"ping mail" and "ping news" returned proper ip addresses behind my firewall. Strange thing is, cable mail and news never works with ATT@home. Could it be because they use NT? I think so!
Oh yeah, their DNS server never works either. I don't know about their DHCP server, but I would expect similar success.
That's right, every time you get in your car and hit 40 MPH, you have put the same energy into your body as a 100' elevation or so. That's dangerous, so people have made roads without obstructions and are careful about crossing them. Still, some 30,000 in the US loose their lives to driving every year. It's just not a good idea to move too fast close to the ground.
When you add up the unique risks, the two activites come out about as risky as the other. On the ground there are more obsticals and chances to wipe out. In the air, minor mechanical problems will kill you and crosswinds will do more than make you yank at the wheel. Look out for those! -BZZZZaaaap!- power lines, oh my.
Let's not forget the public nuisance factor. You can put stuff in front of your house to bounce runaway vehicles, but what can you do for your roof? If you like leaf blowers, your gonna love these.
All and all, I'm with you but it's a loosing battle. It would be much better if people would just build their towns to reasonable population densities with mixed development and a good grid. That way, you would not need a car, much less one of these bad jokes. Unfortunately, Anglo construction especially US, is so bad that these things will come. People will mitigate the hazards associated with flying, and owning one will be equated to freedom, or something like that. Many forms of them will be built, from the humble scooter to the minivan and they fun to use and they will kill lots of people.
And the world overhead will laugh when my 1970 VW van finds it's telephone pole.
The craters--intended for water storage or for construction--were so radioactive that they never went forward with the program beyond the test site.
Not quite. Plowshare was killed by public opinon, and a lack of overriding need. If the US really needed to build a great canal tomrow, you bet this would be on the table. Of course, the irrational opposition would be there too.
People die digging canals but they don't have to. Weigh it up.
Oh my God, a stray alpha particle! Get a rope! There are acceptable levels of exposure. It's a shame that the rules are guided by people who are ignorant of
All you micro-turds ready to smack this down again? Last post modded to -1 flame bait will be reposted with improvements. Eat it.
Huh! MS junk costs my company plenty of bucks, and the goodies are all getting broken by the MS march of progress. Yep, that custom tiff server for documents has all sorts of problems with it's printers now. I'm not even going to get into the six or seven easily broken passwords everyone has to generate or the Unified paperless system that could take out a whole rainforest every year. Suffice it to say that people have to did and dig and dig, and then it does not always work anymore.
Now for the orininal post: Sounds Reasonable, but It IS NOT. The point of which was that ANYONE can BURN a MS network with MS BS.
There are reasons for hanging onto Microsoft junk, but reliablilty and security are laughable.
As a user in an MS shop, I can tell you your policy won't stop squat. All those cute litle.exe files people swap around on email come from the web to begin with! If you don't filter web watching and downloading, your NT users are going to download any old thing they feel like. Wingate, sniffer programs, stupid little cursor programs that eat up bandwith reporting employee surfing habits, real audio (barf) whatever! SMS is not going to clean up that broken registry even if you do remove offending programs. In the end, your gonna have to do whay you always do, tromp down to that desk and spend hours trying to fix it with those substandard MS tools. Security on NT is as good as, well security on NT!.
So, what do you tell people who ask for Linux becuase it works better and will shave a few bucks off the departmental budget? I hope you can live up to your claimed flexibility when the trickle of requests becomes a flood.
THE ONLY REASON TO HANG ON TO THAT CRAP IS BECAUSE IT'S THERE. It would cost too much to replace it all at once, so just let MS break it one piece at a time. GET OFF YOUR ASS, LAZY SYSADMINS, MOVE TO SOMETHING THAT WORKS.
The point of the original over rated post was that people should use blender because it had no liscencing fee, a degree of software freedom.
The post was a troll. As others have noted, ID has GPLed significant chunks of software and, of course, are free of both fees and and other greed motivated restrictions.
No where did I suggest that anyone should die, though I would always recomend a free tool over one with restrictions. If fact, I have to commend these blender people for giving away what looks like a nice shiny binary. Greater praise, however, must go to those who GPL. If the issue is tiresome to you, go read some nice ZDnet stuff. I don't think I'll ever tire of telling people what a great idea free software is.
You won't find that at NaN yet. Blender comes binary only, with a copyright that you can only see once you have downloaded their package. See blender's beginner page to confirm for yourself.
It's nice that it's no cost, but it's not free! People who know where the free software foundation page is (www.fsf.org) will know what free implies and be missled by rash's orignial post. Those who don't know what free software is, and I imagine a general interest article about Quake and graphics will attract many of you, should visit the page cited.
I must thank the shithead who labled my post flamebait. Thanks, Shithead!
Some people might expect source when they see the word free, and in the case of Quake they would be correct. As another poster here has noted, Quake has released software under GPL. Blender would dissapoint anyone who looked for source.
Knowing that Quake can be had GPL, I will not be downloading Blender.
While Blender looks like a fine product and is provided at no cost , it is not a source code distribution and is not free . Thank you for pointing to Blender, I may download it one day.
While the following search may not find anything on bacteria in salt, it does turn up some great articles on 300 million year old bacteria in oil. This has been postulated since the 1920's. People pooh-poohed this too by claiming that all the samples were contaminated, but it looks like the microbes were there.
Bacteria in salt? I would not be too sceptical. Stranger things have happened.
So can I and I did a little research. The following links offer a glimpse at bacteria evolution and also demonstrate that this has happened before without harm.
Bacteria evolve at a furious rate and we can expect new varieties to appear for any environment provided. They live where it is cold, where it is hot, and even in space! This article http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196exploratio ns.html features an interesting experiment where bacteria were observed to evolve several times in four years.
This article http://www.sciam.com/1096issue/1096onstott.html#1 covers research of bacteria found in oil deposits and other unlikely places. Bacteria found in oil can be 300 million years old, and have certianly gotten out before. They get away with and without man's help, and you deal with it every day.
Now get back to work, everybody! No more strikes and millsmashing, execpt you poor loosers at dot coms. Dot com-ers can just go home.
How did you miss this? He describes legitimate reverse engineering as theft. Look at that second quote again:
The classic method of reverse-engineering a programmable-logic design involves cycling through all possible device input combinations and capturing the corresponding output bit patterns. By using essentially a huge Karnaugh map (often with high-powered computer help) or through visual inspection of data patterns, a thief can derive the Boolean equations that define the internal logic.
The author is not being clever about this, and I'm not being dull. He is not saying theives can reverse engineer (or any verb) , therfore people who reverse engineer (or any verb) are theives. He is saying that reverse engineering is theft. It's a boldface lie rather than bad logic.
This is an attempt to shape public opion the same way Billy G. did with software EULAs and the RIAA did with music copying. Making a logic table between input and output is not theft and people who do it are not theives. The author has lumped such people criminal activity, lazyness and moraly questionable judgement. If it's wrong for companies to do on moral grounds, it's wrong for you and me too, isn't it? Sorry, I don't buy it, and he deserves the flaming he got here for the attempt.
Does he flat out say that reverse-engineering is illegal?
It looks like he's calling it illegal to me:
The other harder but possibly even more damaging form of theft is "reverse-engineering." In that scenario, someone uses the information stored in the programmable-logic device to reconstruct the original circuit details and then alters and incorporates those details in part or whole into other designs.
Here he has called something that looks like bios copying reverse engineering. This is a miss use of terms. We can ignore a discussion on the history of bios copyrights and all that because, later he says what he really means:
The classic method of reverse-engineering a programmable-logic design involves cycling through all possible device input combinations and capturing the corresponding output bit patterns. By using essentially a huge Karnaugh map (often with high-powered computer help) or through visual inspection of data patterns, a thief can derive the Boolean equations that define the internal logic.
This really is reverse engineering and he is calling it theft and thereby implying it's illegal! The "thief" in this case can be doing anything from playing with furby to petting a real cat to learn about it. If the "thief" then tries to duplicate what he sees, he has commited, horrors, design theft. BZZZZZZZZZT!
He deserves a stomping for being both greedy and wrong. People who follow his design philosopy will produce Byzantine junk: overly complex, deceptive, and functionaly suboptimal. In the end his toys will be much less useful and equally less desirable. He will be burried by any competitor that produces straight forward products that replicate useful functionality. He can cry illegal all he wants, buy Compaq and others have proved him wrong.
Wireless has real prommise, but would it be needed if the right of ways were realy opened up? Wireless has to connect at some point.
Regulation is what monopoly grants are all about. The idea is to get a service without getting raped. The most sucessful and natural of these was electricity production, where the utilities were prommised 13% proffit and no more. So cable companies got their monopoly, where are the regulations? Do you really want internet regulations?
I'd rather see the cable monoply frachises dissapear in a cloud of reason. Just about everybody has freaking cable, and the cost of installing has got to have gone down by now. I have visions of big fat cable plants and excess capacity when each build up ends. It's too bad the monoply franchises were ever granted instead of waiting for cable to grow on it's own. The cable right of way runs underneath powerlines in my back yard. There's plenty of room for other wires up there.
Hopefully in such a system, we wouldn't have pointlessly diverse content delivery systems (coax, twisted pair, circuit switched, packet switched, etc.), but instead be blessed with an all-fiber network that runs right into the point of delivery.
When has choice ever been pointless?
Monopoly cable grants are the root of the problem. I get rapped by my ATT because they are the only people my local government has alowed to run cable. I'm not convinced that this rape was ever needed, and I'll never be convinced that it should last forever. I'll feel far more empowered if the public right of way is opened up rather than clamped down by my city hall.
Cable is not like electricity, where centrilization and standards had demonstrable social savings and monopolies made sense. Nor is it like the phone network where you need an individual line to each house. The more information networks you have the better off you are. Open it up and let the greedheads fight for clients.
Regulation should be along the lines of free access. No, not spam. People should be alowed to serve in a pull based way, it's the free speech of the future. Access should also be provided to the poor, as this will be the 911 of the future as well, but that is another matter to be considered if anyone can prove that it would be cheaper to abandon the current voice phone network than to expand and maintain it.
don't think that they have enough influence to do this, though. For one, they'd have to destroy all existing open source software and make it illegal to sell all forms of digital/analog converters...
Not quite. They could just change audio formats to DVD and let all the CD players in the world rot away. DVD players would have to have RIAA, DMCPA sanctioned controlers that would refuse to play music without a watermark. Your new Sound Blaster would also have to conform
By the way, in 5 years or so your PC will look hopelessly archaic next to everyone else's pocket jukebox. Who needs physical media when we can all consume great music for just pennies a second?
I just visited one of your posts on being a consultant in the 80's and 90's. I would think that you would like free software as much as you like being a consultant.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I was too lazy to look that up.
I wonder how many of those port scans are cable admins?
Oh yeah, their DNS server never works either. I don't know about their DHCP server, but I would expect similar success.
Is there anyone else out there that got cable because of a static IP? Arrrrg! The day ATT kills my static IP is the day I drop their cable service.
When you add up the unique risks, the two activites come out about as risky as the other. On the ground there are more obsticals and chances to wipe out. In the air, minor mechanical problems will kill you and crosswinds will do more than make you yank at the wheel. Look out for those! -BZZZZaaaap!- power lines, oh my.
Let's not forget the public nuisance factor. You can put stuff in front of your house to bounce runaway vehicles, but what can you do for your roof? If you like leaf blowers, your gonna love these.
All and all, I'm with you but it's a loosing battle. It would be much better if people would just build their towns to reasonable population densities with mixed development and a good grid. That way, you would not need a car, much less one of these bad jokes. Unfortunately, Anglo construction especially US, is so bad that these things will come. People will mitigate the hazards associated with flying, and owning one will be equated to freedom, or something like that. Many forms of them will be built, from the humble scooter to the minivan and they fun to use and they will kill lots of people.
And the world overhead will laugh when my 1970 VW van finds it's telephone pole.
Not quite. Plowshare was killed by public opinon, and a lack of overriding need. If the US really needed to build a great canal tomrow, you bet this would be on the table. Of course, the irrational opposition would be there too.
People die digging canals but they don't have to. Weigh it up.
Oh my God, a stray alpha particle! Get a rope! There are acceptable levels of exposure. It's a shame that the rules are guided by people who are ignorant of
Huh! MS junk costs my company plenty of bucks, and the goodies are all getting broken by the MS march of progress. Yep, that custom tiff server for documents has all sorts of problems with it's printers now. I'm not even going to get into the six or seven easily broken passwords everyone has to generate or the Unified paperless system that could take out a whole rainforest every year. Suffice it to say that people have to did and dig and dig, and then it does not always work anymore.
Now for the orininal post: Sounds Reasonable, but It IS NOT. The point of which was that ANYONE can BURN a MS network with MS BS.
There are reasons for hanging onto Microsoft junk, but reliablilty and security are laughable.
As a user in an MS shop, I can tell you your policy won't stop squat. All those cute litle .exe files people swap around on email come from the web to begin with! If you don't filter web watching and downloading, your NT users are going to download any old thing they feel like. Wingate, sniffer programs, stupid little cursor programs that eat up bandwith reporting employee surfing habits, real audio (barf) whatever! SMS is not going to clean up that broken registry even if you do remove offending programs. In the end, your gonna have to do whay you always do, tromp down to that desk and spend hours trying to fix it with those substandard MS tools. Security on NT is as good as, well security on NT!.
So, what do you tell people who ask for Linux becuase it works better and will shave a few bucks off the departmental budget? I hope you can live up to your claimed flexibility when the trickle of requests becomes a flood.
THE ONLY REASON TO HANG ON TO THAT CRAP IS BECAUSE IT'S THERE. It would cost too much to replace it all at once, so just let MS break it one piece at a time. GET OFF YOUR ASS, LAZY SYSADMINS, MOVE TO SOMETHING THAT WORKS.
No updates since 1998? I wonder how many of those exploits still work. Show, not sell, me the fixes.
The post was a troll. As others have noted, ID has GPLed significant chunks of software and, of course, are free of both fees and and other greed motivated restrictions.
No where did I suggest that anyone should die, though I would always recomend a free tool over one with restrictions. If fact, I have to commend these blender people for giving away what looks like a nice shiny binary. Greater praise, however, must go to those who GPL. If the issue is tiresome to you, go read some nice ZDnet stuff. I don't think I'll ever tire of telling people what a great idea free software is.
Who needs to read that clueless crap?
You won't find that at NaN yet. Blender comes binary only, with a copyright that you can only see once you have downloaded their package. See blender's beginner page to confirm for yourself.
It's nice that it's no cost, but it's not free! People who know where the free software foundation page is (www.fsf.org) will know what free implies and be missled by rash's orignial post. Those who don't know what free software is, and I imagine a general interest article about Quake and graphics will attract many of you, should visit the page cited.
Some people might expect source when they see the word free, and in the case of Quake they would be correct. As another poster here has noted, Quake has released software under GPL. Blender would dissapoint anyone who looked for source.
Knowing that Quake can be had GPL, I will not be downloading Blender.
While Blender looks like a fine product and is provided at no cost , it is not a source code distribution and is not free . Thank you for pointing to Blender, I may download it one day.
Bacteria in salt? I would not be too sceptical. Stranger things have happened.
Eeeewwwww! Bacteria in petrolium!
Bacteria evolve at a furious rate and we can expect new varieties to appear for any environment provided. They live where it is cold, where it is hot, and even in space! This article http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196exploratio ns.html features an interesting experiment where bacteria were observed to evolve several times in four years.
This article http://www.sciam.com/1096issue/1096onstott.html#1 covers research of bacteria found in oil deposits and other unlikely places. Bacteria found in oil can be 300 million years old, and have certianly gotten out before. They get away with and without man's help, and you deal with it every day.
Now get back to work, everybody! No more strikes and millsmashing, execpt you poor loosers at dot coms. Dot com-ers can just go home.
Police: Verry funny, Mr. Paxton. Save it for your lawey. Off to jail!
The classic method of reverse-engineering a programmable-logic design involves cycling through all possible device input combinations and capturing the corresponding output bit patterns. By using essentially a huge Karnaugh map (often with high-powered computer help) or through visual inspection of data patterns, a thief can derive the Boolean equations that define the internal logic.
The author is not being clever about this, and I'm not being dull. He is not saying theives can reverse engineer (or any verb) , therfore people who reverse engineer (or any verb) are theives. He is saying that reverse engineering is theft. It's a boldface lie rather than bad logic.
This is an attempt to shape public opion the same way Billy G. did with software EULAs and the RIAA did with music copying. Making a logic table between input and output is not theft and people who do it are not theives. The author has lumped such people criminal activity, lazyness and moraly questionable judgement. If it's wrong for companies to do on moral grounds, it's wrong for you and me too, isn't it? Sorry, I don't buy it, and he deserves the flaming he got here for the attempt.
The big three automakers will not make a car that lasts more than 5 years and so I'm never going to buy one.
Now that's a crook!
It looks like he's calling it illegal to me:
The other harder but possibly even more damaging form of theft is "reverse-engineering." In that scenario, someone uses the information stored in the programmable-logic device to reconstruct the original circuit details and then alters and incorporates those details in part or whole into other designs.
Here he has called something that looks like bios copying reverse engineering. This is a miss use of terms. We can ignore a discussion on the history of bios copyrights and all that because, later he says what he really means:
The classic method of reverse-engineering a programmable-logic design involves cycling through all possible device input combinations and capturing the corresponding output bit patterns. By using essentially a huge Karnaugh map (often with high-powered computer help) or through visual inspection of data patterns, a thief can derive the Boolean equations that define the internal logic.
This really is reverse engineering and he is calling it theft and thereby implying it's illegal! The "thief" in this case can be doing anything from playing with furby to petting a real cat to learn about it. If the "thief" then tries to duplicate what he sees, he has commited, horrors, design theft. BZZZZZZZZZT!
He deserves a stomping for being both greedy and wrong. People who follow his design philosopy will produce Byzantine junk: overly complex, deceptive, and functionaly suboptimal. In the end his toys will be much less useful and equally less desirable. He will be burried by any competitor that produces straight forward products that replicate useful functionality. He can cry illegal all he wants, buy Compaq and others have proved him wrong.
Police interview:
Paxton: Here it is! I got it in the mail.
Police: Really?! Who sent it to you?
Paxton: I don't know.
Police: Well then, why don't you hang around while we get this sorted out. We've got some nice rooms for people like you.
Paxton: Wait!
Regulation is what monopoly grants are all about. The idea is to get a service without getting raped. The most sucessful and natural of these was electricity production, where the utilities were prommised 13% proffit and no more. So cable companies got their monopoly, where are the regulations? Do you really want internet regulations?
I'd rather see the cable monoply frachises dissapear in a cloud of reason. Just about everybody has freaking cable, and the cost of installing has got to have gone down by now. I have visions of big fat cable plants and excess capacity when each build up ends. It's too bad the monoply franchises were ever granted instead of waiting for cable to grow on it's own. The cable right of way runs underneath powerlines in my back yard. There's plenty of room for other wires up there.
When has choice ever been pointless?
Monopoly cable grants are the root of the problem. I get rapped by my ATT because they are the only people my local government has alowed to run cable. I'm not convinced that this rape was ever needed, and I'll never be convinced that it should last forever. I'll feel far more empowered if the public right of way is opened up rather than clamped down by my city hall.
Cable is not like electricity, where centrilization and standards had demonstrable social savings and monopolies made sense. Nor is it like the phone network where you need an individual line to each house. The more information networks you have the better off you are. Open it up and let the greedheads fight for clients.
Regulation should be along the lines of free access. No, not spam. People should be alowed to serve in a pull based way, it's the free speech of the future. Access should also be provided to the poor, as this will be the 911 of the future as well, but that is another matter to be considered if anyone can prove that it would be cheaper to abandon the current voice phone network than to expand and maintain it.
Not quite. They could just change audio formats to DVD and let all the CD players in the world rot away. DVD players would have to have RIAA, DMCPA sanctioned controlers that would refuse to play music without a watermark. Your new Sound Blaster would also have to conform
By the way, in 5 years or so your PC will look hopelessly archaic next to everyone else's pocket jukebox. Who needs physical media when we can all consume great music for just pennies a second?
And why would anyone non RIAA want to record or publish? Don't you know anyone with any talent signs up? As last month's Scientific American put it, you should watch out for "a small number of computer scientists to create software that subverts the efforts of government" because speech without accountability is dangerous and can even get people killed. Better be a good boy and buy the toys that Scientific American has to sell this month November 2000 issue. Publish? Don't even think about it!
I just visited one of your posts on being a consultant in the 80's and 90's. I would think that you would like free software as much as you like being a consultant.