Slashdot Mirror

Personally, I'm going to enjoy the gray goo vs blue goo celebrity deathmatch.

Personally, I'm going to enjoy the gray goo vs blue goo celebrity deathmatch.

bitch, bitch, bitch.
Geez!

To the "It's ok to cheat!" group (Group One):
No it isn't. If it were, it wouldn't be called "cheating".

To the "cheating is bad" group (Group Two):
no shit. But someone will always cheat. This isn't the simple, clear cut right-and-wrong thing that some people make it out to be though. It would be if everyone was Dudly Do-Right, but they're not and they never will be.

If it were automatic for everyone to do-the-right-thing, banks would not need safes and locks and guards and all else. There is always, in human nature, the struggle between what society says you should do and what you actually want to do. Note that things get even more confused because certain elements in society will say that it's okay to do what you want to (i.e. Group One). For some people, some of the time, there is a temptation to cheat.

Suppose, for example, that you and I are playing a game of cards. Now suppose you've got to get up and leave the room for a bit. I stare at your hand lying face down on the table. Do I look at it and see what cards you've got? In my case, no I don't because I have a certain ethic about cheating in games (that have human opponents--when the opponent is a computer, whether I cheat depends on how much respect I have for the game and other factors) and I'm pedantic and I want to try to play by all the rules. So no, I don't look at the cards.

But another person might look at the other guy's cards and rationalize it as being a "more technically advanced style of play". Note that it becomes easier to rationalize cheating when you don't actually see the person that you're screwing over. It also becomes more tempting when there's money on the line. Don't people still pay big bucks on eBay for high-power EQ chars?

When you look at it that way, it's easy (for me anyway) to start to see the EQ "cheaters" as "power users", even though I know they're not. It becomes easier to lie to myself, because it becomes increasingly tempting to become on of them so I can set myself up a nice little business on eBay and make money (this is human nature in action, folks) out of little bits of data and other people's gulibility. :-) But making money off of people's gulibility always leaves a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak). That's why I'll never be a politician or a lawyer.

But the point, Group Two, is that there is no need to let Group One get away with so much in this situation. The server could, perhaps, be better written to give away less information. That would be a perfect example of doing the Right Thing. (But also note "deserves to lose". I suppose this is where some of the Group One people are coming from.) Yes, unfortunatetly, that might require some rewrites and it might increase the required bandwidth, but... Think of the Children!! (sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) )

So how can we get to that point? What would get Sony to rewrite the code some more so that the client has less info to go on? Simple. Release WinSEQ. Then they won't have much choice.

This is not a new battle. It's just the age-old war of access to information being played out AGAIN . Other examples include: illegally copying mp3s, application programs, games programs, ALL programs. Where do YOU draw the line? What level of information access do you think is okay, and what do you think is wrong? Does your philosophy have any contradictions? Are you aware that arguing for illegalization of spam whilst also arguing for legalization of file trading implies that your right to privacy is greater than the right of copyright? But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not. Have you ever thought about the implications of that? How many more times will we have to go through this, I wonder? A hundred times? A million?

I think fifty years from now, people will look back on this age of poorly defined/handled information access rights and laugh. Heck, I live in this time and I already laugh at it!

bitch, bitch, bitch.
Geez!

To the "It's ok to cheat!" group (Group One):
No it isn't. If it were, it wouldn't be called "cheating".

To the "cheating is bad" group (Group Two):
no shit. But someone will always cheat. This isn't the simple, clear cut right-and-wrong thing that some people make it out to be though. It would be if everyone was Dudly Do-Right, but they're not and they never will be.

If it were automatic for everyone to do-the-right-thing, banks would not need safes and locks and guards and all else. There is always, in human nature, the struggle between what society says you should do and what you actually want to do. Note that things get even more confused because certain elements in society will say that it's okay to do what you want to (i.e. Group One). For some people, some of the time, there is a temptation to cheat.

Suppose, for example, that you and I are playing a game of cards. Now suppose you've got to get up and leave the room for a bit. I stare at your hand lying face down on the table. Do I look at it and see what cards you've got? In my case, no I don't because I have a certain ethic about cheating in games (that have human opponents--when the opponent is a computer, whether I cheat depends on how much respect I have for the game and other factors) and I'm pedantic and I want to try to play by all the rules. So no, I don't look at the cards.

But another person might look at the other guy's cards and rationalize it as being a "more technically advanced style of play". Note that it becomes easier to rationalize cheating when you don't actually see the person that you're screwing over. It also becomes more tempting when there's money on the line. Don't people still pay big bucks on eBay for high-power EQ chars?

When you look at it that way, it's easy (for me anyway) to start to see the EQ "cheaters" as "power users", even though I know they're not. It becomes easier to lie to myself, because it becomes increasingly tempting to become on of them so I can set myself up a nice little business on eBay and make money (this is human nature in action, folks) out of little bits of data and other people's gulibility. :-) But making money off of people's gulibility always leaves a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak). That's why I'll never be a politician or a lawyer.

But the point, Group Two, is that there is no need to let Group One get away with so much in this situation. The server could, perhaps, be better written to give away less information. That would be a perfect example of doing the Right Thing. (But also note "deserves to lose". I suppose this is where some of the Group One people are coming from.) Yes, unfortunatetly, that might require some rewrites and it might increase the required bandwidth, but... Think of the Children!! (sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) )

So how can we get to that point? What would get Sony to rewrite the code some more so that the client has less info to go on? Simple. Release WinSEQ. Then they won't have much choice.

This is not a new battle. It's just the age-old war of access to information being played out AGAIN . Other examples include: illegally copying mp3s, application programs, games programs, ALL programs. Where do YOU draw the line? What level of information access do you think is okay, and what do you think is wrong? Does your philosophy have any contradictions? Are you aware that arguing for illegalization of spam whilst also arguing for legalization of file trading implies that your right to privacy is greater than the right of copyright? But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not. Have you ever thought about the implications of that? How many more times will we have to go through this, I wonder? A hundred times? A million?

I think fifty years from now, people will look back on this age of poorly defined/handled information access rights and laugh. Heck, I live in this time and I already laugh at it!

Sounds like a poor implementation of the HCF assembler instruction.

Immobile Robot: (politically correct term) used to describe a robot which has suffered a Blue Screen of Death.

Similar, but more polite form of: "Who borked the bot?", "The bot's FUBARed", or This bot is hosed!"

One possible cause for an immobile robot is a users irresponsible experimentation with magic.

Immobile Robot: (politically correct term) used to describe a robot which has suffered a Blue Screen of Death.

Similar, but more polite form of: "Who borked the bot?", "The bot's FUBARed", or This bot is hosed!"

One possible cause for an immobile robot is a users irresponsible experimentation with magic.

Immobile Robot: (politically correct term) used to describe a robot which has suffered a Blue Screen of Death.

Similar, but more polite form of: "Who borked the bot?", "The bot's FUBARed", or This bot is hosed!"

One possible cause for an immobile robot is a users irresponsible experimentation with magic.

Immobile Robot: (politically correct term) used to describe a robot which has suffered a Blue Screen of Death.

Similar, but more polite form of: "Who borked the bot?", "The bot's FUBARed", or This bot is hosed!"

One possible cause for an immobile robot is a users irresponsible experimentation with magic.

Immobile Robot: (politically correct term) used to describe a robot which has suffered a Blue Screen of Death.

Similar, but more polite form of: "Who borked the bot?", "The bot's FUBARed", or This bot is hosed!"

One possible cause for an immobile robot is a users irresponsible experimentation with magic.

BTW: What does the X stand for?

According to the Jargon File, it was so named because it was the successor of an earlier window system called "W".

YHBT.YHL.HAND

counterprogramming - mitigating the erroneous behavior of a computer system by applying unusual or inconsistent inputs; counteracting the effect of badly designed software by placing the system in a state where the malfunctioning component is disabled or overridden, usually via specially designed inputs

Rather amusing definition. It would fit in fine in the Hacker Jargon Lexicon, but then I looked at it a second time and realized something...

If you put that definition in a typical dictionary it would probably cause severe pain or physical injury to humans. (Humans: a species closely related to, yet distinct from hackers, nerds, geeks.) Two thirds of the words have more than 3 letters - typical symptoms include severe discomfort and profuse sweating. Half of the words contain more than 6 letters - symptoms include severe pain, nausea, and vomiting. One sixth of the words contain 10 or more letters - symptoms include bleeding from the eyes and ears, coma, possible permanent neurological damage. There would have been a risk of death if more than one fouth of the words had 12 or more letters.

1 a
1 a
2 by
2 by
2 in
2 is
2 of
2 of
2 or
2 or
3 the
3 the
3 the
3 the
5 badly
5 state
5 where
6 effect
6 inputs
6 inputs
6 system
6 system
7 placing
7 unusual
7 usually
8 applying
8 behavior
8 computer
8 designed
8 designed
8 disabled
8 software
9 component
9 erroneous
9 specially
10 mitigating
10 overridden
10 via
12 inconsistent
13 counteracting
14 malfunctioning
18 counterprogramming

-

Nathan Hale.

Ahem. What I meant to say was:

FUD

FUD

I thought the explanation for the name was here, where boa is roughly a synonym for fat pipe -- something you need a fast server to saturate.

MS-DOS /M-S-dos/ n.

[MicroSoft Disk Operating System] A clone of CP/M for the 8088 crufted together in 6 weeks by hacker Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Products, who called the original QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) and is said to have regretted it ever since. Microsoft licensed QDOS in order to have something to demo for IBM on time, and the rest is history. Numerous features, including vaguely Unix-like but rather broken support for subdirectories, I/O redirection, and pipelines, were hacked into Microsoft's 2.0 and subsequent versions; as a result, there are two or more incompatible versions of many system calls, and MS-DOS programmers can never agree on basic things like what character to use as an option switch or whether to be case-sensitive. The resulting appalling mess is now the highest-unit-volume OS in history.

If you'd just RTFM, you'd know what RTFM means, dammit!

So, please RTFM!

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

Panic ensues - you have 400 plus people in a hollow pressurized tube, and now you have given them the ability to evacuate. The airlines' perspective will follow Murphy's Law, and under the assumption that there will be the ONE PASSENGER to fire the bolts on the emergency doors at 30k feet, or discharge his chute in the plane, or generally endanger the passengers, they will not do it. Now why it is true that the possibility exists in any scenario where passengers will probably have to experience an emergency landing, the chute will be a security blanket and make them think they'll survive, and SOMEBODY who's seen a movie where people jump out of planes will attempt to be the hero.

Seriously, this patenting nonsense is completely antagonistic to the spirit of scientific inquiry. There are so many extremely difficult problems to be solved in molecular biology. How can we predict protein folding? How does morphogenesis produce perfectly formed organs? How do neural networks store and retrieve memories? It's a fascinating challenge and to solve it we need to maintain an open scientific environment with the free flow of ideas.

As others have noted , the Open Source software movement has drawn upon the paradigm of scientific research for its extraordinary growth and success.

What Pellionisz is doing is just the opposite. He's promoting the 'Proprietary Corporate Control' paradigm for scientific research.

Newton stood upon the shoulders of giants to make his great discoveries. These days people like Pellionisz use the boots of greed to trample science into the mud.

mhack

``I guess people prefer not having to reboot their phones.''
Not to mention having to insert the Windows CD and entering that CD-key with the phone keypad every time the thing screws up. It reminds me of the series of If MicroSoft Made Cars jokes. Of course everyone knows that the only thing M$ is after making is toaster ovens.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

INTERCAL

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/h omesteading

Linus Torvalds uses it (as email headers from his lkml messages confirm).

Most big corporations have intelligent technicians. However, the message gets lost somewhere between tech and management.

This, of course, is the basis for the SNAFU principle:

...mount the scratch monkey.

And that, of course, is the end of the discussion.

According to who?

SGI. The sentence use the practical reverse-bananana compression idiom, the original which was first revealed in the holy book of HAKMEM

Please add the string "I am not a" in front of your Geek Member Card.

I've been using bogofilter (a Bayesian spam filter) for a while now, and I must say I'm very pleased. Since installing it, not a single spam has slipped through. And more importantly, it only miscategorized one "ham" message so far. But that was understandable, since the message was from a .jp domain and had a subject that, at first glance, fit into the typical spam profile.

One thing to keep in mind, though - with these sorts of filters, you have to "train" them for them to work effectively. I saved up 1100 spam e-mails and ran them through bogofilter when I set it up, to teach it what spam looks like. I also ran all my legit e-mail folders through it to show it some ham as well. This is probably why I've gotten such great results so quickly. If you install something like bogofilter, be prepared to slowly train it as your spam trickles/flows in normally, or save up a bunch of spams to train it with all at once.

Godwin's Law.

"virii" is perfectly acceptable hacker speak

Unaccountable how, exactly?

Well, I was joking, but if you really want to know, read The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The only currency in the Open Source market is recognition and peer review. They provide the only pressure (but it is often sufficient) for people to produce secure, bug-free, usable software.

you kiddin'?

you need to catch up on your geek lore.

this stuff's been happenin' since the dawn of computing!

RTFM

Seriously, I'll take corporate thugs anyday over Linux users' attitudes.

"Nearly all the Xbox and PS/2 games in the world don't hold up to a single quality [sic]PC game.

Compare: "Nearly all the PC games is the world don't hold up to a single, high-quality console game."

Yes, 90% of anything is crap, and that crap won't compare to the best of the best. JSRF sure kicks the ass of Daikatana, just like Half-Life kicks the ass of Azurik.

If you're going to troll, at least try and be good at it.

schroedinbug /shroh'din-buhg/ n.

[MIT: from the Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment in quantum physics] A design or implementation bug in a program that doesn't manifest until someone reading source or using the program in an unusual way notices that it never should have worked, at which point the program promptly stops working for everybody until fixed. Though (like bit rot ) this sounds impossible, it happens; some programs have harbored latent schroedinbugs for years. Compare heisenbug , Bohr bug , mandelbug .

Leeched from the Jargon Files.

schroedinbug /shroh'din-buhg/ n.

[MIT: from the Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment in quantum physics] A design or implementation bug in a program that doesn't manifest until someone reading source or using the program in an unusual way notices that it never should have worked, at which point the program promptly stops working for everybody until fixed. Though (like bit rot ) this sounds impossible, it happens; some programs have harbored latent schroedinbugs for years. Compare heisenbug , Bohr bug , mandelbug .

Leeched from the Jargon Files.

schroedinbug /shroh'din-buhg/ n.

[MIT: from the Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment in quantum physics] A design or implementation bug in a program that doesn't manifest until someone reading source or using the program in an unusual way notices that it never should have worked, at which point the program promptly stops working for everybody until fixed. Though (like bit rot ) this sounds impossible, it happens; some programs have harbored latent schroedinbugs for years. Compare heisenbug , Bohr bug , mandelbug .

Leeched from the Jargon Files.

schroedinbug /shroh'din-buhg/ n.

[MIT: from the Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment in quantum physics] A design or implementation bug in a program that doesn't manifest until someone reading source or using the program in an unusual way notices that it never should have worked, at which point the program promptly stops working for everybody until fixed. Though (like bit rot ) this sounds impossible, it happens; some programs have harbored latent schroedinbugs for years. Compare heisenbug , Bohr bug , mandelbug .

Leeched from the Jargon Files.

Microsoft is the Evil Empire. Threfore, it's only natural that people hate them. You are right though--people shouldn't simply bash M$--at least they shouldn't all the time. :-) Instead, they should continually remind people of their past history of destroying all who stand in their way by buying them, or copying their stuff and running them out of business. Whenever Bill Gates talks of Microsoft's "freedom to innovate", what he really means is "freedom to steal". (or if you want to me to be more accurate and less dramatic: "freedom to use other peoples' ideas unconditionally without having to pay them or give them credit or be indebted to them in anyway". This would not be so bad except that MS doesn't want to extend that same, uh, courtesy to anyone who does the same to them. They want it all. All the time. They don't want to share.

Btw, did you actually read the article? It's not good at all. It tries to make the implicit assertion: "computer security problems" == "potential for cyberterrorism". Not a good thing for people to get in their heads. The article even makes reference to 9/11! This is the worst part:

During the week of Sept. 11-18, 2001, terrorist attacks and the Nimda virus changed the public's perspective on security, [Mundie] said.

Not good for us geeks, not good at all.

I'm certain that whatever motives ROC government had in requesting Windows source code from MSFT are far from pure. However, given the NSA_KEY episode and the existance of things like ECHELON, I have to believe that any foreign government has to suspect US government spyware might be in Windows.

If the government of ROC doesn't at least think about the possibility of TLA agency spyware or trojans in such a massive closed-source OS, they aren't being paranoid enough.

Bogofilter is an out of the box C based implementation of naive Bayesian spam filtering that WORKS. I've had 0 false positives over the last several weeks and almost 0 false negatives (maybe 1 or 2) I get about 20 spams per day.

gene exchange is just one method by which bacteria maintain genetic diversity.

Genes are software. Thus, bacterial conjugation is a form of software exchange, or "SEX" for short. Or is it piracy?

...first read "The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary" by Eric S. Raymond. There's also an online version, but I urge you to buy a paper one, becuase it's really a great book, and you seem to be exactly the kind of person who needs to read it. (Of course, I'm talking to smelroy, the original poster of "How Do You Sell Linux Software?" question.)

because not all of us are ESR ... by choice

i mean, going from a nancy boy, frolicking with guns, to picking up chicks. it's a choice my man.

oh, and so to not be OT, here

because not all of us are ESR ... by choice

i mean, going from a nancy boy, frolicking with guns, to picking up chicks. it's a choice my man.

oh, and so to not be OT, here

because not all of us are ESR ... by choice

i mean, going from a nancy boy, frolicking with guns, to picking up chicks. it's a choice my man.

oh, and so to not be OT, here

because not all of us are ESR ... by choice

i mean, going from a nancy boy, frolicking with guns, to picking up chicks. it's a choice my man.

oh, and so to not be OT, here