It's bad enough when tech-clueless managers (think 'Pointy-Haired Boss') make decisions regarding technology; it's a thousand times worse when tech-clueless judges make decisions regarding technology legislation.
For whatever reason, the issues surrounding computer technology mystify average people (including average judges) in a way that no other subject quite can. I cringe at the thought of a 50-something, greying, clueless bureaucrat judge making decisions regarding technology that he knows of only through occasional quotes in the Wall Street Journal.
Outside the Bible, only a small SMALL handful (as in "you can count them on one hand") of contemporary sources mention Jesus. And at least some of those are known to be after-the-fact forgeries.
A public figure with a following like Jesus's would certainly leave more records. Also, the Romans took records of who they crucified... guess who's missing!
One of the major arguments of a major subset of the anti-evolution/pro-Creationism school of thought (if it can be called that...) is that there is some sort of tippy-top secret conspiracy among scientists to keep their own cash flow going by producing evidence in favor of evolution. The consensus seems to be that scientists are all a bunch of godless atheists who are interested only in lining their own pockets-- that they lie and cheat and deny the "obvious fact" that an invisible man in the sky created the world 6,000 years ago in order to make money hand over fist.
I GUARANTEE you that the instant one of the people who maintains one of the many creationist sites out there gets wind of this, this guy will get made into (anecdotal) evidence for the "fact" that all scientists are not to be trusted.
The fingerprint image recorded is not the same as those collected by the federal government or law enforcement.
No, but the fingerprint is. And I'm SURE some (compan(y|ies)|government[s]?) out there have a process for generating a unique hash of a fingerprint from any high-quality scan of it.
Um, what? No. Theo's rant has nothing to do with this. If, for instance, a bunch of hackers want to improve support for proprietary crypto chips, there's nothing in the BSD license stopping them from forking OpenBSD, just like there's nothing in the GPL preventing people from forking Linux.
BSD gives developers the 'freedom' to make their code proprietary in future releases, but it does not give them the power to retroactively destroy branches of code. Once the code's out there, people can basically do what they want with it.
1) A giant virus/spyware outbreak/whatever sweeps the Internet.
2) In response, a proposal is brought before Congress that Internet use in the US be 'licensed', much like car use. Only users of certain DRM-restricted, closed-source software will be allowed on the Internet. You will have a 'free choice' of OS between any of the OSes made compatible with the 'trusted computing' system implemented: The latest Windows home OS (e.g. XP), the latest Windows server OS (e.g. Windows 2003), and (via a Windows Update or CD-applied patch) the second-latest Windows home OS. (e.g. Win2K). Mac users will be outraged, but Apple (who by that point will be partially owned by Dell and/or HPaq) will quickly announce that support is coming soon, just in time for all the Internet infrastructure in the US to be closed to "non-trusted" systems.
3) Linux and all other 'free software' systems thus become illegal (if not downright impossible) to use on the Internet. Also, everyone is forced (even more than they are now) to keep on the upgrade cycle, to keep current with the 'trusted computing' systems as they evolve.
Besides the (already made) jokes about 'TurdOS', the fact that the last three letters of the name are 'D', 'O' and 'S' might lead people to pronounce it "Two DOS", and think it's a DOS clone like FreeDOS...
I've long operated under the assumption that any decent (or even semi-decent) piece of "freeware" (free as in beer, but not as in speech) for Windows will eventually sell out and become "shareware" and/or conventional commercial software. Likewise, I've assumed that any decent piece of "shareware" will slowly go the route of full commercialization. This assumption has served me fairly well. (Examples of this pattern: PowerArchiver used to be freeware; now it's shareware. Paint Shop Pro used to be shareware; now, it's being sold in stores.)
Am I now going to have to start assuming that any decent OSS/FS project will eventually sell out?
One day, companies who control the "intellectual property" behind music, movies, games, and books (and other similar things) will realize that we only want to pay for the "content" once. Period. I don't want to have to pay $20 for a Beatles LP, then $20 for a Beatles cassette, then $20 for a Beatles CD, then $20 for a Beatles holodisc... I want to pay $20 for the Beatles LP and a license for personal use of the music on it, then-- should I want to buy a CD of it-- a reasonable fee (say, $5) for the cost of producing and distributing that CD.
If I pay $20 for a movie on DVD, why should I have to pay another $20 for a UMD of that same movie? The UMD probably cost less than $5 to make and distribute.
Amen! Seriously, what the fuck is up with expensive consoles nowadays? I remember the old Nintendo (as in the NES) being, what, $100? Do they think gamers are made of money?
ummm... did you miss everything that has happened in biology and DNA lately? Electronics has just moved into the incremental consumer phase, instead of being a strict labratory science. Things like DNA sequencing, stem cells, cloning, nano-technology, and genetic engineering are where the real advancements are.
That's nice. So where's the cure to HIV? To cancer? To the common cold? Where's the organ cloning plant? Where's the "rewrite the genes of your choice" service? Where's the designer babies shop? Where's the "change your sex with a retrovirus and a massive hormone/stem cell injection" service? Where's the "make yourself into a furry" boutique? Where's the brain transplant clinic? Where's the "grow new muscles in a vat overnight" outpatient graft center? Where's the "upload yourself into a computer" facility-- or, for that matter, even something as limited in brain/computer interaction as a VISOR? Where are the nanites, the artificial T-cell booster shots, the dermal synthesizers?
Oh. Yeah. We can clone cats-- for $30,000. And we're kinda sorta maybe working on some kinda sorta maybe medical treatments that involve genetic engineering. Wowie zowie. Meanwhile, we're still freaking the fuck out about the fucking Flu being capable of mutating and taking out a statistically significant chunk of humanity.
How you can even compare our progress in biological science to our progress in electronics is laughable. We've taken the first few baby steps. Barely. No great breakthroughs that transform the lives of average people, like television or penicillin or power plants or automobiles. Just baby steps.
Before you start in on your rose-tinted "but we have Teh Intarweb now, and computers are so cheap thanks to the Free Market(TM)" drek...
Yeah? And? Where are the flying cars we were all supposed to have? Where's our fusion energy? (Other than that big fiery lamp out in the Big Room) Where's our moonbase? Where's our Mars colony? Where's my fucking robot sex toy?
We'd have all of this shit by now if humanity were focused more on developing as a species and less on making money with the least possible effort. We need more cooperation as a species-- and note that "cooperation" and "competition" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. During the Space Race, broad swaths of humanity came together and cooperated to compete-- the West versus the soviet East. What did we accomplish? We went from the first suborbital flight to landing on the fucking moon in less than a decade.
THAT is what humanity can do when its priorities are aligned properly.
Now, it's Megacorp A versus Megacorp B versus Megacorp C, and they're all so busy playing chess with patents and lawsuits, they can't be bothered to innovate. It's fucking sickening.
Christ. Look at the earthshaking technologies that were invented/discovered and/or popularized in the interval from roughly 1860 to 1960: Radio, the telephone, the television, the laser, nuclear fission, the automobile, the airplane, the rocket, the microwave oven, the computer...
Now look at what we've achieved since then. Uhhh..... let's see. Um. PDAs?... Blackberries?... Cell phones? (read: radio + telephone)... umm... well, our computers are smaller now, and faster?...
I cannot help but think that the shift away from R&D, the overreliance on patents like this story, and the constant threat of being sued/bought out by megacorps have combined to slow the pace of human technological development.
The new business model seems to be "obtain patent on a niggling detail of a process or device; sue over patent; profit!". Back in the day, the business model was "Research fascinating new things; patent them; bring them to market; profit." I'm all for a return to the old model...
...they are (probably deliberately) confusing the terms "trojan" and "spyware". Is it any wonder that the average user doesn't know the difference between a "virus", "spyware" or "adware", doesn't know the umbrella term "malware", and thinks that any antivirus program is all they need to stay safe?
To this day, most end-users I talk to think that "spyware" is something good, since they hear people talking about "Spybot", which they think is "a program that gets rid of the viruses".
When will we get some REAL end-user education in this topic? Public schools have Sex Ed classes where they teach you how to reduce your risk of getting HIV and the Clap... how about Computer Safety classes where they teach you how to reduce your risk of getting viruses or spyware?
Slashdot Mirror
I somehow forgot to laugh.
That's ALSO pretty damned ugly.
...soon to be crushed beneath the jackboots of the Department of Homeland Security.
Yeah, let's hear him pull that line on the Department of Homeland Security. ;)
It's bad enough when tech-clueless managers (think 'Pointy-Haired Boss') make decisions regarding technology; it's a thousand times worse when tech-clueless judges make decisions regarding technology legislation.
For whatever reason, the issues surrounding computer technology mystify average people (including average judges) in a way that no other subject quite can. I cringe at the thought of a 50-something, greying, clueless bureaucrat judge making decisions regarding technology that he knows of only through occasional quotes in the Wall Street Journal.
Uhhh.
Outside the Bible, only a small SMALL handful (as in "you can count them on one hand") of contemporary sources mention Jesus. And at least some of those are known to be after-the-fact forgeries.
A public figure with a following like Jesus's would certainly leave more records. Also, the Romans took records of who they crucified... guess who's missing!
One of the major arguments of a major subset of the anti-evolution/pro-Creationism school of thought (if it can be called that...) is that there is some sort of tippy-top secret conspiracy among scientists to keep their own cash flow going by producing evidence in favor of evolution. The consensus seems to be that scientists are all a bunch of godless atheists who are interested only in lining their own pockets-- that they lie and cheat and deny the "obvious fact" that an invisible man in the sky created the world 6,000 years ago in order to make money hand over fist.
I GUARANTEE you that the instant one of the people who maintains one of the many creationist sites out there gets wind of this, this guy will get made into (anecdotal) evidence for the "fact" that all scientists are not to be trusted.
*bashes head against wall*
Um, what? No. Theo's rant has nothing to do with this. If, for instance, a bunch of hackers want to improve support for proprietary crypto chips, there's nothing in the BSD license stopping them from forking OpenBSD, just like there's nothing in the GPL preventing people from forking Linux.
BSD gives developers the 'freedom' to make their code proprietary in future releases, but it does not give them the power to retroactively destroy branches of code. Once the code's out there, people can basically do what they want with it.
It doesn't matter if it's shite. It doesn't matter if it's expensive. It doesn't matter if it's DRMed and Trusted-Computinged out the wazoo.
It's Windows. It will therefore sell a kerjillion copies no matter what.
1) A giant virus/spyware outbreak/whatever sweeps the Internet.
2) In response, a proposal is brought before Congress that Internet use in the US be 'licensed', much like car use. Only users of certain DRM-restricted, closed-source software will be allowed on the Internet. You will have a 'free choice' of OS between any of the OSes made compatible with the 'trusted computing' system implemented: The latest Windows home OS (e.g. XP), the latest Windows server OS (e.g. Windows 2003), and (via a Windows Update or CD-applied patch) the second-latest Windows home OS. (e.g. Win2K). Mac users will be outraged, but Apple (who by that point will be partially owned by Dell and/or HPaq) will quickly announce that support is coming soon, just in time for all the Internet infrastructure in the US to be closed to "non-trusted" systems.
3) Linux and all other 'free software' systems thus become illegal (if not downright impossible) to use on the Internet. Also, everyone is forced (even more than they are now) to keep on the upgrade cycle, to keep current with the 'trusted computing' systems as they evolve.
4) Profit!
What about FURRIES? The world needs more double-penised hermaphrodite dragonfox/wolf kitsunes! ;)
On the page, you can see a Wisp with a beard and moustache. ;> The page talks about how you can choose a wide variety of facial hair for your Wisp.
Makes it look like a villain from a bad '80s cartoon...
...in the real world, bullies NEVER gets in trouble with schools.
Besides the (already made) jokes about 'TurdOS', the fact that the last three letters of the name are 'D', 'O' and 'S' might lead people to pronounce it "Two DOS", and think it's a DOS clone like FreeDOS...
The market will be overtaken by Microsoft Visual DNA++ in around five years.
I've long operated under the assumption that any decent (or even semi-decent) piece of "freeware" (free as in beer, but not as in speech) for Windows will eventually sell out and become "shareware" and/or conventional commercial software. Likewise, I've assumed that any decent piece of "shareware" will slowly go the route of full commercialization. This assumption has served me fairly well. (Examples of this pattern: PowerArchiver used to be freeware; now it's shareware. Paint Shop Pro used to be shareware; now, it's being sold in stores.)
Am I now going to have to start assuming that any decent OSS/FS project will eventually sell out?
One day, companies who control the "intellectual property" behind music, movies, games, and books (and other similar things) will realize that we only want to pay for the "content" once. Period. I don't want to have to pay $20 for a Beatles LP, then $20 for a Beatles cassette, then $20 for a Beatles CD, then $20 for a Beatles holodisc... I want to pay $20 for the Beatles LP and a license for personal use of the music on it, then-- should I want to buy a CD of it-- a reasonable fee (say, $5) for the cost of producing and distributing that CD.
If I pay $20 for a movie on DVD, why should I have to pay another $20 for a UMD of that same movie? The UMD probably cost less than $5 to make and distribute.
Amen! Seriously, what the fuck is up with expensive consoles nowadays? I remember the old Nintendo (as in the NES) being, what, $100? Do they think gamers are made of money?
That's nice. So where's the cure to HIV? To cancer? To the common cold? Where's the organ cloning plant? Where's the "rewrite the genes of your choice" service? Where's the designer babies shop? Where's the "change your sex with a retrovirus and a massive hormone/stem cell injection" service? Where's the "make yourself into a furry" boutique? Where's the brain transplant clinic? Where's the "grow new muscles in a vat overnight" outpatient graft center? Where's the "upload yourself into a computer" facility-- or, for that matter, even something as limited in brain/computer interaction as a VISOR? Where are the nanites, the artificial T-cell booster shots, the dermal synthesizers?
Oh. Yeah. We can clone cats-- for $30,000. And we're kinda sorta maybe working on some kinda sorta maybe medical treatments that involve genetic engineering. Wowie zowie. Meanwhile, we're still freaking the fuck out about the fucking Flu being capable of mutating and taking out a statistically significant chunk of humanity.
How you can even compare our progress in biological science to our progress in electronics is laughable. We've taken the first few baby steps. Barely. No great breakthroughs that transform the lives of average people, like television or penicillin or power plants or automobiles. Just baby steps.
Before you start in on your rose-tinted "but we have Teh Intarweb now, and computers are so cheap thanks to the Free Market(TM)" drek...
Yeah? And? Where are the flying cars we were all supposed to have? Where's our fusion energy? (Other than that big fiery lamp out in the Big Room) Where's our moonbase? Where's our Mars colony? Where's my fucking robot sex toy?
We'd have all of this shit by now if humanity were focused more on developing as a species and less on making money with the least possible effort. We need more cooperation as a species-- and note that "cooperation" and "competition" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. During the Space Race, broad swaths of humanity came together and cooperated to compete-- the West versus the soviet East. What did we accomplish? We went from the first suborbital flight to landing on the fucking moon in less than a decade.
THAT is what humanity can do when its priorities are aligned properly.
Now, it's Megacorp A versus Megacorp B versus Megacorp C, and they're all so busy playing chess with patents and lawsuits, they can't be bothered to innovate. It's fucking sickening.
Christ. Look at the earthshaking technologies that were invented/discovered and/or popularized in the interval from roughly 1860 to 1960: Radio, the telephone, the television, the laser, nuclear fission, the automobile, the airplane, the rocket, the microwave oven, the computer...
... Blackberries? ... Cell phones? (read: radio + telephone)... umm ... well, our computers are smaller now, and faster?...
Now look at what we've achieved since then. Uhhh..... let's see. Um. PDAs?
I cannot help but think that the shift away from R&D, the overreliance on patents like this story, and the constant threat of being sued/bought out by megacorps have combined to slow the pace of human technological development.
The new business model seems to be "obtain patent on a niggling detail of a process or device; sue over patent; profit!". Back in the day, the business model was "Research fascinating new things; patent them; bring them to market; profit." I'm all for a return to the old model...
...they are (probably deliberately) confusing the terms "trojan" and "spyware". Is it any wonder that the average user doesn't know the difference between a "virus", "spyware" or "adware", doesn't know the umbrella term "malware", and thinks that any antivirus program is all they need to stay safe?
To this day, most end-users I talk to think that "spyware" is something good, since they hear people talking about "Spybot", which they think is "a program that gets rid of the viruses".
When will we get some REAL end-user education in this topic? Public schools have Sex Ed classes where they teach you how to reduce your risk of getting HIV and the Clap... how about Computer Safety classes where they teach you how to reduce your risk of getting viruses or spyware?
"Vista: Halo 2 Edition" == "Warezed copy of Vista"