>I don't follow why people would want to stick it too them in this instance anyway.
I, personally, would take the opportunity to stick it to M$ because they are capitalists and they are about non-free software. That part about sticking it to them was more or less a joke, though. It would seem silly to fight capitalism in general and M$ by buying a kinect, even if I would only use a reverse engineered API (or whatever) on GNU/Linux. But dismantling the whole capitalist system is such a big undertaking, so... what can I do? I know I should be a vegan communist RMS, but I'm just too weak. That doesn't mean the vegan communist RMS:s are wrong, though. They're right. It's just that I was nursed into this western abundance and even though my riches are directly dependant on the exploitation of poor brown people on the other side of the globe, I can't not go buy the cheap t-shirts and noodles. It's not my fault, IMHO. Someone else is running the show.
If I'm going to use it in an unofficial capacity, such as 3d-modelling on Linux or put it on a robot whose brain runs Linux, then I should stick it to the MS and get the subsidised X-box one?
If the data is available from a website, the government can crawl it. robots.txt is a polite request not to search the content of a website, not a physical lock or encryption.
It may be EASIER for the governments to find "miscreants" on social networks because they're all in one database and more easily scanned, but that definitely doesn't mean you're safe from prying eyes ANYWHERE on the internet. If you post it where others can read it, the three-letter agencies can, will, and DO read it.
Privacy on the internet is an illusion, nothing more. It has alway been so, will always be so, and cannot be otherwise if people are to share information.
Using Facebook and pals, even the stuff you set "private" may end up being crawled and mined by commercial interests or governments.
If you build a decentralised social network by connecting to your friends over encrypted connections, the stuff meant for friends can't be seen by anyone else. (Your friends may, of course, further distribute any information about you they have been given access to, even if you haven't made it completely public.)
If you host your totally private (as in not even accessible by friends) stuff yourself or encrypted on someone else's server, only you can get to it, unless the government has a $5 wrench and the willingness to beat the data out of you.
Having control over the social network, as with the upcoming freedombox idea, is way better than facebook et al. for privacy.
Maybe we could call it "Southern hospitalism" in the south and... "Familyism" or "Jesusism" in some parts and "Common sensism" for some and "Patriotism" for some?
Whoops! I think I accidentally went into marketing and advertising. As per the gospel of Bill Hicks I must now kill myself. Any of you yanks got a gun i could borrow?
I don't contribute to the NPR. Mainly because it's not my NPR.
I did use to get bills for SVT when I had a TV, though, and the public service broadcasters SVT (here in Sweden) or YLE (in finland), like the BBC (I'd imagine) are in a whole other dimension of journalism compaired to any of the commercial offerings, being politically and commercially independent.
I'm not saying your points of 1 or 2 are wrong, but that the solution to a copyright economy which is/{should be} dying is for people with the means to pay for it, as in from each according to their abilities etc., because we all want information and an informed public and not to be playing silly ownership games with bits, don't we?
"Nationalise" or more appropriately "globalise" the AP.
We (as in people in general) should pay a fraction of a cent or whatever for the AP journalists to keep doing their job, IMO.
I'm not going to try to force it, but I just think it would be a sensible thing to do. We all benefit from the AP and the likes, don't we?
ah... ok, ok. This is a bit different. It might be helpful to all of us for a commenter to succintly distill the jizz of their post into the title, but more than punishing people for not being helpful in their communication by title on this forii or any of their so choozing, I'd... meh. I forget.
"But that "First Post" shit causes me to instantly devalue your input before even reading it. You're only hurting yourself."
Appearance should not matter. Stuff should be judged by its merits, not its title.
That's what I'd like to think the people namig their graphics program GIMP instead of, say, "Pixpulate Ultimate Pro Aluminum" or "Imagejob GT Klondyke Slim" had in mind.
What if we'd just pool together alot of money to employ loads of journalists to do quality journalism, kind of like the how the BBC and other public service broadcasters work?
It seems to me they (like BBC, SVT, YLE, NRK, which are the ones I've watched/listened to) do actual real journalism instead of commercial bullshit.
Do you mean that I don't know what I'm talking about stating that I don't know if said complexity might be suboptimal for a small outfit, meaning that I actually do know that? If so, then thanks, maybe.
I try to appear humble and understated at times, so I apprechiate you stepping up to proclaim "No! You don't know what your talking 'bout when you say you don't know what you're talking 'bout!".
In reality, though, I don't know. I was just googling and wikipediaing about the question at hand, reporting on what I came across.
oh... suboptimal communication. Should be evident from the context, but I meant to say that the three year old turns into a stupid jerk perhaps most nights with or without sugar.
Sorry, your point was that it was obvious even if some experiment said something else.
I'll offer an anecdote. I fed the little three year old plenty of sugar. It did turn into a stupid jerk. But it often does. Perhaps most nights.
We only feed the little bastard sugar one night of the week and the obnoxious behavior doesn't seem to be worse on those nights.
Even if it would be a bit worse upon closer inspection after quantifying the sugar and unrulyness, it might just be the effect of getting worked up about candy day - a cultural hangup in the cosmology of this three year old.
I think we could fool it with artificial sweeteners.
I heard controlled experiments could not find sugar high to be an explanation.
I do know that I have thought about sugar high when the kid has been acting crazy after noted sugar ingestion, but I think I attribute it to that because the hype makes me think of it in times of craziness after sugar ingestion. Similar craziness at other times is just craziness and goes unreflected upon.
I've heard they have done double penetration testies or whatever it's called and parents thinking the kids were fed sugar were more likely to report unrulyness.
I'm sure this hyped up thing should have been thoroughly investigated by now regarding the immediate effects of sugar.
That said, I don't think sugar is good for you and it can even be kind of a rutine, if not an addiction. (and if you can get addicted to gambling and sex, why not sugar?)
One should not eat too much sugar.
For people who eat too much sugar a low carb diet might do the trick even if it would just actually really be about calories in/out.
Don't eat too few carbs, though. I heard that's bad for you as well.
That he himself had discriminated against the female boss because of her sex was obviously considered irrelevant, as religion and multiculturalism apparently trumps equality between the sexes in Sweden.
I acknowledge that freedoms clash in this case and others.
I'd just like to point out that in this case, while he was oppressing the woman, she was a "boss" as you put it, higher up in that hierarchy.
My guess is he was a loon (possibly just by culture, probably by brain configuration/chemistry, I don't know) and he was on social security.
While I do think the oppression of women is the most widespread oppression across the board on the planet, I think that in this case the muslim social security loon was the underdog and should be forgiven or pitied. The female boss did probably not get too distressed.
I wouldn't want to hire this loon either, but I just felt like commenting on that your post did come off as a bit... sverigedemokratish.
Maybe you did not intend that, because I agree that for the rights of different groups can clash in difficult ways.
I just wanted to point out that one should blame power and forgive the underdog. If the underdog gets to be top dog in any context, then it's open season as far as I'm concerned.
I noticed that the FAQ about Evergreen states the following:
"Evergreen was designed from the ground up to meet the needs of a very large (more than 270-member) library lending consortium whose members collaborate but are not in lockstep on policies. Evergreen needed to be able to handle large indexing and transaction loads while supporting highly-configurable policies for each member library. "
Also the above mentioned KOHA seems to flaunt very complex features (not that these two would then necessarily be complicated or overkill).
Isn't he the guy who copied all that fish and bread and distributed it for free to all those hungry people?
That's kind of like we now copy and distribute knowledge, information and culture for free to people starved to learn and enjoy culture?
I imagine the bakers and the fishers industry associations of judea (BIAJ and FIAJ, respectively) were real pissed back then .
If we can give knowledge, information and culture to people for free, we obviously should, just as we should copy the fishes and the bread to feed the hungry if we had the power.
I'm sure the leaders want TV to be an opiate and every other kind of drug-analogy to control the masses with. They probably feel the ratio of the opiate of entertainment was pushing the people in a suboptimal direction.
... on second thought, the S in SNAP probably stands for security. I could just check their site in about a second an a half, but instead I'm preferring to be where I allready am and do what I was allready doing. The inetria in me sometimes astonishes even myself.
You don't read or listen to quite the right stuff, apparently.
For a tech podcast, where you would have heard it mentioned in a few episodes, go to for example "techSNAP" (SNAP stands for Server, Network, Administration, Podcast).
The host, Chris, can be a bit silly as if he was trying to fill too big shoes, pretending to be a professional TV host (which he technically is, as in getting paid and even having quit his day job, though), but some could certainly find that kinda nerdy cute. And he is still improving, as far as I can see. The "style" of his presenting is a tad bit too "american" to me. I still watch every show, though.
I'm sure they're way more knowledgeable than anything on the TWIT network with Leo Laporte (which is just too annoying for me to watch).
The co-host Alan is very knowledgeable about all sorts of tech and internet related things and especially server and network stuff. I believe he co-runs a serverhosting business. He prefers and runs nginx in his shop.
I don't like their commercials (and the very blurry line between selling and informing when it comes to talking about the products of their advertizers (such as godaddy(!))).
Most of these cameras are privately owned. Do you really believe there's something about Britain that makes private businesses substantially more likely to employ CCTV than in other countries?
The law, maybe? I don't think you can put up CCTV cameras willy nilly in some other countries even if you have a shop or pub or something.
Well it's not until November so another 10 months? Personally I think it would be awesome if they left that graph thing running, just resetting every month. It's a great motivator. I've been thinking about coding something similar, just haven't gotten around to it.
Seems like you could use the NaNaNoWriMoCoWriMO - National NaNOWriMO Code Writing Month.
>Communism has existed. In communes. It can actually work, if you just want to run a village. It just scales really, really poorly.
If only there was some sort of magical machines to help us scale and decentralize information and decisions, so that utopia could be administered without hierarchy and more efficiently than a bunch of mentally ill despots/tyrants could muster a hundred years ago...
>For once, a CEO thought beyond the next quarterly report. Be careful what you complain about.
Clever point about the longterm. I feel a bit ambivalent about this, since the longterm thingy may be good. The doing business with the oppressive regime is bad.
This reminds me of IBM selling the gassingadministrationsystems (or whatchamacallit) to the Nazis...
We should perhaps not blame the corporations, though, but also not expect any sort of decency from them. The solution should instead be outlawing genocide of millions and dictatorial oppression of other forms and other nastiness and the aiding of said nastiness.
...and to dispell some potential miscommunication, I'll just go ahead and say that one could probably find a philosophy to counter what I just said about dictatorship not being "philosophically right". I guess I mean "logically and ethically" or something. And that's still just my intuition, of course, but one that I intuitively feel seems pretty solid.
Slashdot Mirror
>I don't follow why people would want to stick it too them in this instance anyway.
I, personally, would take the opportunity to stick it to M$ because they are capitalists and they are about non-free software. That part about sticking it to them was more or less a joke, though. It would seem silly to fight capitalism in general and M$ by buying a kinect, even if I would only use a reverse engineered API (or whatever) on GNU/Linux. But dismantling the whole capitalist system is such a big undertaking, so ... what can I do? I know I should be a vegan communist RMS, but I'm just too weak. That doesn't mean the vegan communist RMS:s are wrong, though. They're right. It's just that I was nursed into this western abundance and even though my riches are directly dependant on the exploitation of poor brown people on the other side of the globe, I can't not go buy the cheap t-shirts and noodles. It's not my fault, IMHO. Someone else is running the show.
>Or you could, you know, read the article.
I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.
If I'm going to use it in an unofficial capacity, such as 3d-modelling on Linux or put it on a robot whose brain runs Linux, then I should stick it to the MS and get the subsidised X-box one?
If the data is available from a website, the government can crawl it. robots.txt is a polite request not to search the content of a website, not a physical lock or encryption.
It may be EASIER for the governments to find "miscreants" on social networks because they're all in one database and more easily scanned, but that definitely doesn't mean you're safe from prying eyes ANYWHERE on the internet. If you post it where others can read it, the three-letter agencies can, will, and DO read it.
Privacy on the internet is an illusion, nothing more. It has alway been so, will always be so, and cannot be otherwise if people are to share information.
Using Facebook and pals, even the stuff you set "private" may end up being crawled and mined by commercial interests or governments.
If you build a decentralised social network by connecting to your friends over encrypted connections, the stuff meant for friends can't be seen by anyone else. (Your friends may, of course, further distribute any information about you they have been given access to, even if you haven't made it completely public.)
If you host your totally private (as in not even accessible by friends) stuff yourself or encrypted on someone else's server, only you can get to it, unless the government has a $5 wrench and the willingness to beat the data out of you.
Having control over the social network, as with the upcoming freedombox idea, is way better than facebook et al. for privacy.
Maybe we could call it "Southern hospitalism" in the south and ... "Familyism" or "Jesusism" in some parts and "Common sensism" for some and "Patriotism" for some?
Whoops! I think I accidentally went into marketing and advertising. As per the gospel of Bill Hicks I must now kill myself. Any of you yanks got a gun i could borrow?
I don't contribute to the NPR. Mainly because it's not my NPR.
I did use to get bills for SVT when I had a TV, though, and the public service broadcasters SVT (here in Sweden) or YLE (in finland), like the BBC (I'd imagine) are in a whole other dimension of journalism compaired to any of the commercial offerings, being politically and commercially independent.
I'm not saying your points of 1 or 2 are wrong, but that the solution to a copyright economy which is/{should be} dying is for people with the means to pay for it, as in from each according to their abilities etc., because we all want information and an informed public and not to be playing silly ownership games with bits, don't we?
"Nationalise" or more appropriately "globalise" the AP.
We (as in people in general) should pay a fraction of a cent or whatever for the AP journalists to keep doing their job, IMO.
I'm not going to try to force it, but I just think it would be a sensible thing to do. We all benefit from the AP and the likes, don't we?
ah... ok, ok. This is a bit different. It might be helpful to all of us for a commenter to succintly distill the jizz of their post into the title, but more than punishing people for not being helpful in their communication by title on this forii or any of their so choozing, I'd ... meh. I forget.
"But that "First Post" shit causes me to instantly devalue your input before even reading it. You're only hurting yourself."
Appearance should not matter. Stuff should be judged by its merits, not its title.
That's what I'd like to think the people namig their graphics program GIMP instead of, say, "Pixpulate Ultimate Pro Aluminum" or "Imagejob GT Klondyke Slim" had in mind.
Bullshit is bullshit.
Or socialism?
What if we'd just pool together alot of money to employ loads of journalists to do quality journalism, kind of like the how the BBC and other public service broadcasters work?
It seems to me they (like BBC, SVT, YLE, NRK, which are the ones I've watched/listened to) do actual real journalism instead of commercial bullshit.
What do you mean?
Do you mean that I don't know what I'm talking about stating that I don't know if said complexity might be suboptimal for a small outfit, meaning that I actually do know that? If so, then thanks, maybe.
I try to appear humble and understated at times, so I apprechiate you stepping up to proclaim "No! You don't know what your talking 'bout when you say you don't know what you're talking 'bout!".
In reality, though, I don't know. I was just googling and wikipediaing about the question at hand, reporting on what I came across.
Or am I just saying that?
oh... suboptimal communication. Should be evident from the context, but I meant to say that the three year old turns into a stupid jerk perhaps most nights with or without sugar.
Sorry, your point was that it was obvious even if some experiment said something else.
I'll offer an anecdote. I fed the little three year old plenty of sugar. It did turn into a stupid jerk. But it often does. Perhaps most nights.
We only feed the little bastard sugar one night of the week and the obnoxious behavior doesn't seem to be worse on those nights.
Even if it would be a bit worse upon closer inspection after quantifying the sugar and unrulyness, it might just be the effect of getting worked up about candy day - a cultural hangup in the cosmology of this three year old.
I think we could fool it with artificial sweeteners.
I heard controlled experiments could not find sugar high to be an explanation.
I do know that I have thought about sugar high when the kid has been acting crazy after noted sugar ingestion, but I think I attribute it to that because the hype makes me think of it in times of craziness after sugar ingestion. Similar craziness at other times is just craziness and goes unreflected upon.
I've heard they have done double penetration testies or whatever it's called and parents thinking the kids were fed sugar were more likely to report unrulyness.
I'm sure this hyped up thing should have been thoroughly investigated by now regarding the immediate effects of sugar.
That said, I don't think sugar is good for you and it can even be kind of a rutine, if not an addiction. (and if you can get addicted to gambling and sex, why not sugar?)
One should not eat too much sugar.
For people who eat too much sugar a low carb diet might do the trick even if it would just actually really be about calories in/out.
Don't eat too few carbs, though. I heard that's bad for you as well.
That he himself had discriminated against the female boss because of her sex was obviously considered irrelevant, as religion and multiculturalism apparently trumps equality between the sexes in Sweden.
I acknowledge that freedoms clash in this case and others.
I'd just like to point out that in this case, while he was oppressing the woman, she was a "boss" as you put it, higher up in that hierarchy.
My guess is he was a loon (possibly just by culture, probably by brain configuration/chemistry, I don't know) and he was on social security.
While I do think the oppression of women is the most widespread oppression across the board on the planet, I think that in this case the muslim social security loon was the underdog and should be forgiven or pitied. The female boss did probably not get too distressed.
I wouldn't want to hire this loon either, but I just felt like commenting on that your post did come off as a bit ... sverigedemokratish.
Maybe you did not intend that, because I agree that for the rights of different groups can clash in difficult ways.
I just wanted to point out that one should blame power and forgive the underdog. If the underdog gets to be top dog in any context, then it's open season as far as I'm concerned.
I noticed that the FAQ about Evergreen states the following:
"Evergreen was designed from the ground up to meet the needs of a very large (more than 270-member) library lending consortium whose members collaborate but are not in lockstep on policies. Evergreen needed to be able to handle large indexing and transaction loads while supporting highly-configurable policies for each member library. "
Also the above mentioned KOHA seems to flaunt very complex features (not that these two would then necessarily be complicated or overkill).
Openbiblio, claims to be targeted at smaller libraries.
http://obiblio.sourceforge.net/
I don't know anything about any of these, but maybe worth a look.
From the main site, it doesn't look like much is happening, but a post in the dev part of the forums indicates a new version is being worked on.
Why would scanning and ebooks make Jesus cry?
Isn't he the guy who copied all that fish and bread and distributed it for free to all those hungry people?
That's kind of like we now copy and distribute knowledge, information and culture for free to people starved to learn and enjoy culture?
I imagine the bakers and the fishers industry associations of judea (BIAJ and FIAJ, respectively) were real pissed back then .
If we can give knowledge, information and culture to people for free, we obviously should, just as we should copy the fishes and the bread to feed the hungry if we had the power.
I'm sure the leaders want TV to be an opiate and every other kind of drug-analogy to control the masses with. They probably feel the ratio of the opiate of entertainment was pushing the people in a suboptimal direction.
... on second thought, the S in SNAP probably stands for security. I could just check their site in about a second an a half, but instead I'm preferring to be where I allready am and do what I was allready doing. The inetria in me sometimes astonishes even myself.
You don't read or listen to quite the right stuff, apparently.
For a tech podcast, where you would have heard it mentioned in a few episodes, go to for example "techSNAP" (SNAP stands for Server, Network, Administration, Podcast).
http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/show/techsnap/
The host, Chris, can be a bit silly as if he was trying to fill too big shoes, pretending to be a professional TV host (which he technically is, as in getting paid and even having quit his day job, though), but some could certainly find that kinda nerdy cute. And he is still improving, as far as I can see. The "style" of his presenting is a tad bit too "american" to me. I still watch every show, though.
I'm sure they're way more knowledgeable than anything on the TWIT network with Leo Laporte (which is just too annoying for me to watch).
The co-host Alan is very knowledgeable about all sorts of tech and internet related things and especially server and network stuff. I believe he co-runs a serverhosting business. He prefers and runs nginx in his shop.
I don't like their commercials (and the very blurry line between selling and informing when it comes to talking about the products of their advertizers (such as godaddy(!))).
I also usually catch their "Linux Action Show".
Most of these cameras are privately owned. Do you really believe there's something about Britain that makes private businesses substantially more likely to employ CCTV than in other countries?
The law, maybe? I don't think you can put up CCTV cameras willy nilly in some other countries even if you have a shop or pub or something.
How long 'til NaNoWriMo?
Well it's not until November so another 10 months? Personally I think it would be awesome if they left that graph thing running, just resetting every month. It's a great motivator. I've been thinking about coding something similar, just haven't gotten around to it.
Seems like you could use the NaNaNoWriMoCoWriMO - National NaNOWriMO Code Writing Month.
>Communism has existed. In communes. It can actually work, if you just want to run a village. It just scales really, really poorly.
If only there was some sort of magical machines to help us scale and decentralize information and decisions, so that utopia could be administered without hierarchy and more efficiently than a bunch of mentally ill despots/tyrants could muster a hundred years ago...
>For once, a CEO thought beyond the next quarterly report. Be careful what you complain about.
Clever point about the longterm. I feel a bit ambivalent about this, since the longterm thingy may be good. The doing business with the oppressive regime is bad.
This reminds me of IBM selling the gassingadministrationsystems (or whatchamacallit) to the Nazis...
We should perhaps not blame the corporations, though, but also not expect any sort of decency from them. The solution should instead be outlawing genocide of millions and dictatorial oppression of other forms and other nastiness and the aiding of said nastiness.
... on third thought, scratch that.
Let's just say democracy feels more logically ethical than dictatorship to me. To each their own.
...and to dispell some potential miscommunication, I'll just go ahead and say that one could probably find a philosophy to counter what I just said about dictatorship not being "philosophically right". I guess I mean "logically and ethically" or something. And that's still just my intuition, of course, but one that I intuitively feel seems pretty solid.
Ok, I'll elaborate on the hypothetical part of people "voting wrong and actually benefitting from dictatorship"...
I don't think benevolent dictatorship can be good in the long run, but that's just a hunch. What I mean is that i
Dictatorship can not be philosophically right. We should live by democracy and die by democracy. It's what we make of it.