarchist
Doctrine at the turn of the century whereby places
would be bombed etc in an effort to make the
government over-react in response - the end result
being resentment towards the government response
(looked at in that light...it worked brilliently
for an excellent movie that adresses this...see
The Seige where Denzel Washington says "They Have
already won")
In any case...it is almost always a minority who
get noticed. In this case, since there is no
resonse from the other side really (other than
pointing out his childish antics) it makes the
whole of etoy supporters look like a bunch of
snotty kids.
Those who really advocate "Free Speach" would
recognize that etoys.com has a right to their
free speach and would attempt to speak louder
rather than annoy and silence them. (much the
reasoning behind the ACLU regularly defending the
Ku Klux Klan in court when they are not allowed by
cities to hold parades,...then turning around and
fighting for the rights of minorites in other
cases)
A Faraday Cage is simple.
Have you ever heard that the best place to be
during an electrical storm is your car (assuming
its not fiberglass)?
Basically the idea is that electricity travels
around the outside surface of a structure. (at
least static electrictiy does or AC with REALLY
HIGH frequency). So...
If you have a large metal box around something..
and you ground th ebox...then lightning can strike
the box and ground out...and never have any effect
on the inside of the box.
I have seen a person inside a metal cage rub their
hand along the inside of the ALL METAL bars while
it was being struck by lightning from a huge
Van DeGraff generator (the original Van DeGraff
actually).
The Faraday Cage also inhibits all electrical
signals. It is the reason that computer cases are
shielded...its a small faraday's cage to keep
RF inside the box.
Remember "The Jar" from Enemy of the State?
Faradays Cage
An interesting note...on the Van deGraff generator
at the Museam of Science in Boston, Van De Graff
himself had his office INSIDE one of the
discharge globes at one point. Since Static
electricity gathers on the outside of the globe
being inside is perfectly safe.
Taking the analogy to ridiculous ends?
I am sorry, I don't see how you could do that.
He did not say that "What amazon is doing is like
slavery". It is simply saying that the argument
that "Amazon must patent because of its duty to
its shareholders" is missing the fact that duty
to shareholders is no justification for morallly
corrupt actions.
> Their duty (their job!) is to protect
> shareholder value.
So?
What you are saying then is that
Shareholder Value > Morality
I emphaticaly disagree. Yes it *IS* important for
them to raise or keep up sharholder value. That is
their Job. However, that does not mean that this
end justifies ANY means that do this.
Just because it is perfectly legal for Nike to run
sweat shops in third world countries, where people
are paid slave wages and made to work under
inhuman conditions, does not make doing it "OK",
even if it does raise shareholder value.
In my eyes, Amazon.com has done something to harm
the industry. The patent system is broken and they
are exercising it. Therefore, I will NOT buy a
thing from them. I refuse to knowingly support any
company that feels they have the right to do these
sorts of things. As long as an option exists, I
will go elsewhere.
> I know it sucks, but the heat should be
> primarily on the patent office for allowing such
> patents.
The system does need to be changed. However I do
not feel that just because the USPTO allows this
to go on, that companies that take advantage of it
should get off scott free.