But, since Apple is now adopting Unix as a foundation for OS X, we will be hearing the Mac evangelists tell us how all this stuff that Unix has is really great, but it's not REALLY an operating system unless you have all the extra stuff that Apple adds.
Of course, looking at his definition of an operating system, we can easily conclude that until OS X, the Macintosh never actually HAD an operating system... where is the basic stuff like pre-emptive multi-tasking? So what was all those pre-OS X Macs? Toys??? I doubt that any serious Mac user would agree with that.
Instead of putting down Unix as "not an entire operating system," why not just say that just an operating system in and of itself is probably not what the majority of most users want.
Looking at the corporate environment, a computer just isn't useful unless it has some of the things that were mentioned: An operating system (of course), a GUI, networking, a web browser, and APPLICATIONS, including Word Processing, and whatever else is needed in order to get work done.
If all this is provided by one vendor, then you have a "one stop shopping" solution that some corporate mindsets find attractive. This is one of the reasons that Microsoft has been successful in the PC market.
But as long as all of these things are available, then any environment -- Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, Tru64 Unix, and the others -- should serve the needs of most people.
But, of course, this doesn't say that OS X is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and so wouldn't be printed in such a forum. [shrug] --
Let's see... The site is owned by Time-Warner, which is represented in the DeCSS suit by the MPAA, who doesn't like all this here piracy that exists on the web.
Heck, these are OUR copyrights that are being trodden upon!
Let's get the EFF to sue them, and force them to settle for something reasonable... like sending $100 PER THESIS SOLD to a fund that will help 2600 in its legal battles... --
OK. It is my understanding that if I have bigcompany.com registered, and some big company decides that they want my domain, then uner the resolution policy, big company can select the WIPO to arbitrate the dispute.
I, as a defendant, don't have any choice in the selection of the arbitrator. I protest, knowing the WIPO only looks at the $$$ of the big company and isn't interested in little guys like me, and ignore the WIPO. As a result, the WIPO orders me to transfer bigcompany.com to the plaintiff and my registrar hands it over to them (according to ICANN rules).
Now, say I have been doing business as www.bigcompany.com for a few years before that big ole company had even thought of the internet. I decide that it's not fair.
Therefore, would I be able to REARBITRATE, and pick my own arbitrator (since I'd be the plaintiff now)... an arbitrator that's a little more partial to the "little guys" and make the same claim on the big company, which is now the defendant?
If so, then I can see a big see-saw happening.
What I would prefer to see is:
Plaintiff wants bigcompany.com. They make a complaint and select an arbitrator.
Defendant gets notified, and has the option to one of the following:
Answer the dispute to the selected arbitrator, or
Make a request to select another arbitrator, whereupon plaintiff and defendant should be able to select a more suitable arbitrator (how this is done is left as an academic excercise).
Ignore the complaint completely, effectively giving up his rights to further recourse in the future.
Of course, the defendant should be notified by email and snail mail at the addresses in the WHOIS databases as well as postmaster@[the disputed domain]) in order to prevent any mishaps where a defendant that is on holiday may come home to find that he is in default because of a ridiculously short time to answer...!
This would be a little less "quick and dirty" but would prevent looking like either the plaintiff or defendant has any edge over the other except for the merits of the actual dispute.
Does the m100 have the same dimensions as the other Palm screens? The picture of it on the palm site makes it look shorter than the VII. Same number of pixels?
Why is X so large? It's the server, mostly. It has to respond to a number of basic operations, in a way that makes sense when you realize that the xterm that you have on your window may have originated on the same system, a Linux system on a local network, or even an RS/6000 at work.
X is a protocol that allows a number of different workstations to interoperate. That RS/6000 xterm will react to my window manager in the same way that a local xterm will. No surprises.
A program that uses the X libraries and the Intrinsics (Xt) toolkit can usually be recompiled on any other system with X Window support, and run as is. If the program uses GNOME, KDE, Motif, or any other set of libraries that run on top of X, the only requirement is that those libraries must also be installed. But the program runs the same on all of those systems where those libraries are installed.
Is X a large program? Certainly. It could have been designed differently and work well on a single architecture. A window manager could have been integrated into it. Hell, add a file manager with tree-views. Microsoft took this tack, but if you write a program using the Windows libraries, they will only work on Intel boxes (or maybe Alphas, prior to Windows 2000).
X offers configurability. Not generally very easy, but it is there. Don't like the fact that your window manager binds CTRL-F4 to "Window Close?" Change the parameters and restart your window manager. How easy is that on Windows?
X allows you to separate the fact that you wish to draw a circle from the actual act of rendering that circle. Send a graphics request to a display, and the display will figure out how to draw that circle. It doesn't matter that the program may be running on a different machine than where the display is. It works.
If you are running NT, try opening a DOS command prompt on your neighbor's box, with the commands appearing on your box. You can probably purchase a special utility to do this (and install it on both boxes), but that capability is not built into Windows. On X, all you have to do is to be able to authorize myself via the network (rlogin, rstart, ssh, xauth). Voila!
X reigns supreme when you wish to work on multiple computers, but don't want to hop around from keyboard to keyboard. It was developed for such a collaborative environment, and is machine neutral (works on Intel, Motorola, Alpha, HP, and many other chip sets), network neutral (it works with DECNet, TCP/IP, and Unix sockets), workstation neutral (just need an X server for the computer(s) you wish to work on), and operating system neutral (you can get X servers for Unix, Linux, Windows, Macintosh, and a lot more).
Do you wish for better graphics support in X? Well, if you have an anti-aliasing library that will render fonts better IN A MACHINE-NEUTRAL WAY, then donate code to the Open Group to perform the function and everybody wins! Bitstream offered their Speedo font technology for font scaling. Others have donated other technologies. XFree86 has done wonders with having it work on microcomputers.
It's open source. Add what you think is missing. Yes. This will make it even bigger, of course.
Smaller isn't always better. I can remove X Window from my Linux system, and have a character-oriented prompt. Doesn't take up much disk or memory space as X, but it doesn't offer me as much flexibility.
I'm sorry, but if something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. End of statement. It would be similar to saying that if I catch somebody shoplifting in my store, I'm allowed to break into that person's house and steal his television. As was pointed out in a previous thread here, two wrongs do not make a right.
However, I do not see anything wrong with using such tools as exist to try to determine the identity of any person that attempts to hijack my machine. This isn't illegal, by any definition of the word. And it gives me something more to tell the authorities (when applicable); rather than a "somebody cracked my system," I can tell them "so-and-so cracked into my system, and here's my proof."
My system has been targeted by a couple of brain-dead individuals over the past few years. I've used whatever tools I could find to try to track those people down.
I'm happy that the US FBI takes such things very seriously, and have developed (or otherwise obtained) tools and techniques far beyond what I can do as an individual. I am currently satisified with this, although I had once been the subject of an attack that originated in India. I don't know if a super-jurisdictional legal authority would help here; it might be worth looking into.
I see no need to set up an internet vigilante force to "string 'em up" -- lynch mentality is never something that I think a polite society should strive for. --
Not just a user preference. This doesn't help people that post anonymously. Make it an option on the form, and (very important) HAVE AN EDITORIAL POLICY THAT TELLS PEOPLE WHAT NOT SELECTING INDICATES. --
That doesn't help the Anonymous Cowards or those that want to post anonymously. Instead of only a preference option, put two check boxes on the "Post Comments" form (see my message #18). --
I think this re-thinking of attitudes on behalf of the editors is a good thing. In the future. tje editors may want to consider this idea:
Give users a chance to be quoted on the "Post Comment" screen. Two checkboxes saying "this can" or "this can NOT" be quoted in a different medium. Have the boxes unchecked by default. Allow the users to decide AS they are posting; not before or after. For registered users, this may even be set to a default.
If neither is selected, the editors may make some sort of announcement that such a republication of ideas is being considered, and remind people that they can opt in or out when they post.
And Slashdot should have an EDITORIAL POLICY as to the disposition of those comments that have neither of those selections made.
This is all hindsight, of course, but mistakes like this are good if people learn from them. If you want to retain copyright, there is a simple method. And if you don't care if your comments are posted, you can either give explicit permission or not select either choice. --
One hundred years ago, corporations in America didn't have the same rights as regular citizens. Now they do, and having lots of money, it seems that their rights need to be "protected" more than the American citizens.
That's why we have the DMCA, and why UCITA will probably pass, and why copyrights have been extended retroactively all in the past few years. Does any of this legislation help citizens, or does it help corporations?
I mentioned in a Slashdot forum a month or so ago that Lincoln's words about a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people" would today have the people replaced by corporations.
We can make a difference by helping organizations that are on our side: Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, etc. We can also make a difference by being the voices of reason to others and expose these things to the light of day.
DCMA? Tell people what it REALLY does.
UCITA? Let them know that it is a bad thing.
Time Warner made a bone-headed move by keeping people from seeing the Millionaire game show... it's exposing the worst of what Jon calls Corporatism to the American public. Hopefully, this won't be the last time, and maybe some of the rest of us bone-headed do-nothing Americans will finally figure out what is really going on. --
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Checking ReiserFS transaction log (device 16:02) May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: COKE - It's the Real Thing! (tm) May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: MAKE MONEY FAST! Surf on over to http://ima.realdumbschmuck.com for details! May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Dow Chemical -- Without chemicals, life itself would be uninteresting. http://www.dow.com May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Pepsi -- The choice of the GNU generation. Ignore that COKE message a few lines back. May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Hiya, Sailor! Looking for a good time? Try: http://real-teens-nude-and-lewd.com May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Is it painful sitting around looking at console messages? Try Preporation H -- Best for hemmorhoid sufferers. May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Resierfs -- internal buffer overflow. Deleting code but retaining advertisements. May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? http://www.abc.com May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Who Wants To Be A Billionaire? http://www.oracle.com/~ellison May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Allocating 200 Mb virtual space for more adverts; loading special VGA driver May 03 00:59:36 testsys kernel: Jolt -- The REAL Choice of a GNU Generation. Ignore that Pepsi ad (and the COKE one while you are at it).
Orange Book certification (C2, B1, etc.) usually requires certification of a total system... not just the operating system. So, even if you could install all their mods in a single package, you would need to certify the OS along with your brand of PC, controllers, etc.
Be that as it may, it is a great start.
Security levels C2 and greater (including B1) will be useful for getting Linux into government offices, the same ones where NT is C2 certified (as long as there is no network connection [smile!])... the government already has a large installed base of desktop systems.
Linux's low cost of entry and now B1 features is just more of the foot in the door for the government and other people that will have to take a look at this system that was once dismissed as a "toy" by others. --
I remember a declaration of independence written in 1776, which voiced a rather eloquent declaration of the liberties that Americans have the right to expect. I remember this country fighting wars against Great Britain to uphold their self-declared freedoms.
I remember Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Adress, presented during one of the most trying periods of our history, state "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
But that was long ago... back when we were just a federal republic.
Now, we are no longer such a republic. We have embraced capitalism and its love of one thing only: MONEY.
The government that Lincoln talked about is no more.
Our government is now of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and the fucking people be DAMNED!
There was no revolution, not a single shot was fired. We lost.
And every American citizen has himself or herself to blame... they allowed it to happen. And now that the corporations are firmly entrenched, we have bugger-all chance of ever getting our liberties back.
So, sit back, watch your DVD's on your licensed players; allow little Johnny to surf the web knowing that Cyber Patrol will be preventing him from seeing such smutty sites as Peacefire.org (they hit positive for nudity, sexual acts, violence, etc.); and when you find yourself evicted from your house by a faceless corporation because "you purchased a spreadsheet program and neglected to read the fine print on their legally binding shrink-wrap license," do so happily, since this is indeed the fucking land of the free.
"Here come more homeless! God bless America!"
(Then again, you might want to consider doing something, like supporting the Electronic Freedom Foundation during those "must-watch" commercials on your DVD.) --
With some ex-Macintosh designers working on a new interface (for GNOME?) and articles like this, I think that this will help with the perception that "Linux is good for servers but terrible for new users" that I hear again and again.
Of course, if it works on top of Linux, I hope to see some efforts in getting it to work on top of one of the *BSD's and other free systems. --
There's a web site http://www.lemuria.org/Software/unpoison that calls this technique "URL Poisoning" and mentions that this could be considered a Bad Thing, because using this technique, people cannot easily "opt out" from being profiled, as you can by, say, disabling cookies in your browser.
Refer to the above link for an explanation of URL Poisoning, and for a pointer to a Squid redirector plugin that can be used to disable URL poisoning.
I personally don't have any opinion on this; I can see how it can be used, as well as how it could be abused. [shrug] --
My.sig was set in Slashdot preferences. I was aware of it (saw it on preview) and found that it was totally ironic, and decided not to change it.
I hope that the.sig didn't distract from the message: Nuisance suits are a way of life in these here Yew-nited States. It's one of the way that the big guys can legally step all over the little guy.
Another view of how these nuisance suits work (from the early days of microcomputers)...
A chain of stores opened up in the 70's called "Computer Shack." Tandy/Radio Shack sued, and they fought back. Tandy lost.
Then, Tandy sued in another state, despite the name was found not to be infringing on their name in a previous suit.
When they saw the handwriting on the wall, they changed their name. Despite the fact that they won the legal judgment.
So, you don't even need to WIN lawsuits. Having them be a sheer nuisance is enough to discourage activity that the "big boys" don't want you doing.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, gets to stomp all over them that don't.
I wonder what the Electronic Freedom Foundation and other similar groups feel about the RIAA-Napster thing.
The point isn't whether or not Napster is pirating songs. The RIAA knows this, Napster knows this, and from the comments posted, most of the people on Slashdot seem to know this.
There are more than one reason to initiate a lawsuit. If Napster doesn't have the resources to fight a challenge by the RIAA, then the RIAA wins -- by default!
The RIAA has nothing to lose with this lawsuit. If Napster has good legal representation, then the RIAA will notice this and will probably back down, or come up with some sort of "settlement" that neither party will be able to divulge to anybody else.
This is just a classic case of the big corporation stepping on a little guy: look at all the money and legal resources the RIAA has... it's only reason to be is to initiate these heavy handed lawsuits to protect their member companies.
This is exactly like the etoys.com action against etoy.com; there's no hope for etoys.com to win in an evenly matched legal fight. But if the other party doesn't have the $$$ to fight it, then "I'm sorry. The suit was invalid, but you still lose."
Whatever happens, I hope that Napster doesn't try to make a deal with the RIAA. Look at how the RIAA managed to get the Lyrics Archive to "get back up" -- but at the cost that it now has virtually no lyrics whatever. Any deals with the RIAA means that RIAA wins, and everybody else loses.
I wonder if there will be a legal defense fund set up... --
As a father who had been considering one or two online purchases for his children for the coming Christmas season, I can say that my feelings about this is "I'll go anywhere but etoys.com." Such a thing at least makes me feel good.
A boycott could only work if it is sufficiently advertised. Hopefully, there are a few news services that monitor Slashdot and may make this case a bit more public. Maybe etoys.com can be made to withdraw the lawsuit. Who knows.
Ten years ago, reading USENET only generated smirks from the MBA types, telling me that I was wasting my time and to get a life.
Now those same MBA's have "discovered" the Internet, and are looking to push us out of "their" sandbox.
It's not going to work that way, fellas. Sure, you can sue all you want. Lawsuits don't generate good feeling by potential customers, though. The "little guy's" only recourse is to publicize such abuses as much as possible.
Of course, the next step is to have slime molds like etoys.com purchase cnn.com, msnbc.com, etc. and they won't have to worry about people hearing about such abuses.
So... as I wait to see the 1900's odometer turn, it is heartening to see Slashdot making at least SOME people aware of these types of things.
I still wonder what kind of Internet such companies are going to end up with. And what kind of Internet replacement that WE will come up with so that we don't need to swim in such soiled refuse-ridden sewage. --
Slashdot Mirror
But, since Apple is now adopting Unix as a foundation for OS X, we will be hearing the Mac evangelists tell us how all this stuff that Unix has is really great, but it's not REALLY an operating system unless you have all the extra stuff that Apple adds.
Of course, looking at his definition of an operating system, we can easily conclude that until OS X, the Macintosh never actually HAD an operating system... where is the basic stuff like pre-emptive multi-tasking? So what was all those pre-OS X Macs? Toys??? I doubt that any serious Mac user would agree with that.
Instead of putting down Unix as "not an entire operating system," why not just say that just an operating system in and of itself is probably not what the majority of most users want.
Looking at the corporate environment, a computer just isn't useful unless it has some of the things that were mentioned: An operating system (of course), a GUI, networking, a web browser, and APPLICATIONS, including Word Processing, and whatever else is needed in order to get work done.
If all this is provided by one vendor, then you have a "one stop shopping" solution that some corporate mindsets find attractive. This is one of the reasons that Microsoft has been successful in the PC market.
But as long as all of these things are available, then any environment -- Windows, Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, Tru64 Unix, and the others -- should serve the needs of most people.
But, of course, this doesn't say that OS X is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and so wouldn't be printed in such a forum. [shrug]
--
Let's see... The site is owned by Time-Warner, which is represented in the DeCSS suit by the MPAA, who doesn't like all this here piracy that exists on the web.
Heck, these are OUR copyrights that are being trodden upon!
Let's get the EFF to sue them, and force them to settle for something reasonable... like sending $100 PER THESIS SOLD to a fund that will help 2600 in its legal battles...
--
I, as a defendant, don't have any choice in the selection of the arbitrator. I protest, knowing the WIPO only looks at the $$$ of the big company and isn't interested in little guys like me, and ignore the WIPO. As a result, the WIPO orders me to transfer bigcompany.com to the plaintiff and my registrar hands it over to them (according to ICANN rules).
Now, say I have been doing business as www.bigcompany.com for a few years before that big ole company had even thought of the internet. I decide that it's not fair.
Therefore, would I be able to REARBITRATE, and pick my own arbitrator (since I'd be the plaintiff now)... an arbitrator that's a little more partial to the "little guys" and make the same claim on the big company, which is now the defendant?
If so, then I can see a big see-saw happening.
What I would prefer to see is:
Of course, the defendant should be notified by email and snail mail at the addresses in the WHOIS databases as well as postmaster@[the disputed domain]) in order to prevent any mishaps where a defendant that is on holiday may come home to find that he is in default because of a ridiculously short time to answer...!
This would be a little less "quick and dirty" but would prevent looking like either the plaintiff or defendant has any edge over the other except for the merits of the actual dispute.
--
Does the m100 have the same dimensions as the other Palm screens? The picture of it on the palm site makes it look shorter than the VII. Same number of pixels?
Just wonderin'
--
I think it's called "galley copy."
--
Why is X so large? It's the server, mostly. It has to respond to a number of basic operations, in a way that makes sense when you realize that the xterm that you have on your window may have originated on the same system, a Linux system on a local network, or even an RS/6000 at work.
X is a protocol that allows a number of different workstations to interoperate. That RS/6000 xterm will react to my window manager in the same way that a local xterm will. No surprises.
A program that uses the X libraries and the Intrinsics (Xt) toolkit can usually be recompiled on any other system with X Window support, and run as is. If the program uses GNOME, KDE, Motif, or any other set of libraries that run on top of X, the only requirement is that those libraries must also be installed. But the program runs the same on all of those systems where those libraries are installed.
Is X a large program? Certainly. It could have been designed differently and work well on a single architecture. A window manager could have been integrated into it. Hell, add a file manager with tree-views. Microsoft took this tack, but if you write a program using the Windows libraries, they will only work on Intel boxes (or maybe Alphas, prior to Windows 2000).
X offers configurability. Not generally very easy, but it is there. Don't like the fact that your window manager binds CTRL-F4 to "Window Close?" Change the parameters and restart your window manager. How easy is that on Windows?
X allows you to separate the fact that you wish to draw a circle from the actual act of rendering that circle. Send a graphics request to a display, and the display will figure out how to draw that circle. It doesn't matter that the program may be running on a different machine than where the display is. It works.
If you are running NT, try opening a DOS command prompt on your neighbor's box, with the commands appearing on your box. You can probably purchase a special utility to do this (and install it on both boxes), but that capability is not built into Windows. On X, all you have to do is to be able to authorize myself via the network (rlogin, rstart, ssh, xauth). Voila!
X reigns supreme when you wish to work on multiple computers, but don't want to hop around from keyboard to keyboard. It was developed for such a collaborative environment, and is machine neutral (works on Intel, Motorola, Alpha, HP, and many other chip sets), network neutral (it works with DECNet, TCP/IP, and Unix sockets), workstation neutral (just need an X server for the computer(s) you wish to work on), and operating system neutral (you can get X servers for Unix, Linux, Windows, Macintosh, and a lot more).
Do you wish for better graphics support in X? Well, if you have an anti-aliasing library that will render fonts better IN A MACHINE-NEUTRAL WAY, then donate code to the Open Group to perform the function and everybody wins! Bitstream offered their Speedo font technology for font scaling. Others have donated other technologies. XFree86 has done wonders with having it work on microcomputers.
It's open source. Add what you think is missing. Yes. This will make it even bigger, of course.
Smaller isn't always better. I can remove X Window from my Linux system, and have a character-oriented prompt. Doesn't take up much disk or memory space as X, but it doesn't offer me as much flexibility.
(void) lar3ry();
--
I'm sorry, but if something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. End of statement. It would be similar to saying that if I catch somebody shoplifting in my store, I'm allowed to break into that person's house and steal his television. As was pointed out in a previous thread here, two wrongs do not make a right.
However, I do not see anything wrong with using such tools as exist to try to determine the identity of any person that attempts to hijack my machine. This isn't illegal, by any definition of the word. And it gives me something more to tell the authorities (when applicable); rather than a "somebody cracked my system," I can tell them "so-and-so cracked into my system, and here's my proof."
My system has been targeted by a couple of brain-dead individuals over the past few years. I've used whatever tools I could find to try to track those people down.
I'm happy that the US FBI takes such things very seriously, and have developed (or otherwise obtained) tools and techniques far beyond what I can do as an individual. I am currently satisified with this, although I had once been the subject of an attack that originated in India. I don't know if a super-jurisdictional legal authority would help here; it might be worth looking into.
I see no need to set up an internet vigilante force to "string 'em up" -- lynch mentality is never something that I think a polite society should strive for.
--
I'm sorry, Apple. But my dog has the prior art here. She responds to squeezing, stroking, and rubbing and she is quite a capable pointer.
--
Not just a user preference. This doesn't help people that post anonymously. Make it an option on the form, and (very important) HAVE AN EDITORIAL POLICY THAT TELLS PEOPLE WHAT NOT SELECTING INDICATES.
--
That doesn't help the Anonymous Cowards or those that want to post anonymously. Instead of only a preference option, put two check boxes on the "Post Comments" form (see my message #18).
--
I think this re-thinking of attitudes on behalf of the editors is a good thing. In the future. tje editors may want to consider this idea:
Give users a chance to be quoted on the "Post Comment" screen. Two checkboxes saying "this can" or "this can NOT" be quoted in a different medium. Have the boxes unchecked by default. Allow the users to decide AS they are posting; not before or after. For registered users, this may even be set to a default.
If neither is selected, the editors may make some sort of announcement that such a republication of ideas is being considered, and remind people that they can opt in or out when they post.
And Slashdot should have an EDITORIAL POLICY as to the disposition of those comments that have neither of those selections made.
This is all hindsight, of course, but mistakes like this are good if people learn from them. If you want to retain copyright, there is a simple method. And if you don't care if your comments are posted, you can either give explicit permission or not select either choice.
--
One hundred years ago, corporations in America didn't have the same rights as regular citizens. Now they do, and having lots of money, it seems that their rights need to be "protected" more than the American citizens.
That's why we have the DMCA, and why UCITA will probably pass, and why copyrights have been extended retroactively all in the past few years. Does any of this legislation help citizens, or does it help corporations?
I mentioned in a Slashdot forum a month or so ago that Lincoln's words about a nation "of the people, by the people, and for the people" would today have the people replaced by corporations.
We can make a difference by helping organizations that are on our side: Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, etc. We can also make a difference by being the voices of reason to others and expose these things to the light of day.
DCMA? Tell people what it REALLY does.
UCITA? Let them know that it is a bad thing.
Time Warner made a bone-headed move by keeping people from seeing the Millionaire game show... it's exposing the worst of what Jon calls Corporatism to the American public. Hopefully, this won't be the last time, and maybe some of the rest of us bone-headed do-nothing Americans will finally figure out what is really going on.
--
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Checking ReiserFS transaction log (device 16:02)
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: COKE - It's the Real Thing! (tm)
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: MAKE MONEY FAST! Surf on over to http://ima.realdumbschmuck.com for details!
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Dow Chemical -- Without chemicals, life itself would be uninteresting. http://www.dow.com
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Pepsi -- The choice of the GNU generation. Ignore that COKE message a few lines back.
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Hiya, Sailor! Looking for a good time? Try: http://real-teens-nude-and-lewd.com
May 03 00:59:34 testsys kernel: Is it painful sitting around looking at console messages? Try Preporation H -- Best for hemmorhoid sufferers.
May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Resierfs -- internal buffer overflow. Deleting code but retaining advertisements.
May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? http://www.abc.com
May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Who Wants To Be A Billionaire? http://www.oracle.com/~ellison
May 03 00:59:35 testsys kernel: Allocating 200 Mb virtual space for more adverts; loading special VGA driver
May 03 00:59:36 testsys kernel: Jolt -- The REAL Choice of a GNU Generation. Ignore that Pepsi ad (and the COKE one while you are at it).
--
Orange Book certification (C2, B1, etc.) usually requires certification of a total system... not just the operating system. So, even if you could install all their mods in a single package, you would need to certify the OS along with your brand of PC, controllers, etc.
Be that as it may, it is a great start.
Security levels C2 and greater (including B1) will be useful for getting Linux into government offices, the same ones where NT is C2 certified (as long as there is no network connection [smile!])... the government already has a large installed base of desktop systems.
Linux's low cost of entry and now B1 features is just more of the foot in the door for the government and other people that will have to take a look at this system that was once dismissed as a "toy" by others.
--
I remember a declaration of independence written in 1776, which voiced a rather eloquent declaration of the liberties that Americans have the right to expect. I remember this country fighting wars against Great Britain to uphold their self-declared freedoms.
I remember Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Adress, presented during one of the most trying periods of our history, state "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
But that was long ago... back when we were just a federal republic.
Now, we are no longer such a republic. We have embraced capitalism and its love of one thing only: MONEY.
The government that Lincoln talked about is no more.
Our government is now of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and the fucking people be DAMNED!
There was no revolution, not a single shot was fired. We lost.
And every American citizen has himself or herself to blame... they allowed it to happen. And now that the corporations are firmly entrenched, we have bugger-all chance of ever getting our liberties back.
So, sit back, watch your DVD's on your licensed players; allow little Johnny to surf the web knowing that Cyber Patrol will be preventing him from seeing such smutty sites as Peacefire.org (they hit positive for nudity, sexual acts, violence, etc.); and when you find yourself evicted from your house by a faceless corporation because "you purchased a spreadsheet program and neglected to read the fine print on their legally binding shrink-wrap license," do so happily, since this is indeed the fucking land of the free.
"Here come more homeless! God bless America!"
(Then again, you might want to consider doing something, like supporting the Electronic Freedom Foundation during those "must-watch" commercials on your DVD.)
--
With some ex-Macintosh designers working on a new interface (for GNOME?) and articles like this, I think that this will help with the perception that "Linux is good for servers but terrible for new users" that I hear again and again.
Of course, if it works on top of Linux, I hope to see some efforts in getting it to work on top of one of the *BSD's and other free systems.
--
If Charlton Heston plays Taylor again, I'd LOVE to see this line of dialogue:
Dr. Zaius: Ridiculous, Taylor! Guns don't kill humans, APES kill humans!
--
[sigh] I KNEW I should have previewed first!
There's a web site http://www.lemuria.org/Software/unpoison that calls this technique "URL Poisoning" and mentions that this could be considered a Bad Thing, because using this technique, people cannot easily "opt out" from being profiled, as you can by, say, disabling cookies in your browser.
Refer to the above link for an explanation of URL Poisoning, and for a pointer to a Squid redirector plugin that can be used to disable URL poisoning.
I personally don't have any opinion on this; I can see how it can be used, as well as how it could be abused. [shrug]
--
There's a web site http://www.lemuria.org/Software/unpoison that calls this technique "URL Poisoning" and mentions that this could be considered a Bad Thing, because using this technique, people cannot easily "opt out" from being profiled, as you can by, say, disabling cookies in your browser.
Refer to the above link for an explanation of URL Poisoning, and for a pointer to a Squid redirector plugin that can be used to disable URL poisoning.
I personally don't have any opinion on this; I can see how it can be used, as well as how it could be abused. [shrug]
--
say, have the song performed as an instrumental during the Oscar show...
ABC is owned by Disney, who is known for changing movie lyrics. _Arabian Nights_ in Aladdin comes immediately to mind...
--
Yes, I believe so. Unless you send a surfing force of thousands out onto the net every day there's no way you can really keep your name safe.
I think you just defined the Slashdot readership.
[smile]
--
My .sig was set in Slashdot preferences. I was aware of it (saw it on preview) and found that it was totally ironic, and decided not to change it.
.sig didn't distract from the message: Nuisance suits are a way of life in these here Yew-nited States. It's one of the way that the big guys can legally step all over the little guy.
I hope that the
Another view of how these nuisance suits work (from the early days of microcomputers)...
A chain of stores opened up in the 70's called "Computer Shack." Tandy/Radio Shack sued, and they fought back. Tandy lost.
Then, Tandy sued in another state, despite the name was found not to be infringing on their name in a previous suit.
When they saw the handwriting on the wall, they changed their name. Despite the fact that they won the legal judgment.
So, you don't even need to WIN lawsuits. Having them be a sheer nuisance is enough to discourage activity that the "big boys" don't want you doing.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, gets to stomp all over them that don't.
I wonder what the Electronic Freedom Foundation and other similar groups feel about the RIAA-Napster thing.
--
The point isn't whether or not Napster is pirating songs. The RIAA knows this, Napster knows this, and from the comments posted, most of the people on Slashdot seem to know this.
There are more than one reason to initiate a lawsuit. If Napster doesn't have the resources to fight a challenge by the RIAA, then the RIAA wins -- by default!
The RIAA has nothing to lose with this lawsuit. If Napster has good legal representation, then the RIAA will notice this and will probably back down, or come up with some sort of "settlement" that neither party will be able to divulge to anybody else.
This is just a classic case of the big corporation stepping on a little guy: look at all the money and legal resources the RIAA has... it's only reason to be is to initiate these heavy handed lawsuits to protect their member companies.
This is exactly like the etoys.com action against etoy.com; there's no hope for etoys.com to win in an evenly matched legal fight. But if the other party doesn't have the $$$ to fight it, then "I'm sorry. The suit was invalid, but you still lose."
Whatever happens, I hope that Napster doesn't try to make a deal with the RIAA. Look at how the RIAA managed to get the Lyrics Archive to "get back up" -- but at the cost that it now has virtually no lyrics whatever. Any deals with the RIAA means that RIAA wins, and everybody else loses.
I wonder if there will be a legal defense fund set up...
--
As a father who had been considering one or two online purchases for his children for the coming Christmas season, I can say that my feelings about this is "I'll go anywhere but etoys.com." Such a thing at least makes me feel good.
A boycott could only work if it is sufficiently advertised. Hopefully, there are a few news services that monitor Slashdot and may make this case a bit more public. Maybe etoys.com can be made to withdraw the lawsuit. Who knows.
Ten years ago, reading USENET only generated smirks from the MBA types, telling me that I was wasting my time and to get a life.
Now those same MBA's have "discovered" the Internet, and are looking to push us out of "their" sandbox.
It's not going to work that way, fellas. Sure, you can sue all you want. Lawsuits don't generate good feeling by potential customers, though. The "little guy's" only recourse is to publicize such abuses as much as possible.
Of course, the next step is to have slime molds like etoys.com purchase cnn.com, msnbc.com, etc. and they won't have to worry about people hearing about such abuses.
So... as I wait to see the 1900's odometer turn, it is heartening to see Slashdot making at least SOME people aware of these types of things.
I still wonder what kind of Internet such companies are going to end up with. And what kind of Internet replacement that WE will come up with so that we don't need to swim in such soiled refuse-ridden sewage.
--
My Alpha XP1000 (COMPAQ, formerly DEC), has a standard PC layout, including the misplaced CAPSLOCK key, ESC at 11:00, 12 F-keys along the top, etc.
Interestingly, the backspace key reads "Backspace" [you'd have to have used older DEC keys to appreciate this!].
--