What is supposed to be better about seeing friends and family in _real_ life? Is the fact fact you can see them, hear them etc.
In that case what about blind/deaf people!?
Sitting in front of the TV for a few hours every evening with family does NOT count as "quality time" (I hate that phrase)
But I would worry about the 'net decreasing proper socialising - nightclubs, down the pub with your mates etc. I suppose I would define proper socialising as where you meet NEW friends, wherever that is or no matter what the method of communication.
And a bit of fresh air and exercise wouldn't go amiss. ------------------------------------------ ------- "If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
Our goal is to establish Linux as the desktop of choice for millions of users
Why just Linux. If they have there head screwed on they should be able to get it to compile on other Un*x's. FreeBSD at least.
Is this GNOME's fault. I've never thought about it before but does GNOME and/or KDE work on anything other than Linux.
Now, back to the post i'm replying to. I wonder if X will always be the protocol used. Is it that old now that it could do with a complete replacement - called Y maybe:-)
I wish I knew more about the exact details of how X works low level - is it an old program patched and extended into a mess or is it as efficient etc. as it could be?
Now to go off-topic: In the case of fully GNOMEified programs (can you come up with a better name for programs that stick to the gtk instead of making "direct" calls to X) if this Y became the standard would it just be a case of rewriting the gtk or would the apps need to be patched also? ie: Just to satisfy my curiousity, can you write X apps that don't need to make calls to X! Tcl/Tk aside.
------------------------------------------------ - "If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
I don't have time to check all the posts to see if someone has done it already but seeing as many people used/. to put up mirrors of DeCSS, why don't people who have a copy (i don't) put up mirrors? ---------------------------------------- --------- "If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
What's this about doing 30+ hours in University. When I was in University I done less than 20 hours - in a whole TERM! Got through it anyway. Lucky Me, touch wood.
Now I'm on a years work experience from my degree (in Programming) and I would be surprised if I done that many hours a week even in the run up to my finals (I'm starting final year in September).
My laziness aside, I love to get home to my Linux box after work. Does spending most of your waking hours in front of a computer even if it's not directly work related count as part of this.
If I'm working on Un*x stuff in my next job then I won't mind working late (for a short while anyway) ----------------------------------------- -------- "If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
I've an idea for stopping people using this silly "write letters as numbers" business. If/. automagically converted d00d to dude and 31337 to "elite" etc. The/. operators would just need to add a new entry every time a new one is used. Probably not as good an idea as I think it is but it's 9am here and I should have started work ages ago.
BTW, Sorry Rombuu - Sometimes I can be a bit patronising!
Interesting point you have regarding French. The problem I see is that if someone was to go to the effort of writing a Linux player then the protocols would need to be reengineered and we'd be in the same stupid position as this DeCSS farce. A French person can get a page translated in many ways but until MS use *open* protocols I still believe we have every right to tell them to stick the Windows Media Files where the sun don't shine
I assume it stands for Distributed Denial Of Service but that hasn't been made explicit./. should have a page describing TLA's ^H^H^H^H Three Letter Acronyms and the like used recently.
Anyway, to get back on topic. What's to stop the compromised machines from creating the packets in such a way as they appear to come from loads of different random IP's (I assume that most OS's don't let you fake but remember theses machines have been comprimised already so this could be disable/got around or whatever). That way the victim (insert big site name here) would have no way to tell if a request was valid or not (even if they had loads of humans looking at every incoming packet!)
Some(most?) routers (at ISP's or in Universities for eg.) would probably check the origin but I'm sure there are many people who are allowed create whatever packets they want.
In this case, it would even be impossible to find out which computers were the zombies!, never mind tracking the "master" IP's that signalled the zombies to start pumping out the (fake?) packets.
Most/All the routers in the world will have to be made more paranoid and/or using IPSec or Reverse-DNS or something....
I'll quit my rambling by summing up that: We can't stop this any time in the forseeable future.
I've read all the other replies to this and I'm kinda getting the impression that Rombuu isn't aware that Linux runs on the same computers that Windows does. Maybe he assumes that all un*xes need custon/mainframe type hardware. I sincerely apologize to Rombuu if I am wrong!
Anyway, I bought my computer without Windows so why should I have to pay MS loads of cash to watch a simple video clip? (this paragraph is redundant)
Easily offended people shouldn't read this: I wish my computer would go down on me every night. Or maybe I should get a girlfriend (running Windows):-)
We already know the fastest possible generalized sorting algorithm
Prove it!
I mean - until you can prove the minimum amount of work needed you can't assume that the best algorithm found so far is the best
What I think would be really interesting was if we could evolve the algorithms for cracking RSA and simultaneously get a bunch of mathematicians to try and work out the minimum that the successful algorithm would need to do. Only when these two "values" are the same or nearly the same can we say we have found the best algorithm.
Also, it is quite likely that for certain algorithms (we can't rule RSA-cracking ones out) there is NO best algorithm. They're are some mathematical questions that CANNOT be answered - EVER.
Computer geeks have the same technical knowledge/expertise/love/whatever as computer nerds do, but unlike the nerds, geeks actually have a life, too.
Too bloody right!!!
I'm a geek, and proud of it, and always told I am. But I have no nerd friends and only one geeky friend. I go drinking/clubbing/general socialising. I can talk about non computer/sci-fi stuff etc. I have anti-nerd/geek friends who don't give a fuck about computers and like me for the fact I can go up to 48 hours without refreshing/. looking for new stories:-) I was good at sports AND academic stuff in school. The stereotype about people who can use technology [like VCR's:-)] being antisocial is wrong - you're either social or you're not - in fact I think it might be that simple. I can't think of the right word for it but all I've noticed is that i don't think there is a middle ground between geekness and nerdness
I'm sick of people categorising me with the sad b****rds in my computer class in Uni who stayed in there own tiny group and don't know a woman is!
Just because you like computers doesn't mean you have to get a dodgy hair and avoid women and drink Jolt Cola or whatever that cack you American nerds drink (Insert stereotype of your choice here. STOP TRYING TO BE THE LONE GUNMEN
Why is it that whenever people ask why I'm an atheist they alway come out with:
Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child?
Personally, I've had no bad experience with it. I was brought up in a normal Irish Catholic Family. I was NOT sexually abused by a priest. I did not pray for something and not get it. I don't have any emotional scars [that I'm aware of] etc. etc.
I've got an Open Mind (tm). I read stuff. I have no aversion to reading stuff I think/know I'll disagree with. I read a fair bit of the Bible shortly after *coming out* to my parents about not wanting to go to Mass any more. I regularly watch/read religious stuff because I like to know what I'm talking about.
Why do any religious people I know refuse to even read a book review about _scandalous_ theories like say The Origin Of Species.
You're just scared to change your mind. I know I'm not. In fact I'm accused of being quite fickle:)
> I don't want articles written by Katz, I > don't want articles about Katz... I don't > care about his film or book! OK! Just don't read them. When I see a story that doesn't interest me I use something called scrolling to go to a different story.
just because he (the poster of the post i'm replying to)is impersonating Bruce doesn't mean he has to get marked done straight away. It was On-topic, kinda funny etc.
Funnily enough, Win98 does that too! Apologies for saying something nice about win98! What I mean is there is an option to read "digitally" in Control Panel/System/Devices/CDROM. It's no different to what mp3 rippers do. This is turned off by default because many drives don't handle it (what does Be do with these drives? ie. do you have the option to go through the cable) Anyway playing a CD backwards under win98 shouldn't be hard to do. I don't think it would take much coding. I wish I had the time to mess around myself with it - has someone already done it
if you don't have Flash you just get a blue screen - and i don't mean BSOD:-) . It also employs Java and other rubbish
It belongs to some people i know that are trying to advertise themselves as Web-design people too!
I had a big argument with the webmaster about this but he wasn't having any of it. A few navigational links instead of the flash would have been useful. In fact, I'm convinced I could do the Flashy stuff he was doing with simple HTML and a small bit of Javascript getting the best of both worlds
The DeCSS reference got me thinking. What about VA installing it on their machines that they sell:-) Or putting money into a hardware implementation of it or something?
Actually, contributors to the kernel don't hand over copyright, Linus himself said that this was so the kernel would remain free (libre), since even he couldn't relicense it closed source.
Also, the modules thing isn't an exception to the GPL, it's Linus' interpretation of a grey area in the GPL, since kernel modules don't actually _use_ GPL code, simply link.
Good. I just assumed that since the FSF insist on getting copyright for and i think that's the case with most other major projects.
So I suppose that only means linux won't sue about module code he wrote BUT if for example I wrote some of the kernel that interacts with a module and a company wrote a module and didn't go with the GPL then I could go to court to clear up this grey issue about if things that link are covered.
This is where the virical nature of GPL will help us!
The source of the basic infrastructure of the operating system will _allways_ be free for Linux.
Except Linux (the kernelis *NOT* realised under the normal GPL. Linus made an exception so that modules weren't covered (which they normally would be due to being dynamically linkable libraries in a sense) He owns the copyright and he could close source any new versions! I know he won't but i'm sure there are some people who wrote module related code who aren't happy and wish they still had control (ie. hadn't handed over copyright)
Slashdot Mirror
What is supposed to be better about seeing friends and family in _real_ life? Is the fact fact you can see them, hear them etc.
- -------
In that case what about blind/deaf people!?
Sitting in front of the TV for a few hours every evening with family does NOT count as "quality time" (I hate that phrase)
But I would worry about the 'net decreasing proper socialising - nightclubs, down the pub with your mates etc. I suppose I would define proper socialising as where you meet NEW friends, wherever that is or no matter what the method of communication.
And a bit of fresh air and exercise wouldn't go amiss.
-----------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
Why just Linux. If they have there head screwed on they should be able to get it to compile on other Un*x's. FreeBSD at least.
Is this GNOME's fault. I've never thought about it before but does GNOME and/or KDE work on anything other than Linux.
Now, back to the post i'm replying to. I wonder if X will always be the protocol used. Is it that old now that it could do with a complete replacement - called Y maybe :-)
I wish I knew more about the exact details of how X works low level - is it an old program patched and extended into a mess or is it as efficient etc. as it could be?
Now to go off-topic:
In the case of fully GNOMEified programs (can you come up with a better name for programs that stick to the gtk instead of making "direct" calls to X) if this Y became the standard would it just be a case of rewriting the gtk or would the apps need to be patched also?
ie: Just to satisfy my curiousity, can you write X apps that don't need to make calls to X! Tcl/Tk aside.
-----------------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
I don't have time to check all the posts to see if someone has done it already but seeing as many people used /. to put up mirrors of DeCSS, why don't people who have a copy (i don't) put up mirrors?- ---------
---------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
What's this about doing 30+ hours in University.
- --------
When I was in University I done less than 20 hours - in a whole TERM! Got through it anyway. Lucky Me, touch wood.
Now I'm on a years work experience from my degree (in Programming) and I would be surprised if I done that many hours a week even in the run up to my finals (I'm starting final year in September).
My laziness aside, I love to get home to my Linux box after work. Does spending most of your waking hours in front of a computer even if it's not directly work related count as part of this.
If I'm working on Un*x stuff in my next job then I won't mind working late (for a short while anyway)
----------------------------------------
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -
I've an idea for stopping people using this silly "write letters as numbers" business. /. automagically converted d00d to dude and 31337 to "elite" etc. /. operators would just need to add a new entry every time a new one is used.
If
The
Probably not as good an idea as I think it is but it's 9am here and I should have started work ages ago.
BTW, Sorry Rombuu - Sometimes I can be a bit patronising!
Interesting point you have regarding French.
The problem I see is that if someone was to go to the effort of writing a Linux player then the protocols would need to be reengineered and we'd be in the same stupid position as this DeCSS farce.
A French person can get a page translated in many ways but until MS use *open* protocols I still believe we have every right to tell them to stick the Windows Media Files where the sun don't shine
I assume it stands for Distributed Denial Of Service but that hasn't been made explicit. /. should have a page describing TLA's ^H^H^H^H Three Letter Acronyms and the like used recently.
Anyway, to get back on topic. What's to stop the compromised machines from creating the packets in such a way as they appear to come from loads of different random IP's (I assume that most OS's don't let you fake but remember theses machines have been comprimised already so this could be disable/got around or whatever).
That way the victim (insert big site name here) would have no way to tell if a request was valid or not (even if they had loads of humans looking at every incoming packet!)
Some(most?) routers (at ISP's or in Universities for eg.) would probably check the origin but I'm sure there are many people who are allowed create whatever packets they want.
In this case, it would even be impossible to find out which computers were the zombies!, never mind tracking the "master" IP's that signalled the zombies to start pumping out the (fake?) packets.
Most/All the routers in the world will have to be made more paranoid and/or using IPSec or Reverse-DNS or something....
I'll quit my rambling by summing up that:
We can't stop this any time in the forseeable future.
I've read all the other replies to this and I'm kinda getting the impression that Rombuu isn't aware that Linux runs on the same computers that Windows does. Maybe he assumes that all un*xes need custon/mainframe type hardware.
I sincerely apologize to Rombuu if I am wrong!
Anyway, I bought my computer without Windows so why should I have to pay MS loads of cash to watch a simple video clip? (this paragraph is redundant)
Easily offended people shouldn't read this: :-)
I wish my computer would go down on me every night.
Or maybe I should get a girlfriend (running Windows)
Prove it!
I mean - until you can prove the minimum amount of work needed you can't assume that the best algorithm found so far is the best
What I think would be really interesting was if we could evolve the algorithms for cracking RSA and simultaneously get a bunch of mathematicians to try and work out the minimum that the successful algorithm would need to do. Only when these two "values" are the same or nearly the same can we say we have found the best algorithm.
Also, it is quite likely that for certain algorithms (we can't rule RSA-cracking ones out) there is NO best algorithm. They're are some mathematical questions that CANNOT be answered - EVER.
Something along the lines of "we don't care what you were as long as you don't diss our clothes"
Jon Katz should write something about how this suits are Borg-ising us :-)
Here's my mirror, where's your's
Something along the lines of "we don't care what you were as long as you don't diss our clothes"
Jon Katz should write something about how this suits are Borg-ising us :-)
Here's my mirror, where's your's
(Score:0, Redundant)
great point. i don't really have a comeback!
Too bloody right!!!
I'm a geek, and proud of it, and always told I am. /. looking for new stories :-) :-)] being antisocial is wrong - you're either social or you're not - in fact I think it might be that simple. I can't think of the right word for it but all I've noticed is that i don't think there is a middle ground between geekness and nerdness
But I have no nerd friends and only one geeky friend. I go drinking/clubbing/general socialising. I can talk about non computer/sci-fi stuff etc.
I have anti-nerd/geek friends who don't give a fuck about computers and like me for the fact I can go up to 48 hours without refreshing
I was good at sports AND academic stuff in school.
The stereotype about people who can use technology [like VCR's
I'm sick of people categorising me with the sad b****rds in my computer class in Uni who stayed in there own tiny group and don't know a woman is!
Just because you like computers doesn't mean you have to get a dodgy hair and avoid women and drink Jolt Cola or whatever that cack you American nerds drink (Insert stereotype of your choice here.
STOP TRYING TO BE THE LONE GUNMEN
Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child?
Personally, I've had no bad experience with it. I was brought up in a normal Irish Catholic Family. I was NOT sexually abused by a priest. I did not pray for something and not get it. I don't have any emotional scars [that I'm aware of] etc. etc.
I've got an Open Mind (tm). I read stuff. I have no aversion to reading stuff I think/know I'll disagree with. I read a fair bit of the Bible shortly after *coming out* to my parents about not wanting to go to Mass any more. I regularly watch/read religious stuff because I like to know what I'm talking about.
Why do any religious people I know refuse to even read a book review about _scandalous_ theories like say The Origin Of Species.
You're just scared to change your mind. I know I'm not. In fact I'm accused of being quite fickle :)
Maybe I'm not, actually :-):-)
What's wrong with provoking debate? I thought that's what UseNet ^H^H^H^H Slashdot ;-) was about.
Offensive or not, a world without debate would be pretty boring (and stagnant)
> I don't want articles written by Katz, I
> don't want articles about Katz... I don't
> care about his film or book!
OK! Just don't read them.
When I see a story that doesn't interest me I use something called scrolling to go to a different story.
just because he (the poster of the post i'm replying to)is impersonating Bruce doesn't mean he has to get marked done straight away. It was On-topic, kinda funny etc.
just my tuppence
Better Ask Al Gore. :-)
If he invented it he would have the definitive answer
Funnily enough, Win98 does that too!
Apologies for saying something nice about win98!
What I mean is there is an option to read "digitally" in Control Panel/System/Devices/CDROM. It's no different to what mp3 rippers do.
This is turned off by default because many drives don't handle it (what does Be do with these drives? ie. do you have the option to go through the cable)
Anyway playing a CD backwards under win98 shouldn't be hard to do. I don't think it would take much coding.
I wish I had the time to mess around myself with it - has someone already done it
check out www.ccsni.co.uk
if you don't have Flash you just get a blue screen - and i don't mean BSOD :-) . It also employs Java and other rubbish
It belongs to some people i know that are trying to advertise themselves as Web-design people too!
I had a big argument with the webmaster about this but he wasn't having any of it. A few navigational links instead of the flash would have been useful. In fact, I'm convinced I could do the Flashy stuff he was doing with simple HTML and a small bit of Javascript getting the best of both worlds
The DeCSS reference got me thinking. :-)
What about VA installing it on their machines that they sell
Or putting money into a hardware implementation of it or something?
What's wrong with that? Isn't redistribution exactly what the GPL encourages!
I'm not saying that I trust them or anything and I hope their IPO falls flat on its face
just my 2 cents
Also, the modules thing isn't an exception to the GPL, it's Linus' interpretation of a grey area in the GPL, since kernel modules don't actually _use_ GPL code, simply link.
Good. I just assumed that since the FSF insist on getting copyright for and i think that's the case with most other major projects.
So I suppose that only means linux won't sue about module code he wrote BUT if for example I wrote some of the kernel that interacts with a module and a company wrote a module and didn't go with the GPL then I could go to court to clear up this grey issue about if things that link are covered.
If you see what I mean!?
The source of the basic infrastructure of the operating system will _allways_ be free for Linux.
Except Linux (the kernelis *NOT* realised under the normal GPL. Linus made an exception so that modules weren't covered (which they normally would be due to being dynamically linkable libraries in a sense)
He owns the copyright and he could close source any new versions! I know he won't but i'm sure there are some people who wrote module related code who aren't happy and wish they still had control (ie. hadn't handed over copyright)