Slashdot Mirror

Things you probably cant do nowadays but we did in high school (which was only 8 yrs ago) 1) Play with radioactive stuff

Play with radioactive stuff? Why not drink it! Oh, yeah, I remember the days when radioactive stuff was cool, trendy and good for you. On the other hand, it has been many years since then, but as far as I remember physics has never been "uncool" for me. Though apparently I was "uncool" for the bullies, but that's another story. And since I read the Sex Tips For Geeks by Eric S. Raymond I believe that I am not only cool, but actually quite a hot stud if you ask me. All in all, a very interesting article, but in my opinion it should pay more attention to social problems that the most intelligent kids face these days, as unfortunately many of us know from experience.

Eric S. Raymond disagrees with you, big time.

Winblows' pathetic, single screen ugly.

I have no idea what this means. You seem to be grasping at straws to prove your point that "Winblowz is teh sux". "Single screen ugly"?? Weird.

Gorilla Arm Syndrome (consequence of touch-screen use)...

Here it is in the jargon file:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.htm l

Sure, but it's not a good idea. See the wheel of reincarnation.

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

For times like this, you're much better off going over to the Jargon File and reading about it - for example, check out their entry for biff and, once there, follow the link to the amusing B1FF.

It looks like the Wiki uses this source data, by the way.

Anyway, enjoy the file. At some point you'll probably just read it all. At least, I know that I have. I believe that its available as a single HTML file for your browsing convenience, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now.

For times like this, you're much better off going over to the Jargon File and reading about it - for example, check out their entry for biff and, once there, follow the link to the amusing B1FF.

It looks like the Wiki uses this source data, by the way.

Anyway, enjoy the file. At some point you'll probably just read it all. At least, I know that I have. I believe that its available as a single HTML file for your browsing convenience, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now.

Actually, you're wrong. According to ESR, hackers are more recently moderate-to-neoconservative. The only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus, both paleoconservatism and 'hard' leftism are rare.

Hacker politics, by ESR

I try to avoid relying on a product which has a single supplier or is not standards-compliant, even if it does meet the FSF's standards.

Standards compliance is a great thing. Recently I've been working on a VoIP deployment using SIP phones, Asterisk, and SER. One of the things that has impressed us the most about SIP telephony -- as contrasted with earlier VoIP and digital office phone systems -- is that the major vendors' products all interoperate at a basic level (placing and receiving calls) out of the box. This is a big contrast with earlier systems where (e.g.) Nortel sold you a Succession VoIP system, and nobody else's phones would work on it.

Most of these SIP phones are not open-source. Cisco's and Grandstream's phones are the usual binary-only deal -- compliant with open standards, but not even source-available. However, some SIP phones are open-source, notably SNOM phones, which run embedded Linux, and for which you can download an SDK from their Web site and build your own firmware image. Not too terribly surprisingly, SNOM's phones are not the slickest in appearance (that would be Cisco) or the cheapest (Grandstream) but they are, as far as we can tell, the most configurable.

Much the same seems to be true of VoIP gateway systems. Many people with whom I've spoken are using Cisco instruments as their gateway between SIP and the PSTN (conventional phone system). We are using Asterisk. Although it is hardly the easiest software to configure -- it's kind of like the Sendmail of VoIP, minus the security hell -- the Asterisk/Zaptel/Linux system is far more flexible than closed equivalents.

So what does this have to do with the advantages of open source? In a field of open standards, such as SIP telephony, open source can really shine. Open standards mean that there is little space for vendor lock-in, so vendors cannot exclude open source in the usual fashion. Open source is largely immune to the problem of treating standards as "tick-list features", which some appliance developers seem to suffer from: implementing the standard in a slapdash way so that you can mention it in the four-color glossies. ("Do we have, um, this 'SIP' thing?" "Uh ... [type type] ... sure, we do now!")

So how does this contrast with some of open source's notable weaker points, like user interface and graphics software mentioned in the article? It seems to me that open standards and open source both have their strengths in infrastructure as opposed to interface: not the buttons that users push on their desktops, but the underlying systemry that really makes the system (and the network) run. The advantage of Asterisk over proprietary PSTN gateways is much more than the advantage (if any!) of SNOM over Cisco SIP phones. The same is true in other infrastructural roles: the advantage of Apache over Microsoft IIS is much more than the advantage (if any!) of KDE over, say, the Mac OS X interface.

For the user of closed-source end-user systems (be they phones or desktop computers) the presence of open source in the infrastructure means that it can be customized by experts (IT staff or consultants) to the needs of the organization. It also often means that the infrastructure is simply higher-quality, which benefits everyone. The folks who get VoIP phones on their desks at my workplace don't care whether the gateway is Asterisk or Cisco, but they do care if we can implement features they request. Likewise, our Web designers using Dreamweaver benefit more from the fact that we use Apache (since their work is safer than it would be with IIS) than they would by using an open-source end-user tool.

To make a tangent, consider Microsoft. Their tradit

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

just that all we ever hear about are all these amazing magical technologies that will blow the existing techs away.

You mean like plasma screens? You know, it wasn't that many years ago that we were discussing, right here on Slahsdot[*1], an article that sounded just like this one, but was introducing a hot new display technology called <fingerquote style="Dr. Evil">"plasma"</fingerquote> that was going to enable flat displays to be made bigger/better/cheaper than was possible with LCDs.

Then too, the article was overly enthusiastic; then too, some of us got prematurely excited about it; then too, others soberly advised waiting for actual products, etc. In short, it was exactly the same as this. And yet, the technology really did arrive eventually.

You're right that it's stupid to get all excited about an R&D concept demo (or even an actual prototype) as if it were an actual product (and by the way, it's called vaporware, not FUD -- similar concepts but an important distinction). But it would be just as dumb to completely scoff off all new-tech press releases. We should take an article like this for what it is, no more, no less: a preview of one of the (several, competing) possibilities for what might become the next generation of display technology.

We know there's going to be a next generation, and between SED, FED, OLED, Thin-CRT, and WIMF, there's an exciting amount of potential for displays to get dramatically bigger, better, and cheaper sometime in the not-too-distant future. I for one am content to leave it at that, and interested to keep an eye on developments on all those avenues.

--
[1] At least, some of us, who were around back then. I think I'm supposed to make a comment about /. UIDs at this point, but I can't stand those people who get all cocky about their "old-timer" status.

just that all we ever hear about are all these amazing magical technologies that will blow the existing techs away.

You mean like plasma screens? You know, it wasn't that many years ago that we were discussing, right here on Slahsdot[*1], an article that sounded just like this one, but was introducing a hot new display technology called <fingerquote style="Dr. Evil">"plasma"</fingerquote> that was going to enable flat displays to be made bigger/better/cheaper than was possible with LCDs.

Then too, the article was overly enthusiastic; then too, some of us got prematurely excited about it; then too, others soberly advised waiting for actual products, etc. In short, it was exactly the same as this. And yet, the technology really did arrive eventually.

You're right that it's stupid to get all excited about an R&D concept demo (or even an actual prototype) as if it were an actual product (and by the way, it's called vaporware, not FUD -- similar concepts but an important distinction). But it would be just as dumb to completely scoff off all new-tech press releases. We should take an article like this for what it is, no more, no less: a preview of one of the (several, competing) possibilities for what might become the next generation of display technology.

We know there's going to be a next generation, and between SED, FED, OLED, Thin-CRT, and WIMF, there's an exciting amount of potential for displays to get dramatically bigger, better, and cheaper sometime in the not-too-distant future. I for one am content to leave it at that, and interested to keep an eye on developments on all those avenues.

--
[1] At least, some of us, who were around back then. I think I'm supposed to make a comment about /. UIDs at this point, but I can't stand those people who get all cocky about their "old-timer" status.

That's for Windows systems. Since these aren't useful for running Windows long-term (hence the whole reason for this article's existence), they'll probably be reformatted as Unix servers, the plural of which is boxen.

Assuming:
1) The average shmoe doesn't mind 128kb mp3 compression levels.
2) At such levels, the average classic rock album is about 50MB.
3) 500GB/50MB = 10,000 albums on a single drive.
4) The RIAA succeeds in making on-line trading difficult/risky/costly.

Stick one of these in a USB/FireWire portable enclosure.

Goodbye, Internet P2P. Hello, sneakernet.

Sure, you don't get new releases or updates this way, but you have over a year's worth of non-repeat music. Want a different genre? Buy a second drive.

And that's now. What is the RIAA going to do when storage prices reach a buck a TB?

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

I believe that one of the reasons that Open Source is winning the terminology war with FSF is because it actually supports more freedom, while pointing out the real benefits of this model.

Colmes described himself as a moderate:

And though Fox News markets Colmes as "a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary" (FoxNews.com), it doesn't even get much help from Colmes himself. "I think I'm quite moderate," Colmes blandly told USA Today (2/1/95), not long before being hired as the show's left-wing counterweight to Hannity.

With regards to the name calling, I think you may find plenty of people have different opinions from your own, and have perfectly good reasons for having them. Please note that this does not mean that you do not have good reasons for holding your beliefs.

I believe that you and I have a legitimate difference of opinion about this matter. I'm just as sure that we could find any number of things to agree upon. It makes it more difficult for me to want to consider your ideas and beliefs when you describe my post as trollish.

I was not trying to 'attract a predictable response' or 'make some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial' (troll, n.) I wrote my post to challenge the unchallenged idea that Colmes is a liberal. I'm sorry if my post offended you.

As another poster mentions, the book you're thinking of is "Stranger in a Strange Land". However, "grok" is fairly common term in places like Slashdot. See the Jargon File entry, and note examples such as Grokking the GIMP.

Ethan

BAAHAHAHAHA! What'd they prototype this on, a Gameboy?

TFA says there was a hard-limit of "32000". I wonder if they mean a signed 16-bit counter or a #define TABLE_MAX 32658. Either way, Ewww.!

arbitary limits will trip you up eventually. It's not as if nobody knew to avoid them before

For one thing, there is an "arbitrary limit" on the number of atoms in the visible universe. At any given time, there is an "arbitrary limit" on the amount of memory available for a given price in dollars, and there is also an "arbitrary limit" on the amount of arithmetic that can be done in one second for a given price in dollars. Arithmetic in variable-length integers (called bignums) allocated on the heap often carries significant performance overhead compared to arithmetic in machine word-sized integers (called ints) in fixed-size data structures. On a given computer system, it may have been an engineering decision to use ints rather than bignums.

It's interesting because it provides a lesson in software design - arbitary limits will trip you up eventually. It's not as if nobody knew to avoid them before, though.

It perhaps should be noted that "foo.app" in this example is not actually a directory, as far as the FS is concerned; foo.app is a file, strictly speaking, and its contents are chunks therein. MacOS treats bundle under certain contexts as a directory. Under other contexts, perilously, it treats bundles only as a files.

Peculiarly, you can cd into a bundle, but if you cp or ftp put a .app bundle, you will strip away it's resource fork in the process. Apple provides CpMac and MvMac to movie files without destroying their resource forks. Apple is fixing this permanently in 10.4, real soon now.

But, alas, this is not a "What's wrong with OS X" thread...

Of course that one got modded down. It challenges the orthodoxy of the FSF zealots, which are heavily represented on Slashdot.

The point is still valid. The only people still using the term "free software" are FSF zealots. If you don't believe me, go look at ESR's analysis of usage of the two terms on the web. If you don't believe him, he's provided the links to the searches he did; perform them for yourself and disprove the numbers.

Well, the author linked in his article to some research gathered by ESR that said 95% of the usage was open source, rather than free software. If true, then we are essentially using one term.

The problem with having a set of wings and no engine is once you our out of control, recovery won't be easy.

Um, right.

Except that we've had vehicles consisting of "a set of wings and no engine" (I call them "gliders") for a while now. They don't appear to be very dangerous.

In fact, they're generally safer than airplanes. If an airplane loses its engine (for whatever reason) it automatically becomes a glider, a job it was generally not designed for.

They say a twin-engine airplane has twice as many engine problems as a single-engine airplane; a glider can't possibly have any.

Something perhaps like this [catb.org]? nxs

"Your question is a pretty poor question" you nasty troll

Not at all

Another good source for interface design is Eric S. Raymond's "The Luxury of Ignorance", parts 1 and 2

Another good source for interface design is Eric S. Raymond's "The Luxury of Ignorance", parts 1 and 2

Probably do not even remember when people used to put words like "bomb" and "whitehouse" in their .sigs in a protest to the governemnt's automated filtering of electronic communications which is a direct violation of Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America:

You, sir, are a kook.

But a description of that behavior can be found here. Note that pre-Echelon, it was merely being assumed that 'net traffic was being monitored; it wasn't known to be, and I kind of doubt that including words like BOMB, C4, M16, BUTT LOVE, or KGB really made you a surveillance target. Forget about putting stupid shit in your sig, if you really want to foul up the would-be packet tappers than just start to encrypt everything.

GIGO (Good In, Garbage Out)

Way to show your tech credentials! Coming soon, to a PCMag article near you, the newest and hottest acronyms:

• LIFO - Little In, First Out
• DoS - Denial of webSite
• FIFO - Hey, isn't this that 7-up cartoon dude?
• FAQ - Frequently Answered Questions
• GPL - Groovy Public License
• IMHO - In My Honorable Opinion
• RTFM - Read The Fancy Manual

Merely a snapshot of the continually-evolving Jargon File.

The Big Book of [Urban Ledgends|Hoaxes|Vice|Loosers|Conspiracy| etc.]

Again, more up-to-date stuff can be found at Snopes, The Straight Dope, The Urban Legends Research Centre, Hoaxkill, The Museum of Hoaxes, &c.

Nothing wrong with dead-tree books, of course, but nice to know of alternatives.

I've been reading a lot of Eric S. Raymond's content off of his web site lately, and a lot of it is very interesting. The Art of Unix Programming or The Cathedral and the Bazaar would be a great gift.

The Register coverage: Who Sank Itanic?

Everyone has been saying that Itanic will sink for quite a while now; it's about time that HP and Intel realized they were pouring money down a drain and pulled the plug on the project.

Hacker
Cracker

King of the nerds, my ass :)

Hacker
Cracker

King of the nerds, my ass :)

Here is full explanation of Hacker culture.

The Jargon File
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/

The New Hacker's Dictionary
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/jargbook.html

The Meaning of 'Hack'
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.ht ml

Appendix B. A Portrait of J. Random Hacker
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/appendixb.html

Here is full explanation of Hacker culture.

The Jargon File
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/

The New Hacker's Dictionary
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/jargbook.html

The Meaning of 'Hack'
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.ht ml

Appendix B. A Portrait of J. Random Hacker
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/appendixb.html

Here is full explanation of Hacker culture.

The Jargon File
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/

The New Hacker's Dictionary
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/jargbook.html

The Meaning of 'Hack'
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.ht ml

Appendix B. A Portrait of J. Random Hacker
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/appendixb.html

Here is full explanation of Hacker culture.

The Jargon File
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/

The New Hacker's Dictionary
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/jargbook.html

The Meaning of 'Hack'
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.ht ml

Appendix B. A Portrait of J. Random Hacker
http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/appendixb.html

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

OK kids.
Let's all get together and sit in a circle and read aloud together.
I would like Arzach to click on the following link and read aloud the first bullet point to the class: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l/

I would someone else to read the definition of the term "Hacker" click on the following link and read aloud:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html /
(I can't hear you.)

Now let's discover the term called "Cracker". Can I get a volunteer to read this one aloud?
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.htm l/

Now let's investigate as to why we Slashdotters believe that this sentence may be too harsh...lets see, this may provide some insight:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker-ethi c.html/

For your homework assignment please read the following:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/introduction. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions. html/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style .html/

Must read before posting on Slashdot
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/email-style.h tml/

Background info
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/manifesto.html/

I realize your comment was tongue in cheek, but given the success of Apple's wildly successful "white headphone" brand mark, maybe something similar would work for Neuros.. Maybe the hacker emblem is a bit unwieldly, but I bet they could work it in...