Do you have any pet projects you are funding or want to fund that might provide a living for a software engineer? And on a related note, do the core Ubuntu developers get paid?
The story is wrong, wrong, wrong and needs corrections.
I know the founder of Software Freedom Day, it is not the IOSN, they are simply supporting and organizing several teams. The correct site for Software Freedom Day is here: www.softwarefreedomday.org
Also, please provide a source for the speculation that Microsoft withdrew because of this or retract the article. I think it is simply unhealthy speculation.
Use Gentoo (gentoo.org) then you get the advantages of both. Compiled from source the way you want, and package management that is really simply with automatic dependency resolution, etc.
If you really want to watch as all the news sites begin covering this you can watch articles appear at news.google.com. You'll see them linked there within minutes of them being posted.
I found this search to be pretty good: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-88 59-1&ed ition=us&q=leak+code&btnG=Search+News
One possitive about MythTV as opposed to TiVo is that with MythTV and I assume Freevo, you don't have to pay the montly subscription to get channel listings because MythTV processes the listings from free sites online.
If you run Gentoo Linux, then Myth is VERY easy to setup. MythTV itself and all the major plugins have up to date ebuilds (packages).
Good documentation and links on www.mythtv.org.
I recommend a Haupauge WinTV card for your TV tuner. If the Haupauge card has "PVR" in the title this means it has hardware MPEG encoding. Otherwise, you will need a fairly modern CPU (probably at least 1 GHz).
I recently purchased an ATI card that has TV-out. This functionality used to be somewhat supported by the gatos project. However, apparently it has recently been allowed/forced to rot. The gatos devel list gets asked about this functionality every few days, and the developers apparently have NDA info from ATI on how to accomplish this, but there seems to be a spirit of fear on the list that has silenced activity in this area.
I can echo this sentiment. Even if I thought I was legally in the "right" I wouldn't risk getting involved in a legal battle just to get a component on my $40 video card to work.
What advice would you give gatos devopers (or developers of similar code)?
That's easy.
In 10 years, "Hilter II" starts distributing a
media file that shows all the world's important
Jewish leaders in a meeting discussing ways to
assisinate world leaders who don't support them.
The media file is a self-decrypting, self-playing
executable. It only plays on devices that encrypt
the data all the way to the screen hardware to
prevent sampling. The encryption method is
protected by the DMCA.
If I suspect that the media clip is basically
invented by pasting prior sound and video clips of
those leaders together, I have no legal way of
analyzing the video clip. Sampling it using a
sound recorder or video camera erases the level of
detail that I need in order to properly analyze the media for defects that would reveal that
it is a fabrication.
This may not be much of a concern in the U.S. since we are immune to such manipulations of
public opinion and changing media to suite
the desires of the press(ya right!), but this
is a common occurence in much of the world.
Here is a good example of how Stalin used this
very technique to maintain his reign of terror:
http://www.parascope.com/ds/articles/stalin.htm
How about something more innocuous. I want to show
two video clips that show a good and bad use of
the common blue-screen technique is movies. If
I sample using a video camera, I have lost the
detail that I want to show and analyze.
These are both very legimate and REQUIRED for
true fair use to mean ANYTHING.
Doug,
I have question that is of extreme importance to
the Linux community. I think you are in the best
position to give a good answer to the question.
The question is: What does Linux need in order
to beat Windows on the desktop? Likewise, what
does Linux need in order to continue beating
Windows in the Enterprise.
Please be specific. If you think that Linux needs
to be better technically, which areas should be
targetted? If you think Linux needs better
marketing to succeed, do you think there is any
way that the Linux community can match Microsoft's
juggernaut of a marketing machine. If you think
that Linux needs to be pre-installed, do you think
there is any way that the community can convince
OEM's to make Linux an option? If you think that
Linux needs more applications, are you in a
position with influence over Microsoft's decision
to port applications to Linux?
Microsoft is CONSTANTLY claiming that the company
is a leading innovator in the software industry.
I think most readers of slashdot believe that
Microsoft is not so much of an innovator as an
integrator; an integrator that only integrates
well with its own products.
My question is: Can you give me the evidence of
three major software products that originated
soley at Microsoft. By originating soley I mean:
- the product was not modeled on another companies or organization's product (i.e. Windows, IE, IIS, etc)
- the product wasn't the result of a purchase of another company, product or technology (Front Page, DOS, etc)
It's pretty much beyond a doubt now that linux
has a larger desktop user base than Macintosh.
This makes Linux the second most common desktop
OS after Windows. Do you know why Microsoft has
not released ANY applications for Linux? Or why
Microsoft hasn't even ANNOUNCED the intention
to port applications for Linux. There is
certainly demand for it. Survey's show that this
is one thing users really want on Linux.
The only reason that I have been able to come
up with is that Microsoft is trying to protect
it's desktop OS? I'm willing to be proven wrong.
However, the only excuse I've heard from Microsoft
so far is that there isn't demand for MS apps
under Linux. If Microsoft is still claiming that
this is the case, could you point me to some
hard evidence like independent (not independent like Mindcraft) user survey's that prove the demand is smaller than the demand for MS apps on
Macintosh.
Thanks
Doug,
Do you read slashdot regularly? Could you give
us your opinion on the value of continuing
worldwide conversations like the one the occurs
on slashdot everyday.
Do you ever post anonymously on slashdot?
But most importantly, what do you type when you
visit slashdot?
www.slashdot.com
www.slashdot.org/
www.slashdot.org/.
http://www.slashdot.com/
http://www.slashdot.org/.
www.slashdot.org.
http://www.slashdot.com./.
slashdot.com
slashdot.org
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:slashdot.org/ +slashdot&hl=en
Microsoft has never officially denied the
halloween memos.
Would you care to comment? More specifically:
-Were the halloween memos written by Microsoft em ployees?
-Has the "Embrace and Exstinguish" policy been a strong policy within Microsoft in the past?
-Is the "Embrace and Extinguish" policy currently a strong policy within Microsoft?
A lot of you are throwing around terms like:
"creation", "creationism", "creationist",
"creator", "evolution", etc, etc without
really understanding what you are talking about.
(The fact that you bristled when I said that,
means you are probably one of them. NOTICE that
I didn't say "everybody", I said "a lot of you").
Definitions, definitions:
First of all, let's start with evolution and
break it down a little:
-evolution: process of growth or change.
-biological evolution: the theory that Darwin
came up with. Has strong atheistic
undertones.
-Big Bang Theory: has nothing to do with
biological evolution although many Christians
and others mix the two. The Big Bang theory has
VERY strong creationism overtones. If you don't
believe me, then search the Net for Albert
Einstein "greatest blunder of my life."
-creation: the act of causing to exist. to bring
something into being. Could be a painting,
could be a thought, could be the universe.
-Creation (note the caps): the act by which
the world was brought into existence.
Does God Fingerpaint:
Let me talk about "creation" for a second. Everybody knows what this word really means but when atheists (and many christians) aply this
term to God they imagine him "creating" they
assume "creation ex nihilo" which means creating
from nothing. No animal, or human, or anything in existence is known to do this. An artists combines
his experiences and used tools to create. In fact,
he rarely even touchs the paint directly with his
skin (how many good artists do you know that just
finger-paint).
creation vs. creation:
Why do you assume that God creates only "ex nihilo"? The Hebrew Pentateuch (first five books) doesn't say this. Most of the words that are translated "create" mean "formed", "shaped"
"made to appear", etc.
Big Bang == creation:
The Big Bang is a theory of creation. Scientists
still don't have a legitimate naturalistic theory
for how the original singularity was created (in
the sense of come in to existence). The best
theories to explain the Big Bang are all "supernatural". Not necessarily by God but in the
sense that it was create "outside of the natural
or outside of the knowable universe".
Biological Evolution == creation:
Biological Evolution is also a theory of creation (a process that brought into existence).
But it can just as easily be argued from a
supernatural as from a natural viewpoint. If there
IS a truely omnipotent God, who is to say that
he couldn't have used the 15 billion year span before life as his artist's brush which he used to
create. He may not have changed the course of a
single atom during that period, but that doesn't make him any less of a creator.
...it is not the canvas that bends, but God:
If you can only see one inch from the canvas, then
the painting, the canvas, the moving brush and the
ink all seem pretty naturalistic.
SUMMARY:
If God created the universe, it is
perfectly logical to propose that he uses
natural processes (such as biological evolution)
as his "brushes and inks".
I'll make a bet with you...
For those of you haven't figured out yet whether
I believe in God or not, I will leave you with a summary of Pascal's wager:
Those who DON'T believe in God will either lose or draw. Those who DO believe in God will either draw or win. Arguing the probabilities of win, lose, or draw is meaningless.
You could run those as your host system and run a Windows machine inside with plex86 (www.plex86.org) which is free and open source. Or you could go with VMWare which is a bit more developed. Or you could check our WINE which is doing pretty well with Windows applications these days.
Of course, those require x86 hardware underneath and Linux or *BSD. It would have helped if you had given a bit more information about your complete configuration. You probably aren't running Mac since you could just buy MS-Office apps.
University vs. Open Source developer/student is where I think the GPL is going to be tested first.
Here is a suggestion. Take some previously GPL'ed code developed by somebody else or developed in your own free time, such as Readline, or some other useful utility and incorporate the code directly into your project (make sure it's integral and not just linked). Now the GPL legally
requires that any derivative source be released GPL'ed. Also, make sure you release it on the web and have some external friends download it (or post to slashdot, freshmeat, etc). Sort of like
sending a copy of a paper you've written in a post marked envelop to seal the copyright.
The University may own the copyright, but now the copyright is "copyleft". Now they can't change the license on the code. I'm not clear on whether they could say that no one at all can use the code, but at least they would only have two choices.
Lately I've been tosing around the idea of creating a multicast FTP protocol.
It's really not a protocol per se but a layer on top of multicast that makes it reliable without increasing the amount of bandwidth on the network (i.e. server doesn't have to wait for rebroadcast). It's a pretty simple idea that I haven't really heard anyone else propose. I would like to have had a prototype by now but I'm just too busy. Here is the basic premise:
1. Client connects to special query port on server and asks if file XYZ.tar.gz is available for FCP transfer. If not, drops back to normal FTP.
2. Client requests to be added to multicast distribution list. Server responds with length of the file and where in the file the server is currently multicasting. Say it is 75% through the file already.
3. Client zeros a file to length of file requested and begins receiving data and writing it to the location in the file that the server specified. Client keeps track of bits that were dropped or corrupted.
4. When the server gets to the end of the file it simply begins multicasting back at the begining and continues.
5. Once client registers a complete pass, it can either request dropped chunks via regular FTP or wait for the next pass.
If would probably only work on local nets or something like the MBONE but it would still be useful and gets around some of multicast's nastier problems. If anyone likes the idea, feel free to start an open project to implement it. I would be willing to help but I can't take the load of starting the project at this time. Email me at handle@visto.com.
If an equivalent has already been done, great! Please let me know where I can grab it!
In the computer industry, there seems to be rare moments when true innovation actually happens. The rest just seems to be a continual evolution and building upon old innovation (which is a good argument for strong limitations on computer tech. patents, but that's a different question).
Examples of innovation (in my opinion), were the mouse, windowing GUI, transistor, Integrated Circuit, ethernet, TCP/IP, hypertext markup(way before HTML), data compression, C, multi-user OS, etc. Okay, so in reality those were all evolutionary too, but there are certain developments that have a qualitative difference rather than a quantitative one. I'm thinking paradigm shift or inflection point.
My opinion is that many of the current "hype innovations" today are really just evolutionary and not that significant qualitatively: wireless computing, software hosting, Storage Area Networks, Clustering, Java, etc.
Which recent developments do you see as having the most lasting qualitative impact?
I consider myself somewhat of a computer industry prognosticator. If I were to sum up how I am able to predict and analyze the industry I would say that it is 1) being wide read and 2) knowing people who are in the know. I think you would agree (if not, then my question is "why not?").
So my question is: what do you recommend as the best reading material (books, periodicals, etc)? And how much time do you spend everyday reading them?
Do you read online news sites? If so which ones and how much?
And the question that is probably least important but the most interesting to this community is:
Do you read slashdot? If not, why not? If so, do you do it for value, or for entertainment?
Anti-Censorship tools are by their nature used to do things that are illegal. Sometimes you have to consider whether the laws that make something illegal make sense. The average dictator (if there is an average) uses censorship tools to silence both good things and bad. Pornography, hate speak, and crime are much less of a problem in totalitarian societies but free-press, free-religion, free-speech, and other freedoms are snuffed out. The freedom sword is always double edged; it always allows more good and more bad. You are right that Gnutella would allow all kinds of information to be spread across the internet. If you think that is only bad then you better think again about why the Internet has had and will have such great potential.
Okay, so I'm trying to think what I can do to fight this silly bill. So I'm thinking that I should e-mail as many people as I can that are related. Even better, I complie a list and post it on slashdot so that people can easily e-mail as many people as possible.
So here it is (if you do it all at once, at least use the Bcc field so it looks a little more personal):
Slashdot Mirror
Why did you choose Debian and not Gentoo as the base
of the Ubuntu distribution? What do you think of
Gentoo in general?
Do you have any pet projects you are funding
or want to fund that might provide a living for
a software engineer? And on a related note, do the
core Ubuntu developers get paid?
Could somebody moderate this (or the other corrections) up so that a correction is made pronto? Thanks.
The story is wrong, wrong, wrong and needs corrections.
I know the founder of Software Freedom Day, it is not the IOSN, they are simply supporting and organizing several teams. The correct site for Software Freedom Day is here:
www.softwarefreedomday.org
Also, please provide a source for the speculation that Microsoft withdrew because of this or retract the article. I think it is simply unhealthy speculation.
Use Gentoo (gentoo.org) then you get the advantages
of both. Compiled from source the way you want,
and package management that is really simply with
automatic dependency resolution, etc.
Apparently this is sponsored by Paul Allen.
I recommend going here and suggesting politely that
they support Linux on the device:
http://www.flipstartpc.com/contactus.asp
If you really want to watch as all the news sites
8 59-1&ed ition=us&q=leak+code&btnG=Search+News
begin covering this you can watch articles appear
at news.google.com. You'll see them linked there
within minutes of them being posted.
I found this search to be pretty good:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8
One possitive about MythTV as opposed to TiVo is that with MythTV and I assume Freevo, you don't have to pay the montly subscription to get channel listings because MythTV processes the listings from free sites online.
If you run Gentoo Linux, then Myth is VERY easy to setup. MythTV itself and all the major plugins have up to date ebuilds (packages).
Good documentation and links on www.mythtv.org.
I recommend a Haupauge WinTV card for your TV tuner.
If the Haupauge card has "PVR" in the title this means it has hardware MPEG encoding. Otherwise, you will need a fairly modern CPU (probably at least 1 GHz).
I recently purchased an ATI card that has TV-out. This functionality used to be somewhat supported by the gatos project. However, apparently it has recently been allowed/forced to rot. The gatos devel list gets asked about this functionality every few days, and the developers apparently have NDA info from ATI on how to accomplish this, but there seems to be a spirit of fear on the list that has silenced activity in this area.
I can echo this sentiment. Even if I thought I was legally in the "right" I wouldn't risk getting involved in a legal battle just to get a component on my $40 video card to work.
What advice would you give gatos devopers (or developers of similar code)?
That's easy. In 10 years, "Hilter II" starts distributing a media file that shows all the world's important Jewish leaders in a meeting discussing ways to assisinate world leaders who don't support them. The media file is a self-decrypting, self-playing executable. It only plays on devices that encrypt the data all the way to the screen hardware to prevent sampling. The encryption method is protected by the DMCA. If I suspect that the media clip is basically invented by pasting prior sound and video clips of those leaders together, I have no legal way of analyzing the video clip. Sampling it using a sound recorder or video camera erases the level of detail that I need in order to properly analyze the media for defects that would reveal that it is a fabrication. This may not be much of a concern in the U.S. since we are immune to such manipulations of public opinion and changing media to suite the desires of the press(ya right!), but this is a common occurence in much of the world. Here is a good example of how Stalin used this very technique to maintain his reign of terror: http://www.parascope.com/ds/articles/stalin.htm How about something more innocuous. I want to show two video clips that show a good and bad use of the common blue-screen technique is movies. If I sample using a video camera, I have lost the detail that I want to show and analyze. These are both very legimate and REQUIRED for true fair use to mean ANYTHING.
Doug, I have question that is of extreme importance to the Linux community. I think you are in the best position to give a good answer to the question. The question is: What does Linux need in order to beat Windows on the desktop? Likewise, what does Linux need in order to continue beating Windows in the Enterprise. Please be specific. If you think that Linux needs to be better technically, which areas should be targetted? If you think Linux needs better marketing to succeed, do you think there is any way that the Linux community can match Microsoft's juggernaut of a marketing machine. If you think that Linux needs to be pre-installed, do you think there is any way that the community can convince OEM's to make Linux an option? If you think that Linux needs more applications, are you in a position with influence over Microsoft's decision to port applications to Linux?
Microsoft is CONSTANTLY claiming that the company is a leading innovator in the software industry. I think most readers of slashdot believe that Microsoft is not so much of an innovator as an integrator; an integrator that only integrates well with its own products. My question is: Can you give me the evidence of three major software products that originated soley at Microsoft. By originating soley I mean: - the product was not modeled on another companies or organization's product (i.e. Windows, IE, IIS, etc) - the product wasn't the result of a purchase of another company, product or technology (Front Page, DOS, etc)
It's pretty much beyond a doubt now that linux has a larger desktop user base than Macintosh. This makes Linux the second most common desktop OS after Windows. Do you know why Microsoft has not released ANY applications for Linux? Or why Microsoft hasn't even ANNOUNCED the intention to port applications for Linux. There is certainly demand for it. Survey's show that this is one thing users really want on Linux. The only reason that I have been able to come up with is that Microsoft is trying to protect it's desktop OS? I'm willing to be proven wrong. However, the only excuse I've heard from Microsoft so far is that there isn't demand for MS apps under Linux. If Microsoft is still claiming that this is the case, could you point me to some hard evidence like independent (not independent like Mindcraft) user survey's that prove the demand is smaller than the demand for MS apps on Macintosh. Thanks
Doug, Do you read slashdot regularly? Could you give us your opinion on the value of continuing worldwide conversations like the one the occurs on slashdot everyday. Do you ever post anonymously on slashdot? But most importantly, what do you type when you visit slashdot? www.slashdot.com www.slashdot.org/ www.slashdot.org/. http://www.slashdot.com/ http://www.slashdot.org/. www.slashdot.org. http://www.slashdot.com./. slashdot.com slashdot.org http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:slashdot.org/ +slashdot&hl=en
Microsoft has never officially denied the halloween memos. Would you care to comment? More specifically: -Were the halloween memos written by Microsoft em ployees? -Has the "Embrace and Exstinguish" policy been a strong policy within Microsoft in the past? -Is the "Embrace and Extinguish" policy currently a strong policy within Microsoft?
How will Microsoft guarantee the privacy and security of documents that are no longer created and stored locally on the client?
A lot of you are throwing around terms like: "creation", "creationism", "creationist", "creator", "evolution", etc, etc without really understanding what you are talking about. (The fact that you bristled when I said that, means you are probably one of them. NOTICE that I didn't say "everybody", I said "a lot of you").
...it is not the canvas that bends, but God:
Definitions, definitions:
First of all, let's start with evolution and break it down a little:
-evolution: process of growth or change.
-biological evolution: the theory that Darwin came up with. Has strong atheistic undertones.
-Big Bang Theory: has nothing to do with biological evolution although many Christians and others mix the two. The Big Bang theory has VERY strong creationism overtones. If you don't believe me, then search the Net for Albert Einstein "greatest blunder of my life."
-creation: the act of causing to exist. to bring something into being. Could be a painting, could be a thought, could be the universe.
-Creation (note the caps): the act by which the world was brought into existence.
Does God Fingerpaint:
Let me talk about "creation" for a second. Everybody knows what this word really means but when atheists (and many christians) aply this term to God they imagine him "creating" they assume "creation ex nihilo" which means creating from nothing. No animal, or human, or anything in existence is known to do this. An artists combines his experiences and used tools to create. In fact, he rarely even touchs the paint directly with his skin (how many good artists do you know that just finger-paint).
creation vs. creation:
Why do you assume that God creates only "ex nihilo"? The Hebrew Pentateuch (first five books) doesn't say this. Most of the words that are translated "create" mean "formed", "shaped" "made to appear", etc.
Big Bang == creation:
The Big Bang is a theory of creation. Scientists still don't have a legitimate naturalistic theory for how the original singularity was created (in the sense of come in to existence). The best theories to explain the Big Bang are all "supernatural". Not necessarily by God but in the sense that it was create "outside of the natural or outside of the knowable universe".
Biological Evolution == creation:
Biological Evolution is also a theory of creation (a process that brought into existence). But it can just as easily be argued from a supernatural as from a natural viewpoint. If there IS a truely omnipotent God, who is to say that he couldn't have used the 15 billion year span before life as his artist's brush which he used to create. He may not have changed the course of a single atom during that period, but that doesn't make him any less of a creator.
If you can only see one inch from the canvas, then the painting, the canvas, the moving brush and the ink all seem pretty naturalistic.
SUMMARY:
If God created the universe, it is perfectly logical to propose that he uses natural processes (such as biological evolution) as his "brushes and inks".
I'll make a bet with you...
For those of you haven't figured out yet whether I believe in God or not, I will leave you with a summary of Pascal's wager:
Those who DON'T believe in God will either lose or draw. Those who DO believe in God will either draw or win. Arguing the probabilities of win, lose, or draw is meaningless.
You could run those as your host system and run a Windows machine inside with plex86 (www.plex86.org) which is free and open source. Or you could go with VMWare which is a bit more developed. Or you could check our WINE which is doing pretty well with Windows applications these days.
Of course, those require x86 hardware underneath and Linux or *BSD. It would have helped if you had given a bit more information about your complete configuration. You probably aren't running Mac since you could just buy MS-Office apps.
University vs. Open Source developer/student is where I think the GPL is going to be tested first.
Here is a suggestion. Take some previously GPL'ed code developed by somebody else or developed in your own free time, such as Readline, or some other useful utility and incorporate the code directly into your project (make sure it's integral and not just linked). Now the GPL legally requires that any derivative source be released GPL'ed. Also, make sure you release it on the web and have some external friends download it (or post to slashdot, freshmeat, etc). Sort of like sending a copy of a paper you've written in a post marked envelop to seal the copyright.
The University may own the copyright, but now the copyright is "copyleft". Now they can't change the license on the code. I'm not clear on whether they could say that no one at all can use the code, but at least they would only have two choices.
Lately I've been tosing around the idea of creating a multicast FTP protocol.
It's really not a protocol per se but a layer on top of multicast that makes it reliable without increasing the amount of bandwidth on the network (i.e. server doesn't have to wait for rebroadcast). It's a pretty simple idea that I haven't really heard anyone else propose. I would like to have had a prototype by now but I'm just too busy. Here is the basic premise:
1. Client connects to special query port on server and asks if file XYZ.tar.gz is available for FCP transfer. If not, drops back to normal FTP.
2. Client requests to be added to multicast distribution list. Server responds with length of the file and where in the file the server is currently multicasting. Say it is 75% through the file already.
3. Client zeros a file to length of file requested and begins receiving data and writing it to the location in the file that the server specified. Client keeps track of bits that were dropped or corrupted.
4. When the server gets to the end of the file it simply begins multicasting back at the begining and continues.
5. Once client registers a complete pass, it can either request dropped chunks via regular FTP or wait for the next pass.
If would probably only work on local nets or something like the MBONE but it would still be useful and gets around some of multicast's nastier problems. If anyone likes the idea, feel free to start an open project to implement it. I would be willing to help but I can't take the load of starting the project at this time. Email me at handle@visto.com.
If an equivalent has already been done, great! Please let me know where I can grab it!
In the computer industry, there seems to be rare moments when true innovation actually happens. The rest just seems to be a continual evolution and building upon old innovation (which is a good argument for strong limitations on computer tech. patents, but that's a different question).
Examples of innovation (in my opinion), were the mouse, windowing GUI, transistor, Integrated Circuit, ethernet, TCP/IP, hypertext markup(way before HTML), data compression, C, multi-user OS, etc. Okay, so in reality those were all evolutionary too, but there are certain developments that have a qualitative difference rather than a quantitative one. I'm thinking paradigm shift or inflection point.
My opinion is that many of the current "hype innovations" today are really just evolutionary and not that significant qualitatively: wireless computing, software hosting, Storage Area Networks, Clustering, Java, etc.
Which recent developments do you see as having the most lasting qualitative impact?
I consider myself somewhat of a computer industry prognosticator. If I were to sum up how I am able to predict and analyze the industry I would say that it is 1) being wide read and 2) knowing people who are in the know. I think you would agree (if not, then my question is "why not?").
So my question is: what do you recommend as the best reading material (books, periodicals, etc)? And how much time do you spend everyday reading them?
Do you read online news sites? If so which ones and how much?
And the question that is probably least important but the most interesting to this community is:
Do you read slashdot? If not, why not? If so, do you do it for value, or for entertainment?
Thanks
Anti-Censorship tools are by their nature used to do things that are illegal. Sometimes you have to consider whether the laws that make something illegal make sense. The average dictator (if there is an average) uses censorship tools to silence both good things and bad. Pornography, hate speak, and crime are much less of a problem in totalitarian societies but free-press, free-religion, free-speech, and other freedoms are snuffed out. The freedom sword is always double edged; it always allows more good and more bad. You are right that Gnutella would allow all kinds of information to be spread across the internet. If you think that is only bad then you better think again about why the Internet has had and will have such great potential.
Okay, so I'm trying to think what I can do to fight this silly bill. So I'm thinking that I should e-mail as many people as I can that are related. Even better, I complie a list and post it on slashdot so that people can easily e-mail as many people as possible.
k waddell@ltgov.state.va.uspgiesen@ltgov.s tate.va.usrwilliams@ltgov.state.va.usrpayne@ltgov. state.va.usjatkinson@sov.state.va.us, gbailey@sov.state.va.us, jabennett@sov.state.va.us, jbrock@sov.state.va.us, scarr@sov.state.va.us, bcarter@sov.state.va.us, jfarley@sov.state.va.us, jgarrett@sov.state.va.us, tgilman@sov.state.va.us, tgilman@sov.state.va.us, ggutting@sov.state.va.us, plung@sov.state.va.us, tmadel@sov.state.va.us, cmary@sov.state.va.us, jmoore@sov.state.va.us, tobrion@sov.state.va.us, jpalmore@sov.state.va.us, jparker@sov.state.va.us, tperkinson@sov.state.va.us, rramsey@sov.state.va.us, bsherrill@sov.state.va.us, btaylor@sov.state.va.us, ltorrey@sov.state.va.us, dwhitaker@sov.state.va.us, mwright@sov.state.va.us
So here it is (if you do it all at once, at least use the Bcc field so it looks a little more personal):
Senators:
wbarry@erols.com, colgan@erols.com, Johnchich@aol.com, emilycouric@rlc.net, ehouck@fls.infi.net, SenHowell@aol.com, YBMiller@aol.com, bmims@sov.state.va.us, snewman@inmind.com, tpuller@sov.state.va.us, VASEN08@aol.com, patsy@tidalwave.net, jnwatkins@aol.com, SenDist01@aol.com
Others:
ltgov@ltgov.state.va.usveddings@ltgov.state.va.us