Unfotunately I don't have any moderator points or I would add mine in along with everyone elses. This is the kind of post I like to see, and the kind I try to post when it's a topic I have experience in.
Anyways, I've always wanted to play with FreeBSD, my reluctance has been based more on device drivers, and the ability to get an X or whatever FreeBSD uses for a GUI operating with my hardware. It's always been my understanding that FreeBSD was limited in this aspect.
Some minor observations: * Linux is great if you want a binary cutting-edge unix-like OS.
* BSD is great if you like to hack/understand your system
I've never really had trouble playing with the source in Linux, it's all available... however I will concede that it sounds as if FreeBSD is much more organized, and that finding the source for a particular program is a much more structured process. I would assume that this is why you say it is good for understanding your system.
I think that it's not just BSD zealots who are superior assholes... Linix zealots get the same way. Which is silly on both their parts IMHO. I turned to Linux six years ago, mainly because of the power and flexibility provided by a *nix at home. Neither system is the end all and be all of operating systems. What makes them so great is the fact that majority of software is easily portable, so you aren't tied to using one particular system, quite unlike the windows world.
...in a way it sort of galls me to say it... I sort of flip both ways on abortion. However, this issue is not about abortion, it's about free speech, and the fact that the government should not be allowed to legislate taste and morality. Yes it's immoral that they cheer the violence and in extremely poor taste, but should the government be allowed to censor... no.
I guess the question is "Where is the line that constitutes conspiracy?". Although I think the whole concept of conspiring to commit a felony is ridiculous. I should be able to conspire all I want so long as I don't act on it.
Not true, I am neither a teenager, nor a teenager in an adault body (no more so than any other 25 year old who plays video games). Like I said give it time. I really liked Master of Bushido, and have been playing a lot of Onimusha, I'd play the PS2 more if I didn't have a computer. I'd buy a DC if I knew it was going to be supported. I enjoy games, and stating that one particular platform is bad is making a generality that is hard to prove. There have been very few systems that completely bombed, and neither DC nor PS2 is one of them.
I agree totally. The RIAA is getting way to big for it's britches. Couple this story with the onw earlier about a rip-proof cd... The RIAA is squashing rights all over the place. It's getting a little sickening. The most effective protest that I can think of of the RIAA would be a boycott, but I'm fairly certain that it would be next to impossible to get a large enough group to avoid buying cd's for any duration of time.
I'm sure the RIAA would want jurisdiction over the opt in decision, thereby also giving them control over independent artists who want to use their talent to make money for themselves instead of paying the music industry to do it for them.
You know all the posts about "PS2" sucks are a bunch of crap. I love my PS2 especially now that more games are coming out. Just like any other system the initial games aren't that amazing.. give it time. After a year of developers ecperimenting with it it will blow the doors off of Dreamcast, only to have the doors blown of it a year or two later. There are some games I would like to play on DC, Shenmue is probably the only one, but I'd never buy one. Why? Because I knew how sega handled their systems... poor support, and a new machine after a ridiculously short time. I did have a Genesis and loved it for game like Shining Force. But if you'll recall the initial games for the DC were awful, there wasn't a single game that interested me, and it wasn't until Shenmue that one did.
All in all I don't get as much enjoyment from a console that I do from a PC game (mmm Fallout Tactics... drool), because they are never as in depth and they just don't offer the flexibility of a good computer game. But realistically (sp?) none of the big consoles suck, they wouldn't be here if they did.
>> "Some of the best and most experienced >>engineers in the world are working on this," >>says Samit of EMI.
Yes and the rest are just waiting to crack it.
I can't believe the music industry is being so blaise about the fact that many consumers are getting ripped off. In fact just about all are. There is no reason that you shouldn't be able to rip songs off of a cd that you purchased (or were given). The music industry acts as if it has some god given right to exist, and that it can do whatever it wants. Don't these music executives realize that without the consumer they do not exist?
Wich means that how it works will be publicly available. Woohoo the patent system works for us for a change. In order to protect their method of protecting their cd's they have to release the details of how it works to the general public, who can then reverse engineer it relatively quickly... how ironic.
...to crack it, but I didn't think of the implications, I can't have the RIAA drawing conclusions from the sale of a cd to me that I bought to screw with them. Guess I'll just have to steal it.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Doesn't this completley take aware fair use. I thought you were allowed to make a copy of any media that you've bought for archival purposes.
I want to be able to store all of my music on my machine so I can have the song I want at my fingertips at any time. This news would have seriously worried me if I wasn't 99% sure that it will be cracked within a week.
...technically it's a computer crime to use a computers resources to which you do not have legitimate access. Even if the door is wide open and there is no security of any kind, you are (legally) in the wrong, even more so if the only security is a warning or disclaimer. Crackers have bee prosecuted on these grounds before. Now surely as things stand the RIAA has every right to monitor P2P networks, if they have the resources and desire, they can look at public files like anyone else. But what if it wasn't strictly public, what if there was a disclaimer barring anyone associated with the RIAA or whomever from viewing these files? Would that work? Probably not, although I believe that it would be legally correct, Johnny Law would never allow the same rules that apply to a 15 year old cracker be turned around and used on a corporation. I'm sure there's a special section in the DMCA for just that circumstance. Anyway something to think about. Kind of hypocritical I think.
...when you think about it, the RIAA is now burning their profit money on monitoring the same tool that they claim has already lowered their profits. At what point do they say, "we're losing more money fighting this thing than it's worth" ?
Of course the other issue here is that in a way the RIAA has come to our stadium to play our way. They're trying to use technology to win, which on the surface may seem like a good idea, but one imprtant thing results that the article does not mention. Speed of innovation. I agree with the statement that the people will always be ahead of the censors. I've said that for years whenever a new media fiasco resulted from some form of "pirating" (note not my term at all) or another. So when the RIAA throws it's hat into the technology ring, instead of preventing P2P they will drive talented developers to create better and greater and more secure methods for file sharing. And every time the RIAA catches up developer speed increases. So the benefit to everyone is new, improved technology for trading files at a faster rate than if the RIAA hadn't tried to monitor us.
To belabor the obvious, this whole media thing with P2P and the RIAA is surely driving more users and potential developers to share files anyway.
The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
I'd say that pretty much sums up Software Engineering.
computers are just tools in other sciences. Computers Science is it's own field. I can't even begin to fathom the idiocy of the author in making this claim. Did we call physics calculator science, or even slide rule science when those were the tools we used for computation? Besides:
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Dijkstra
I'm getting tired of the confusion about what is and isn't Computer Science. Software Engineering is not computer science. I am a Software Engineer, am I also a Computer Scientist in that role? To a very limited extent, yes. I do use tools and methods from computer science on occasion, but rarely in any deeper a fashion than a carpenter uses physics. Yes computer science permeates every facet of what I do, but I am not doing Computer Science. Now in my own work I do take the role of Computer Scientist, many times without even touching a computer.
I've always made the distinction between the practical and the theoretical when it comes to computers and Computer Science. Sure the line may be blurry, and it's difficult (if not impossible) to be a purely practical person without having a grounding and theory, and vice versa, to be good at what you do at least.
Personally I believe that Computer Science, as theory is of higher order than the practical. However, this is not to say that the practical is bad. I pride myself on my, and give others credit for their, practical skills, but it is not Computer Science.
I imagine that if the operating system was not bundled with the computer... but sold as a separate package, or given away free with purchase of a computer, and included detailed instructions like... put cd in drive and turn on computer... the requirement could be avoided.
...or I could gather the domains that serve their ads... edit my hosts file to point to my box instead of theirs, and read mostly ad free... free.
I'm not sure that many people would pay the $30 to remove ads. I guess if you are a frequent Salon reader it might be convenient, but for someone who reads the occasional article? I'd imagine that a person who logs in to just read a story that another site linked to is going to click on an ad in any case. This is the user that is there for a specific purpose. So essentially the users that go to the site specifically to read one article... who are (probably) the least likely to pay attention to ads are shown the ads. While the loyal Salon subscriber who checks the page several times a day just to browse, who (IMHP) is more likely to click on an ad through sheer boredom, if nothing else, is not shown the ads.
On first glance it may seem that Salon doesn't really care if the loyal subscriber does not see ads to click on, however think of it like this:
1. Loyal Subscribers no longer see ads so do not click on them.
2. Infrequent subscribers rarely click on ads.
3. The ad companies see Salon click thoughs going down big time.
4. Salon no longer can get ad campaigns, and institutes a non-free login for everyone who wants to read the articles.
You know, I never really thought about the fact that AOL may be logging and possibly monitoring AIM content. AIM is about the only good thing to come from AOL as far as I'm concerned. It's a very quick and easy way for friends to get in touch with me while I'm at work, and also a convenience in the office to communicate with co workers. I'm sure other companies use it in the same way. Kinda scary that company info, and of course my personal messages could be logged.
I'm pretty sure I'll never get around to implement it (too many other projects), but what we need is a plugin for aim that allows you to associate a public key with a name on your buddy list... whenver you IM that person it is automatically encrypted, and automatically decrypted on the other end by the receivers private key. Let AOL fill their logs with encrypted gibberish.
This may r may not really be an issue, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Of course the only way to be truly safe is through not using AIM for anything sensitive.
That's what I'm talking about. I can thing of a bunch of shows I'd collect and several (The Simpsons, The Wonder Years) that I'd buy as soon as they came out. I just wish the tv guys would get their acts together. I'm sure that it's possible that they don't release them to keep re-run viewership high, but realistically I for one don't watch many syndicated shows... even my favorites like the Wonder Years that comes on in the middle of the night if at all.
The networks also need to understand that people who will watch reruns will still probably watch reruns even when they own the DVD. Hell, I've watched movies that I own when they ran on tv, even with the commercials I still sat there...
Hmmm I'm sure this will do just as well as say police planes wielding radar guns. In most cases the cost was just way to prohibitive for the concept to fly. But if they're willing to try more power to 'em.
I wish the companies that hold the redistribution rights for tv shows would realize the market potential for releasing shows to DVD. For instance, The Simpsons would be nice, and now Futurma (though I do hear that the Simpsons are on their way). There must be plenty of people willing to buy entire seasons of no longer aired tv shows on a DVD, imagine the number of people who would buy MASH for example.
Of course if they did begin to release a lot of these shows you'd probably only get a couple of shows for a $20 DVD. It'd cost a fortune to but a season. It would be great to have a whole season of a tv show on one DVD though.
Of course the one thing that they should have put on DVD and did was every episode of Dexters Lab, Cartoon Network gave it away in a contest, but never released it for sale, I would love to get my hands on that.
I wonder if the fact that the economy has been so good lately has something to do with all of this. Even now we are still doing well, and people have had more disposable cash to blow on tech toys. Most of these toys aren't really needed (ok , no toy really is but you know what I mean) but people can afford them so they buy them, and then complain when they don't always work properly. I think that maybe when people don't have so much free money to spend, this situation doesn't occur. The toys are bought mainly by the people who realy, really want them who most likely aren't going to complain. By the time a product makes it to the mainstream public it has been refined enough to be used on a regular basis.
On another note, it's definitely obvious that we are distributing more complicated products to the masses. The main issue then seems to be UI's , think about it, when you are marketing to the average person, some things have to be dumbed down. Not due to the low intelligence of any specific person, but as method of targetting the least (most) common denominator.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways, I've always wanted to play with FreeBSD, my reluctance has been based more on device drivers, and the ability to get an X or whatever FreeBSD uses for a GUI operating with my hardware. It's always been my understanding that FreeBSD was limited in this aspect.
Some minor observations:
* Linux is great if you want a binary cutting-edge unix-like OS.
* BSD is great if you like to hack/understand your system
I've never really had trouble playing with the source in Linux, it's all available... however I will concede that it sounds as if FreeBSD is much more organized, and that finding the source for a particular program is a much more structured process. I would assume that this is why you say it is good for understanding your system.
I think that it's not just BSD zealots who are superior assholes... Linix zealots get the same way. Which is silly on both their parts IMHO. I turned to Linux six years ago, mainly because of the power and flexibility provided by a *nix at home. Neither system is the end all and be all of operating systems. What makes them so great is the fact that majority of software is easily portable, so you aren't tied to using one particular system, quite unlike the windows world.
Yes it is... that was pretty much my point, I don't believe that you should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime.
I guess the question is "Where is the line that constitutes conspiracy?". Although I think the whole concept of conspiring to commit a felony is ridiculous. I should be able to conspire all I want so long as I don't act on it.
Not true, I am neither a teenager, nor a teenager in an adault body (no more so than any other 25 year old who plays video games). Like I said give it time. I really liked Master of Bushido, and have been playing a lot of Onimusha, I'd play the PS2 more if I didn't have a computer. I'd buy a DC if I knew it was going to be supported. I enjoy games, and stating that one particular platform is bad is making a generality that is hard to prove. There have been very few systems that completely bombed, and neither DC nor PS2 is one of them.
I agree totally. The RIAA is getting way to big for it's britches. Couple this story with the onw earlier about a rip-proof cd... The RIAA is squashing rights all over the place. It's getting a little sickening. The most effective protest that I can think of of the RIAA would be a boycott, but I'm fairly certain that it would be next to impossible to get a large enough group to avoid buying cd's for any duration of time.
I'm sure the RIAA would want jurisdiction over the opt in decision, thereby also giving them control over independent artists who want to use their talent to make money for themselves instead of paying the music industry to do it for them.
All in all I don't get as much enjoyment from a console that I do from a PC game (mmm Fallout Tactics... drool), because they are never as in depth and they just don't offer the flexibility of a good computer game. But realistically (sp?) none of the big consoles suck, they wouldn't be here if they did.
>>engineers in the world are working on this,"
>>says Samit of EMI.
Yes and the rest are just waiting to crack it.
I can't believe the music industry is being so blaise about the fact that many consumers are getting ripped off. In fact just about all are. There is no reason that you shouldn't be able to rip songs off of a cd that you purchased (or were given). The music industry acts as if it has some god given right to exist, and that it can do whatever it wants. Don't these music executives realize that without the consumer they do not exist?
Wich means that how it works will be publicly available. Woohoo the patent system works for us for a change. In order to protect their method of protecting their cd's they have to release the details of how it works to the general public, who can then reverse engineer it relatively quickly... how ironic.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Doesn't this completley take aware fair use. I thought you were allowed to make a copy of any media that you've bought for archival purposes.
I want to be able to store all of my music on my machine so I can have the song I want at my fingertips at any time. This news would have seriously worried me if I wasn't 99% sure that it will be cracked within a week.
Yes because a sniper keeping perfectly still while trying to aim at someone is absolutely ridiculous.
...technically it's a computer crime to use a computers resources to which you do not have legitimate access. Even if the door is wide open and there is no security of any kind, you are (legally) in the wrong, even more so if the only security is a warning or disclaimer. Crackers have bee prosecuted on these grounds before. Now surely as things stand the RIAA has every right to monitor P2P networks, if they have the resources and desire, they can look at public files like anyone else. But what if it wasn't strictly public, what if there was a disclaimer barring anyone associated with the RIAA or whomever from viewing these files? Would that work? Probably not, although I believe that it would be legally correct, Johnny Law would never allow the same rules that apply to a 15 year old cracker be turned around and used on a corporation. I'm sure there's a special section in the DMCA for just that circumstance. Anyway something to think about. Kind of hypocritical I think.
Of course the other issue here is that in a way the RIAA has come to our stadium to play our way. They're trying to use technology to win, which on the surface may seem like a good idea, but one imprtant thing results that the article does not mention. Speed of innovation. I agree with the statement that the people will always be ahead of the censors. I've said that for years whenever a new media fiasco resulted from some form of "pirating" (note not my term at all) or another. So when the RIAA throws it's hat into the technology ring, instead of preventing P2P they will drive talented developers to create better and greater and more secure methods for file sharing. And every time the RIAA catches up developer speed increases. So the benefit to everyone is new, improved technology for trading files at a faster rate than if the RIAA hadn't tried to monitor us.
To belabor the obvious, this whole media thing with P2P and the RIAA is surely driving more users and potential developers to share files anyway.
n. Abbr. e., E., eng.
The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
I'd say that pretty much sums up Software Engineering.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Dijkstra
I'm getting tired of the confusion about what is and isn't Computer Science. Software Engineering is not computer science. I am a Software Engineer, am I also a Computer Scientist in that role? To a very limited extent, yes. I do use tools and methods from computer science on occasion, but rarely in any deeper a fashion than a carpenter uses physics. Yes computer science permeates every facet of what I do, but I am not doing Computer Science. Now in my own work I do take the role of Computer Scientist, many times without even touching a computer.
I've always made the distinction between the practical and the theoretical when it comes to computers and Computer Science. Sure the line may be blurry, and it's difficult (if not impossible) to be a purely practical person without having a grounding and theory, and vice versa, to be good at what you do at least.
Personally I believe that Computer Science, as theory is of higher order than the practical. However, this is not to say that the practical is bad. I pride myself on my, and give others credit for their, practical skills, but it is not Computer Science.
I imagine that if the operating system was not bundled with the computer... but sold as a separate package, or given away free with purchase of a computer, and included detailed instructions like... put cd in drive and turn on computer... the requirement could be avoided.
I'm not sure that many people would pay the $30 to remove ads. I guess if you are a frequent Salon reader it might be convenient, but for someone who reads the occasional article? I'd imagine that a person who logs in to just read a story that another site linked to is going to click on an ad in any case. This is the user that is there for a specific purpose. So essentially the users that go to the site specifically to read one article... who are (probably) the least likely to pay attention to ads are shown the ads. While the loyal Salon subscriber who checks the page several times a day just to browse, who (IMHP) is more likely to click on an ad through sheer boredom, if nothing else, is not shown the ads.
On first glance it may seem that Salon doesn't really care if the loyal subscriber does not see ads to click on, however think of it like this: 1. Loyal Subscribers no longer see ads so do not click on them. 2. Infrequent subscribers rarely click on ads. 3. The ad companies see Salon click thoughs going down big time. 4. Salon no longer can get ad campaigns, and institutes a non-free login for everyone who wants to read the articles.
I'm pretty sure I'll never get around to implement it (too many other projects), but what we need is a plugin for aim that allows you to associate a public key with a name on your buddy list... whenver you IM that person it is automatically encrypted, and automatically decrypted on the other end by the receivers private key. Let AOL fill their logs with encrypted gibberish.
This may r may not really be an issue, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Of course the only way to be truly safe is through not using AIM for anything sensitive.
I believe that some at least did have guns, but it doesn't really matter. The point was the cost of of fuel, mantainence, a pilot ect.
The networks also need to understand that people who will watch reruns will still probably watch reruns even when they own the DVD. Hell, I've watched movies that I own when they ran on tv, even with the commercials I still sat there...
Hmmm I'm sure this will do just as well as say police planes wielding radar guns. In most cases the cost was just way to prohibitive for the concept to fly. But if they're willing to try more power to 'em.
Of course if they did begin to release a lot of these shows you'd probably only get a couple of shows for a $20 DVD. It'd cost a fortune to but a season. It would be great to have a whole season of a tv show on one DVD though.
Of course the one thing that they should have put on DVD and did was every episode of Dexters Lab, Cartoon Network gave it away in a contest, but never released it for sale, I would love to get my hands on that.
I could make a living re-hashing other peoples ideas and calling it a feature.
>>We need some Slashdotters in Congress, I guess Oh God please no! Just what we need congressmen running around DC shouting "First Vote!".
On another note, it's definitely obvious that we are distributing more complicated products to the masses. The main issue then seems to be UI's , think about it, when you are marketing to the average person, some things have to be dumbed down. Not due to the low intelligence of any specific person, but as method of targetting the least (most) common denominator.