I believe the correct 'Patriot Act' compliant term you're looking for is: 'Enemy Combatant'.
The Goons will watch 'enemy combatants' go on their daily routine. As soon as the 'enemy combatants' appear, the goons nab them.
This is reminiscent of a South Park episode. The one where the kids go shooting with Jimbo and Ned. The goons just have to wait until the 'enemy combatant' appears on screen, then shout: 'By God, it's coming right for us!' and nab them (even if they're just sitting on their arses watching TV). See the 'it's coming right for us!' bit turns an everyday person into an 'enemy combatant'--muahahaha!
Some of us have known for a long time that Wikipedia administrators are evil. See what the highly reliable Conservapedia has to say about them:
The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American. For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school, yet many Wikipedia administrators accept it as a sourced fact, and will censor material that contradicts evolution.
As everyone knows, Conservapedia editors are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
I really think a lot of nontechnical users couldn't care less about new features or redesigned interfaces -- what they've got works, and they don't want it messed with.
Problem is that Microsoft wants to be all things to all people. They think all those people who've switched to Firefox will switch back by giving them a spangly new interface (and throw standards advocates a bone too). They panic about it, get all worried that losing IE usage share means losing their monopoly, the result is IE7.
Their plan is:
Make early adopters switch back to IE by giving them a spangly interface and 'tabs'
Force everyone else to upgrade, they're too stupid to have a choice anyway
...
Profit!
What they should do is provide a small, very quick, ultra-standards compliant browser everyone can use. Average people will just use what they're given, they don't need anything more. Whilst people who want tabs, extensions, skinning and all that jazz can use Firefox, Opera, Konqueror etc. Microsoft would gain much more credibility by rewriting the browser engine, rather than shoehorning a few fixes into a product that is fundamentally flawed.
That won't happen though, because this is Microsoft. Nothing less than 100% usage share for IE is good enough in their eyes, and that is their biggest mistake.
I can think of one very big reason to upgrade to IE7 (unless Opera/Firefox is an option) and that's better web standards support. The web development community is going to drop support for IE6 very quickly (I give it approx. 6 months) because the standards support is so bad.
IE7 has a long way to go with this, but it's a massive improvement over 6. It's not as if it costs any money, aside from bandwidth, to download it.
Obviously I would advise them to just use Opera or Firefox and switch to Linux while they're at it. But if that isn't an option they should at least take the free IE upgrade. The decision to not upgrade Office is a sound one though.
Bono questioned if his idea would prevent mass stealing of copyright materials. "Is that not the equivalent of having a speed limit but not enforcing the speed limit?" she asked.
"What is the enforcement for speeding?" he said. "The enforcement for is not that the car grinds to a halt. [Instead of DRM] I'm inclined to make software to allow people to do the right thing first."
But Bono said strong protections for digital content are needed. "With great respect to Steve Jobs, he's trying to sell hardware, first and foremost," she said. "I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection."
She just made herself look stupid, what was she thinking with that last comment?
Get owned by Tim Berners Lee for making an analogy that makes no sense;
Panic, then throw up a smokescreen by ranting about patents and what a great bloke Steve Jobs is;
This is the reason why big labels are finding themselves to be irrelevant, why should we buy manufactured pop-cruft that's encumbered with DRM when a much better alternative is available?
Let's ditch these money-grabbing middle men by voting with our wallets. The only thing missing is a good online community for upcoming bands. Something like music charts (but better and more community driven), which will show the best bands in each genre.
The next triumph will be when an unsigned artist makes more in royalties than one signed to a major label. That will break their monopolies.
Putting sensitive documents in online storage, on computers not under the document owners control is stupid. The fact these services are met with some success is deeply worrying, why are people not aware it's a bad idea to put so much personal data in the hands of an anonymous corporation?
This might sound harsh, but they don't care whether you know what a code freeze is. In fact if you don't know what that is why are you reading Slashdot?!
It's not like Microsoft, Canonical didn't create some press-release to tell everyone: 'We're freezing our codebase! Make sure all technical journals know!'
This story got on to Slashdot because of geeks avidly following Ubuntu's development process, which--unlike Windows--is totally open. If you don't know what a code freeze is: don't worry, just wait for the release. The fact you don't know is not Canonical's fault or problem.
If you do want to know: first imagine all the software projects Ubuntu uses (the Synaptic package manager on my system tells me I've currently got access to 20,304 bits of software, so much for the old: 'There isn't any software available for Linux' argument). When the devs start working on a release they use the newest versions of whatever software is available. As the new version of Ubuntu nears release though they have to be certain all the software will work together, so they do what's called a 'code freeze'.
A code freeze means they don't use any newer versions of software that are made available. They just make sure that whatever is now in the software repositories works. The reason for this is to stop any unforseen incompatibilities creeping in when a new version of a software package is used.
Here's a scenario:
The devs are working on the new version of Ubuntu: Happy Hippo. A new version of Firefox (no pedants, I am aware of the policy regarding Firefox, this is just a common software package and something the reader will identify with. No corrections needed!) has been created since the last release, so they import it into the software repositories. Call it: Version 2.
Before the code freeze a new version of Firefox is released (v2.1), with an autoPr0n feature many people love. This is imported into the new version of Ubuntu: Happy Hippo.
The code freeze happens... But a new version of Firefox is released afterwards (v2.2), with an enhanced autoPr0n feature (many people are calling this the next 'killer app'). Unfortunately, this is after the code freeze, so the new version of Firefox does not get imported.
Imagine if the devs didn't do the code freeze, and the new enhanced autoPr0n feature (in v2.2) caused a problem with The GIMP. But the devs had already checked Firefox, but not the latest version.
So the code freeze is necessary, although you don't necessarily need to know about it.:)
There are some details on the release page on the Freedesktop wiki.
From that page:
X11R7.2 supports Linux, BSD, Solaris, Microsoft Windows and GNU Hurd systems. It incorporates significant stability and correctness fixes, including improved autoconfiguration heuristics, enhanced support for GL-based compositing managers such as Compiz and Beryl, and improved support for PCI systems with multiple domains. It also incorporates the new, more extensible XACE security policy framework.
Release notes should be on the download page, they're marked 'forthcoming' at the moment, but wait a day or two and they should appear.
Surely there has to be some distinction between 'Free Speech' and blatantly lying in advertising (what we in the UK call false advertising).
Is there an equivalent rule in the US, or can any company invent any old rubbish about their product and have the lies protected by 'Free Speech'? Obviously there's more to this case than that, but isn't the judge setting a dangerous precedent?
Get ready for 'there's no such thing as Climate Change' adverts sponsored by Smogmaker Industries, followed by: 'Of course smoking is good for you!'
Can picture it now: the Australian court were just about to decide *not* to extradite him, when Team America flew in. They blow up half of Sydney, launch a missile into the Opera House, grab the 'suspect' (innocent until proven guilty of course) and fly back home.
Agreed, this is sensationalist, more anti-Vista FUD. I hate Vista as much as most here, but there's no need to lie. There are plenty of valid reasons why it's an awful operating system that can be used; why invent new ones that don't exist?
This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program.
As a Linux user I'd be annoyed if I went to the OpenOffice or Firefox website and found one of those ghastly: 'Designed for Windows Vista' logos staring back at me.
IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.
The difference between the two cases is SCO claimed copyright infringement whereas Microsoft is claiming patent infringement (I believe).
Software patents are so much more vague than copyright, so there's a good chance some of the GNU/Linux operating system is infringing. Remember the study that found 283 possible software patent infringements in the Linux kernel alone? I would be suprised if some of those didn't belong to Microsoft (and that was 2004, there are probably more now).
This public sabre-rattling is not without basis. Seems to me that Microsoft are keeping the specifics under wraps, then threatening companies with them in private. Remember what ex-Novell employee said in this interview? Here's a reminder:
I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute.
It's also funny you should mention this:
Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO.
Some people (including this respected legal blogger--at the bottom of that article) believe Microsoft funded and put SCO up to its anti-GNU/Linux FUD litigation. So, really they are a bigger SCO!
Does anyone remember that South Park episode where Cartman became a cop?
Just think of Ballmer with those aviator sunglasses on (that had the reflection of mountains in the background) shouting: 'You will respect my intellectual propertayyyyy!!!'
2. Commit to keeping your inbox empty.
What am I missing? I'm already committed to keeping my inbox empty. I'm so committed to keeping my inbox empty that I'm checking my e-mail more often than hibernating animals breathe. I don't need more commitment. I need to be committed.
They missed the point on this, Reuters meant you should just press Ctrl-A followed by the Del key to keep your inbox empty. This has even been proven to work against e-mails from sloping-shouldered middle management, bonus!
The template is a customised version of whatever came with Drupal 5 (Garland I believe), although little of the original remains it provided a nice starting point.
It's best not to think of using other peoples templates in design though. You should open up a graphics package and think of the design seperately from how you're going to code it. Create an image of how the site will look, then think about applying it.
Using other peoples templates makes a site look generic, as many other sites will also be using the same templates. Particularly if they're free.
Wow, this is a great site! I even left an intelligent comment, thanks for pointing out how great Windows is: am converted, I'm going to ditch GNU/Linux and buy two Windows Vista Ultimate licenses!!! One for me, one for the missus.
Thanks for your true grass-roots effort at keeping the community empowered and informed!
We'll be writing stuff about Web Design/Development, specifically how to do Web Design/Development using GNU/Linux.
The idea is to encourage Web Design/Development newbies who've started out with haxxored versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver etc. to switch to GNU/Linux. Promoting how they'll be using GNU/Linux on their web server, so it makes sense to use it for their desktop. Not only that, they'll have the benefit of having legal and free (as in freedom) software, instead of the pirated stuff they're--probably--using now.
So it's all those things in the list, but from a totally different angle to Slashdot.
Step 3. ??? Step 4. Profit!
But seriously: does that make sense to you chaps, or is it a rubbish idea? Feedback is always good. (is totally going off-topic ok on Slashdot?)
I was grappling with the moral problems presented by posting my own URL in that comment, then released I couldn't be arsed, so posted it anyway.
On reflection though: most./ ers really wont be interested in the (small amounts of) content on that site. They won't hang around, or click on any ads. All that stuff about karma was lost on me: before writing this post, I didn't have a./ account.
So even though I did include my URL, it's not really some global conspiracy. Those that do click through can be safe in the knowledge that the only affect will be an increase to my bandwidth bill... Thanks.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the correct 'Patriot Act' compliant term you're looking for is: 'Enemy Combatant'.
The Goons will watch 'enemy combatants' go on their daily routine. As soon as the 'enemy combatants' appear, the goons nab them.
This is reminiscent of a South Park episode. The one where the kids go shooting with Jimbo and Ned. The goons just have to wait until the 'enemy combatant' appears on screen, then shout: 'By God, it's coming right for us!' and nab them (even if they're just sitting on their arses watching TV). See the 'it's coming right for us!' bit turns an everyday person into an 'enemy combatant'--muahahaha!
Some of us have known for a long time that Wikipedia administrators are evil. See what the highly reliable Conservapedia has to say about them:
As everyone knows, Conservapedia editors are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
Problem is that Microsoft wants to be all things to all people. They think all those people who've switched to Firefox will switch back by giving them a spangly new interface (and throw standards advocates a bone too). They panic about it, get all worried that losing IE usage share means losing their monopoly, the result is IE7.
Their plan is:
What they should do is provide a small, very quick, ultra-standards compliant browser everyone can use. Average people will just use what they're given, they don't need anything more. Whilst people who want tabs, extensions, skinning and all that jazz can use Firefox, Opera, Konqueror etc. Microsoft would gain much more credibility by rewriting the browser engine, rather than shoehorning a few fixes into a product that is fundamentally flawed.
That won't happen though, because this is Microsoft. Nothing less than 100% usage share for IE is good enough in their eyes, and that is their biggest mistake.
I can think of one very big reason to upgrade to IE7 (unless Opera/Firefox is an option) and that's better web standards support. The web development community is going to drop support for IE6 very quickly (I give it approx. 6 months) because the standards support is so bad.
IE7 has a long way to go with this, but it's a massive improvement over 6. It's not as if it costs any money, aside from bandwidth, to download it.
Obviously I would advise them to just use Opera or Firefox and switch to Linux while they're at it. But if that isn't an option they should at least take the free IE upgrade. The decision to not upgrade Office is a sound one though.
Look at how part of the conversation went:
She just made herself look stupid, what was she thinking with that last comment?
Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more!
This is the reason why big labels are finding themselves to be irrelevant, why should we buy manufactured pop-cruft that's encumbered with DRM when a much better alternative is available?
Let's ditch these money-grabbing middle men by voting with our wallets. The only thing missing is a good online community for upcoming bands. Something like music charts (but better and more community driven), which will show the best bands in each genre.
The next triumph will be when an unsigned artist makes more in royalties than one signed to a major label. That will break their monopolies.
Putting sensitive documents in online storage, on computers not under the document owners control is stupid. The fact these services are met with some success is deeply worrying, why are people not aware it's a bad idea to put so much personal data in the hands of an anonymous corporation?
But then, I remember MySpace exists... *sigh*
This might sound harsh, but they don't care whether you know what a code freeze is. In fact if you don't know what that is why are you reading Slashdot?!
:)
It's not like Microsoft, Canonical didn't create some press-release to tell everyone: 'We're freezing our codebase! Make sure all technical journals know!'
This story got on to Slashdot because of geeks avidly following Ubuntu's development process, which--unlike Windows--is totally open. If you don't know what a code freeze is: don't worry, just wait for the release. The fact you don't know is not Canonical's fault or problem.
If you do want to know: first imagine all the software projects Ubuntu uses (the Synaptic package manager on my system tells me I've currently got access to 20,304 bits of software, so much for the old: 'There isn't any software available for Linux' argument). When the devs start working on a release they use the newest versions of whatever software is available. As the new version of Ubuntu nears release though they have to be certain all the software will work together, so they do what's called a 'code freeze'.
A code freeze means they don't use any newer versions of software that are made available. They just make sure that whatever is now in the software repositories works. The reason for this is to stop any unforseen incompatibilities creeping in when a new version of a software package is used.
Here's a scenario:
The devs are working on the new version of Ubuntu: Happy Hippo. A new version of Firefox (no pedants, I am aware of the policy regarding Firefox, this is just a common software package and something the reader will identify with. No corrections needed!) has been created since the last release, so they import it into the software repositories. Call it: Version 2.
Before the code freeze a new version of Firefox is released (v2.1), with an autoPr0n feature many people love. This is imported into the new version of Ubuntu: Happy Hippo.
The code freeze happens... But a new version of Firefox is released afterwards (v2.2), with an enhanced autoPr0n feature (many people are calling this the next 'killer app'). Unfortunately, this is after the code freeze, so the new version of Firefox does not get imported.
Imagine if the devs didn't do the code freeze, and the new enhanced autoPr0n feature (in v2.2) caused a problem with The GIMP. But the devs had already checked Firefox, but not the latest version.
So the code freeze is necessary, although you don't necessarily need to know about it.
There are some details on the release page on the Freedesktop wiki.
From that page:
Release notes should be on the download page, they're marked 'forthcoming' at the moment, but wait a day or two and they should appear.
Surely there has to be some distinction between 'Free Speech' and blatantly lying in advertising (what we in the UK call false advertising).
Is there an equivalent rule in the US, or can any company invent any old rubbish about their product and have the lies protected by 'Free Speech'? Obviously there's more to this case than that, but isn't the judge setting a dangerous precedent?
Get ready for 'there's no such thing as Climate Change' adverts sponsored by Smogmaker Industries, followed by: 'Of course smoking is good for you!'
Wow, I'm sorry. I forgot about them!
Can picture it now: the Australian court were just about to decide *not* to extradite him, when Team America flew in. They blow up half of Sydney, launch a missile into the Opera House, grab the 'suspect' (innocent until proven guilty of course) and fly back home.
The USA: Justice starts--and ends--here!
Why is this person being tried in the US? He's a British citizen living in Australia, what does this have to do with the US?
Agreed, this is sensationalist, more anti-Vista FUD. I hate Vista as much as most here, but there's no need to lie. There are plenty of valid reasons why it's an awful operating system that can be used; why invent new ones that don't exist?
As a Linux user I'd be annoyed if I went to the OpenOffice or Firefox website and found one of those ghastly: 'Designed for Windows Vista' logos staring back at me.
Yes, I'd imagine this is stuff Novell isn't really allowed to distribute due to being contaminated by idea patents.
:)
I like how this post appeared directly after the Ballmer one, very good juxtapositioning.
The difference between the two cases is SCO claimed copyright infringement whereas Microsoft is claiming patent infringement (I believe).
Software patents are so much more vague than copyright, so there's a good chance some of the GNU/Linux operating system is infringing. Remember the study that found 283 possible software patent infringements in the Linux kernel alone? I would be suprised if some of those didn't belong to Microsoft (and that was 2004, there are probably more now).
This public sabre-rattling is not without basis. Seems to me that Microsoft are keeping the specifics under wraps, then threatening companies with them in private. Remember what ex-Novell employee said in this interview? Here's a reminder:
It's also funny you should mention this:
Some people (including this respected legal blogger--at the bottom of that article) believe Microsoft funded and put SCO up to its anti-GNU/Linux FUD litigation. So, really they are a bigger SCO!
Does anyone remember that South Park episode where Cartman became a cop?
Just think of Ballmer with those aviator sunglasses on (that had the reflection of mountains in the background) shouting: 'You will respect my intellectual propertayyyyy!!!'
Yes: https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/1339/
It's like gmail, but for Thunderbird.
They missed the point on this, Reuters meant you should just press Ctrl-A followed by the Del key to keep your inbox empty. This has even been proven to work against e-mails from sloping-shouldered middle management, bonus!
The template is a customised version of whatever came with Drupal 5 (Garland I believe), although little of the original remains it provided a nice starting point.
It's best not to think of using other peoples templates in design though. You should open up a graphics package and think of the design seperately from how you're going to code it. Create an image of how the site will look, then think about applying it.
Using other peoples templates makes a site look generic, as many other sites will also be using the same templates. Particularly if they're free.
Wow, this is a great site! I even left an intelligent comment, thanks for pointing out how great Windows is: am converted, I'm going to ditch GNU/Linux and buy two Windows Vista Ultimate licenses!!! One for me, one for the missus.
Thanks for your true grass-roots effort at keeping the community empowered and informed!
... Not!
But seriously, I do appreciate the satire. :)
Nope, they have rel="nofollow" on the links. Really, I am going to get naff-all benefits from posting that link. :)
We'll be writing stuff about Web Design/Development, specifically how to do Web Design/Development using GNU/Linux.
The idea is to encourage Web Design/Development newbies who've started out with haxxored versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver etc. to switch to GNU/Linux. Promoting how they'll be using GNU/Linux on their web server, so it makes sense to use it for their desktop. Not only that, they'll have the benefit of having legal and free (as in freedom) software, instead of the pirated stuff they're--probably--using now.
So it's all those things in the list, but from a totally different angle to Slashdot.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit!
But seriously: does that make sense to you chaps, or is it a rubbish idea? Feedback is always good.
(is totally going off-topic ok on Slashdot?)
Curses! You have discovered my evil plan!
./ ers really wont be interested in the (small amounts of) content on that site. They won't hang around, or click on any ads. All that stuff about karma was lost on me: before writing this post, I didn't have a ./ account.
:)
I was grappling with the moral problems presented by posting my own URL in that comment, then released I couldn't be arsed, so posted it anyway.
On reflection though: most
So even though I did include my URL, it's not really some global conspiracy. Those that do click through can be safe in the knowledge that the only affect will be an increase to my bandwidth bill... Thanks.