I'm sure many of you have heard of the Iditarod -- the dog race from Anchorage, Alaska to Nome, Alaska over 1100 miles.
High school students in Nome were given an awesome project by their high school CS teacher -- we wrote the program that was used to keep track of the mushers during the race.
This was pre-internet explosion -- I'm talking mid- to late 80's here -- and we wrote the program in BASIC on our trusty Apple IIe's. It was a simple database; the users would enter a musher number, checkpoint number, time entering or leaving, and number of active dogs on the team. Once an hour we had to print off a report that was given out to the media reps sitting in Nome.
The ultimate perk was, once the race actually started, students could sign up for 8-hour shifts manning the computers at the Iditarod HQ in Nome. (Yes, even during school hours, but you had to sign up for 2 non-school shifts for every one school shift.)
About the time I graduated from school, Alascom (Alaska's big telephone corp) was using the data from our program to do the updates on their 800-number voice-messaging number. ("The current leader is Libby Riddles; her last checkpoint was in Ruby" and all that.)
Granted, we re-wrote the program from scratch every year -- not the best model if you want to teach code re-use and modularity (but then again, it was the mid- to late 80's). I suppose it's likely that, should a class totally screw off for the semester, that they'd pull an old copy off of the shelf to use. But it was a project that stimulated the creative drive of the students. Even the ones who weren't in the class; kids also helped out with feeding and caring for the dogs when they got into town. It was a real community effort.
I suspect that, since the Iditarod has become more "professional" a la the Olypmics, that this project isn't being done anymore. It's a pity.
At one point, my sister created a Hotmail account. Being a bit of a technophobe, she only gave it to two friends in meatspace. After a month, it was full of spam - for pr0n sites. I have no idea how she managed to get onto pornspammers lists, but she did. Given that I doubt my sister is interested in looking at "cum-guzzling bitches" it seems a bit odd that she'd get that junk.
I had the same problem. I created a throwaway account for use on a particular mailing list (I wanted to be able to post stuff semi-anonymously) but never actually did anything with it.
A couple of months later I come back to Hotmail and I had 70 porn ads in it. I never gave anyone the address, let alone used it for anything!
Did anyone actually look at Hotmail's Terms of Service to determine wahther or not they reserve the right to sell your Hotmail account?
You know, a few people have pointed at Galeon as a smaller Mozilla. I looked at the website. Just wanted to say I thought the project's heart was in the right place, but creating a GPL-MozPL crossbreed is going to make damn sure that the project never makes a commercial distribution -- what's the point of offering a smaller browser if you need the bigger browser installed to run it?
I think that's just the current version. IIRC, their plan is to offer the Gecko engine as a seperately-downloaded module. Personally, I'm curious as to why they chose to make Galeon GPL when Gecko is MPL. Are they just asking for license incompatibilities?
Uhh...competition? The Microsoft optical mice SUCK. If you move them too fast (such as doing a quick 180-then back in counter-strike) they will go insane and start flying the cursor around the screen. This basically makes them useless for gaming. I had one for a day before I returned it. Most likely Apple's new mouse will be just as useless.
He's right; I can't even get Counter-Strike to launch on my Mac with one of these new mice...
Ok...let's just for a second say that Mozilla is 'dead.' Now, for one thing, what does this mean?
It means that the end-users have waited for so long for a product that meets their needs, they'll go somewhere else (even to *gasp* proprietary software) to get things done.
As an open-source project, Linux got by under everyone else's radar until it was complete enough to meet the needs of end-users. The same goes for Apache; it didn't get big-name recognition until it was already kicking ass in the server world. But Mozilla has the dubious distinction of being a big-name project from the time it was announced and the end-users who were hoping that in a few months' time they'd have a brand-spanking new browser are being clued into reality.
It's like watching the O.J. Simpson trial; everyone expected a quick and easy Perry Mason-style show, and instead they got a real trial -- complete with a real trial ending. The people who pinned their hopes on having a Mozilla-style browser "real soon now" to check the onslaught of MSIE have realized that it's not going to happen, and they feel like they've been let down.
By all means, make plans to standardize on Mozilla. AOL can make all they plans they want to switch their users over Mozilla (though I would point out that they're still using MSIE in the meantime). Just keep in mind that Mozilla, by their own timeline, is at least six months away from a theoretical 1.0 release. Hope developers can hold off their customers for that long...
Now if you want to take a look at the overall plan here is a layout of the Milestones As you can see they are at the end of what you call the feature creep, when in actuallity they are at the end of the development cycle and headed into bug/hunting performance tuning.
And the last "milestone build" released was M16 --a week late, even, but that's forgivable. That was on (according to Mozilla's site) June 13, 2000.
According to the milestone roadmap you pointed out M17 was supposed to be released three weeks after M16 was released, the end of June and M18 a month later. Where is M17?
This was supposed to be one of the first milestones to push for feature-completeness and optimization. Here's a chance for Mozilla developers to say "OK, we're done innovating, now we push to get our browser ready for prime-time" and they're dropping the ball.
Mozilla has turned into a big "develoeprs-only" party. Everyone talks about "just downloading and using the latest nightly builds" but for the casual end-user this is not an option. Yeah, I've downloaded the latest nightly builds and I haven't seen any of this great stability that everyone else is reporting.
I'm glad that Taco and others can use Mozilla as their daily browser -- wish I could share in the fun.
Whilst I know that I'm going to find scant support amongst a demographic known for its irreverance and disdain for tried and tested knowledge,
and a plethora of trolls who wouldn't know tried and tested knowledge if it bit them on the butt.
(But hey, I'm bored...)
I have to say that I'd honestly thought that Dungeons & Dragons had gone the way of the dodo many years ago.
That's why there's not one but two computer games based on the game system, with more to come?
When was the last time that anyone heard anything about D&D or its equally dubious successor, Magic the Gathering?
Well, Wizards of the Coast will be releasing the 3rd edition for Dungeons and Dragons in about 2 weeks, so expect to hear more about it. As for Magic the Gathering, well, they show the tournaments on EPSN2 of all places.
I had thought that roleplaying was an eighties fad whose time was thankfully past,
Not bloody likely.
Now the cycle of fantasy starts again, as this is sure to turn more youngsters from wholesome persuits to playing a game which teachings that violence and dark arts are tools for success, and that the acquisition of wealth makes you a better person.
God would I have loved to have been the first to post with the NFL crack, but there was a good point -- there are far more "socially acceptable" hobbies and interests which teach some rather poor morals.
I'm with BADD on this one - these games teach dangerous morals to the people that are most vulnerable.
It's funny you should mention BADD -- Michael Stackpole (genre author and part of the Industry Watch segment of GAMA, the gaming industry's trade association) compiled The Pulling Report which investigates the claims of Pat Pulling (the founder of BADD) and rather expertly debunks her allegations and attacks her credibility as a "cult crime investigator".
For more on GAMA's point of view, check out their Q&A about role-playing games, with the rather interesting factoid:
"One of the more persistent claims is that role-playing games has caused teens to commit suicide. The Center for Disease Control conducted an extensive study of teen suicide and found no evidence to link role-playing games with suicide. Investigations by the Association of Gifted and Creative Children (Dublin, CA), the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (the Bronx, NY), and the American Association of Suicidology (Denver, CO) have likewise found no evidence that games encourage suicide.
Moreover, researchers point out that the most heavily weighted factor in determining a child's suicide potential is whether or not he is a loner. Participation in a group activity of any sort sharply reduces that potential. It also provides a circle of friends who can pick up on any unusual behavior and encourage their friend to get help when there is a crisis."
We need to divide the world into two halves. One where all the penniless bastards who are too cheap to pay for anything go to not get paid for anything they do - and the other half where we don't mind paying for what we want. I'd like to see how that world would be - hmm.. maybe like the former Soviet Union.
What a spectacular example of not rebutting the original point.
People do things all of the time for free, beause they want to. If anything, current IP system hampers the progress of the arts because record labels convince people that:
a) The reason you want to be in a band is to make big money. b) [more significantly] Your music is not worth producing if you can't make money off of it.
People used to own more musical instruments than they do now; families commonly had a piano in their house. Sure, we're not talking about the kind of performance you'd pay $20 for a CD of, but the important thing was people enjoyed creating music themselves.
(And for the record, your example is way off-base. Under communism, you didn't "not get paid for what you did" -- you just didn't get paid what your work was "worth". "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and all that...)
From the Salon article: I don't think this is the end but it sends a message that copyright will not be ignored. It shows that the basic principle of copyright protection -- as made clear in the Constitution -- is very important. Except that it's defending the wrong end of "copyright protection", Jack. ARTICLE I, SECTION 8: The Congress shall have power to [...] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (Boldface is, of course, mine; if it wasn't, maybe we wouldn't be having these arguments.) You're meant to be able to make some coin off of the creation and distribution of your "art" and then, after a reasonable time, pass it into the public domain for future generations to enjoy. Instead, people still have to pay money to see "Steamboat Willie". Why? Is "Steamboat Willie" really that timeless? It's little more than a historical footnote, anymore; the first appearance of Mickey Mouse. Big deal. Like Mickey Mouse's face isn't slowly becoming synonymous with "rampant corporate greed" to anyone over the age of 7. The court has upheld one part of the copyright trade-off -- more clearly defining what constitutes infringement upon the rights of copyright holders to duplicate or distribute protected material -- but they've been sloughing off on the other end; the part where, after a reasonable length of time, these protected works are released into the wild, to flourish and inspire. I wish the "Ghost of Intellectual Property of the Future" could trip these guys forward, say 100 years, so they could see what kind of a future their efforts would bring. Then again, I don't know if they'd cry or cheer... Jay (=
"Hollow Man" is an "Invisible Man" story starring Kevin ("Six Degrees of") Bacon. Haven't seen the movie, not shilling for it, but I guess he becomes invisible and starts stalking Elizabeth ("I was yummy-looking in Palmetto") Shue.
I was reading this discussion when the ad came on; it was kinda surreal actually...
I can understand calling them idiots if you are referring to moral idiocy. But suggesting that they lack mental competence?
How much mental competence does it take to run a rootkit that you get from someone else? That is where probably 90% of DDoS attacks and root-compromised machines come from (keeping in mind that 90% of all statistics are meaningless).
Let's be realistic. They pulled this off. That means they're not complete morons.
It doesn't take much intelliegence to realize that it's much easier to break stuff than it is to fix it, giving kiddies a sense of power over those they "own". Sadly, that seems to be as far along the chain of logic as most script kiddies get.
We've got a real problem here. Disparaging the enemy doesn't help anything.
Yeah, it does. It allows you to vent frustration, and any script kiddies who read it might hopefully struggle up the mental food chain far enough to realize that "they're right; typing './rootkit.sh' isn't all that challenging" and look for productive means of testing their wits.
1) Better defenses. Way better.
I agree. Too bad that for every free site that tries to help w/security concerns, there are 30 people on IRC willing to hand out rootkits.
2) A strategy for counterattack, preferably legal.
Hah! No way in hell that'll ever happen. And I don't want it to, personally; if kiddies are using other machines as stepping-stones for an attack, then 'innocent' admins will find their machines being attacked by angry DDoS victims. A lynch mob mentality won't work in this case.
and optionally: 3) a way to win the war, so we can get on with our lives.
The problem is, it's like the *koff*koff* "drug war". As long as people want to be "elite hackers", there will be people willing to pass out rootkits.
The only way to win the war is to convince potential kiddies that it's better to create than to destroy. Which brings us full circle...
The above statement has been posted, verbatim, to probably at least half a dozen stories in the last few days (probably all of them, for all I know).
After trying to figure out if someone is trolling for karma, I figured out that all of the replies to the post are part of the post itself. If you click on any of the replies to the above post, you get the reply from the original thread.
I dunno of any of the repliers being quoted are trolls harvesting for karma, but every time this "post" and its "replies" get modded up, it wastes points better meant for real replies.
Kind of an interesting social engineering hack, if nothing else. Either way, please ignore this post in the future.
It cracks me up. Really. The whole idea of Linux as being "independent" of Big Corporations. You do remember who owns Sladshdot, don't you? And Freshmeat? That's right: a Big Corporation.
And who owns Linux? Everybody. Slashdot and Freshmeat can be killed today; within a week or two, you'll see replacements.
Between the huge number of Linux web sites owned by VA Linux, Internet.com, IDG, and others, it's laughable that anyone could consider these sites to be less biased than say, CNet or ZDNet.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword; your side, their side, and the truth" -- John Sheridan
There is no such thing as "unbiased coverage" anymore, not since mass media became more about delivering readers to advertisers than news to readers. But at least the "Linux biased" sites are more willing to look at IT issues from a non-Microsoft-centric view -- even if it is only to grab the eyeballs of the "Microsoft-bashing open source zealots".
I think it should be well known to Slashdot that they idea of a "socially responsible" corporation is laregly a myth.
I remember seeing a quote the other day to the effect of "a corporation is an amoral construct; however, if the corporation is formed from moral people, then it is a moral corporation". Slashdot as an entity is no more or less moral than ZDNet or MSNBC, but I believe that the people who select the stories and write the features believe in what they're doing.
VA Linux wants to sell you Linux machines, and if that means promoting it in an unethical way,
then what? (You forgot to finish your sentence.)
But is it more than just the media? Think of how many Linux "celebreities" work for Big Companies: Torvalds at Transmeta,
Who IIRC got a clause in his contract stating that Transmeta doesn't own any of his Linux work (that might be blurred somewhat when it comes to the Crusoe-specific work, but if it's going into a kernel it has to be GPLed, right?)
the huge number of people at Red Hat (Alan Cox, etc),
A company that has yet to not release any of its work under an open source license (I'm qualifying here because I don't know offhand how much of Red Hat's work is done on BSD-licensed code or the like).
Larry Wall working at O'Reilly ("the biggest parasite on Open Source", according to Bruce Perens).
Actually, he was referring to Tim O'Reilly himself, not necessarily the publisher -- a dust-up over O'Reilly being given some recognition by OSI.
"Every for-profit company that participates in free software development will have to find a balance between its own needs and those of the community if it is to participate at all. I have a scale that I use to describe free software participants that runs from benefactor to symbiotic to parasite. I'd put Red Hat in the symbiotic position right now, NASA is a benefactor, and the parasites know who they are:-). Parasites eventually lose because the community is too eager to help out their competition."
O'Reilly beleives it serves the community best by selling books about Free Software; if you disagree, don't buy the books.
Better yet, write some comparable-quality documentation and give it away yourself. The only "parasites" I see in this are the ones demanding that the property of other people be given away for free. Me, I'm happy with what is freely available (I'm waiting for the day that someone ports the GPL StarOffice to the MacOS -- yay, a replacement for MS Word!) and if I need to pay for *gasp* proprietary software or a *shudder* non-free book to get what I need in the meantime, I will.
3) The web developers who posted this (and the subsequent additional posters) are idiots.
Only because you apparently haven't grasped the WaSP's point.
Only an idiot would scream for standards -in fact, base their whole mission statement on the needs for open standards- and then bash the developers working on this very request.
But Mozilla developers aren't just working on a 100% complaint web browser. There's all the extra functionality being added (IRC, mail, news, etc.) that is 100% IRRELEVANT to the Web Standards Project's desires.
In their minds Mozilla development is proceeding too slowly, and as a result making it harder on web developers who want to use standards that are 2-4 years old. It's entirely likely that WaSP will review Netscape 6 and, assuming it meets the goal of 100% standards compliance, say "You know what? We're sorry, Netscape, this browser was worth the wait." Then the onus will be back on Microsoft to improve their commitment to open standards.
Maybe AOL will be able to force their subscribers to switch to a Netscape 6/Mozilla-based browser, and trigger the final showdown as to who will control the web (AOL/Netscape, Microsoft, or a standards-compliant compromise between the two). But right now, that's all vapor. I'll believe AOL's commitment to using Mozilla when I see it.
So yes, there is a reason to bitch. Every day people settle on using IE because the one viable competitor has not had a significant functionality upgrade to their product in YEARS. (And fsck you very much, Netscape, for your insipid "Shop" button.) They're switching because IE 5.x does for them, NOW, what Netscape 4.x can't. And unless Netscape 6 is orders of magnitude better than MSIE, they won't necessarily switch back.
And then top it off by endorsing the competition - a compeditor who has absolutely NO regard for open standards in the first place.
They may have no regard for open standards, but their products currently on the market (the 5.x series) support those standards better than Netscape's current offering (the 4.x series).
Maybe people who don't have paychecks depending on what solutions they use RIGHT NOW are content to wait for Mozilla, but not everyone has that luxury.
And for the record, I have every intention of using Mozilla once it's finished. But then again, my business isn't dependant on having that solution right now.
Putting aside all the joke and the "evil empire" comments and everything that the/. community feels about Microsoft, don't you think that a company of that size (and with their software controlling so many critical sites around the globe> has a responsiblity to go overboard on quality assurance?
That's one of the hallmarks of being a monopoly; if you have no competition, there's not as much reason to improve your product (except maybe to add nifty vendor lock-in features).
1) you did know (or should have known) your posts were going to be distributed and archived around the world when you posted to Usenet.
And I have no problem with people storing my posts -- just people who use the text of my posts to promote their stuff without my permission.
Deja is not modifying the text of anyone's articles in any way. All they are doing is putting hypertext links on text that would not otherwise be linked. They are not taking away, they are only adding.
Yeah, they're adding all right. It'd be the same thing as changing his post from:
"Well, it is not quite that either. Many 5 port hubs use indeed 5 ports. I have an intel 5 port hub, a 6th port is for connecting to another hub. The modem is NOT called a 6 port hub."
to
"Well, it is not quite that either. Many 5 port hubs use indeed 5 ports. I have an intel 5 port hub, a 6th port is for connecting to another hub. The modem (speaking of modems, check out user reviews of this IBM Modem; it's an internal 56K, data only, data/FAX, Data/FAX/Voice(Intel x86 Compatible)) is NOT called a 6 port hub."
They are changing the meaning of his message. The whole point of hypertext is that text becomes non-linear; you can add meaning and context to the message by providing a link to referenced material or to other text that examines a conclusion in greater depth. So while they haven' touched the "text" of his message, they're certainly modified the hypertext of it.
Everyone understands that Usenet is originally a plain text forum, and any HTML markup in and around messages is clearly understood (by someone who has more than 3 brain cells) to be part of Deja, and not the original author.
That's funny, because not too long ago I would have said that "everyone understands that e-mail is a plain text forum"; thanks to Outlook Express and other "compatible" mailreaders, I can get ugly fonts, banner ads and Melissa virii in my email. Not ever having used Deja in any meaningful sense, I would have no way of knowing that the inserted links were not added by the poster in some way until I clicked on it.
And Deja's "well if you don't like it, you can always go and remove your posts from our archive" is a cowardly attempt to shift responsibility for their actions from Deja to the posters.
The HTML engine doesn't just render webpages, but the editor, the IRC client, the mail client etc. etc.
All things that have perfectly viable (and in most cases, free) alternatives already.
Most of the work IS on the browser,
Maybe in terms of getting it to draw an IRC windows or somesuch thing, but you'd better believe that work is being put into the backend IRC/email/news/spaghetti maker stuff as well.
and there is no evidence AT ALL that any more work would be done on the browser if they ditched the other parts, either temporarily or indefinitely.
But we can be reasonbly sure that no less work will be put into the browser, either.
And how is this best of Mozilla? It needs GNOME so isn't cross-platform at all. Wasn't that part of the point?
Maybe to the Mozilla developers, but not to me. Their idea of "cross-platform" is turning out to be "we want the browser to stick out like a sore thumb no matter what OS you're using."
What I want in terms of "cross-platform capability" is the ability to ensure that when I create a web site it will look and function as alike as possible, whether you're viewing it on the MacOS, BeOS, Win32, Linux, Unix, etc. (taking into account differences in the font selections and renderings, etc. for the various GUIs).
I don't care if it has an email client; I have one of those already. I don't care if it does newsgroups or IRC; I don't read those. (And if I did, there's those aforementioned other free alternatives.)
Someone else said it best; the Mozilla developers are out of control. They've forgotten about the people who want to have a simple, fast, standards-complaint browsing alternative to MSIE and are interested in somehow conquering the world by being able to code old arcades games into their webpages.
...but I'm honestly surprised that their annual arts & sciences event / fighting tournament, called "Olympiad", hasn't been slapped down yet.
Maybe a smallish LARP founded in the American southwest slips under their radar? (Maybe the people of Amtgard take great pains to make sure that, if any Olympic events are in the US, Olympiad is located well away from the area, as it's held in a different "kingdom" each year...)
The GPL isn't a license for use, it's a license for distribution. If they're not distributing copies of the modified work, then they're not obligated to distribute the source either.
If I'm merely using a piece of GPLed software, that does not entitle me to source code (unless in order to use it, I have been given a copy of my own). If I go to a library and sit down in front of an internet kiosk that uses Linux and Gnome for the UI, do I get a complimentary CD or an URL to an FTP site? No. No one has distributed a copy to me, merely given me access to the software.
If I make changes to a piece of GPLed software for my own use, I can keep those changes private. It's "fair use": the term that everyone throws around -- and rightfully so, IMO -- when it comes to translating a book into Braille for my blind cousin or space-shifting CD recordings by ripping them to MP3 format also applies to software (the source code, at least) that I get under the GPL.
Therefore, if you want to require that someone who is using your software publishes the changes to their code, you're going to have to use a different license. (*BSD won't cut it either, since it expressly allows people to keep their modifications private.)
(Slightly off-topic: An interesting test case for the GPL would be GPLed Java applets; since I am being sent java bytecode (which is "object code" or "executable code" or "binaries" or whatever language the GPL uses) then is the software being "distributed" to me?
That could have some important ramfications for the Java community...)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if your mailing list was archived publically, then your address might have been picked up by spam-spiders or whatever.
I didn't make myself clear; I never got around to using the Hotmail account on the mailing list. It was never used for anything.
Jay (=
I'm sure many of you have heard of the Iditarod -- the dog race from Anchorage, Alaska to Nome, Alaska over 1100 miles.
High school students in Nome were given an awesome project by their high school CS teacher -- we wrote the program that was used to keep track of the mushers during the race.
This was pre-internet explosion -- I'm talking mid- to late 80's here -- and we wrote the program in BASIC on our trusty Apple IIe's. It was a simple database; the users would enter a musher number, checkpoint number, time entering or leaving, and number of active dogs on the team. Once an hour we had to print off a report that was given out to the media reps sitting in Nome.
The ultimate perk was, once the race actually started, students could sign up for 8-hour shifts manning the computers at the Iditarod HQ in Nome. (Yes, even during school hours, but you had to sign up for 2 non-school shifts for every one school shift.)
About the time I graduated from school, Alascom (Alaska's big telephone corp) was using the data from our program to do the updates on their 800-number voice-messaging number. ("The current leader is Libby Riddles; her last checkpoint was in Ruby" and all that.)
Granted, we re-wrote the program from scratch every year -- not the best model if you want to teach code re-use and modularity (but then again, it was the mid- to late 80's). I suppose it's likely that, should a class totally screw off for the semester, that they'd pull an old copy off of the shelf to use. But it was a project that stimulated the creative drive of the students. Even the ones who weren't in the class; kids also helped out with feeding and caring for the dogs when they got into town. It was a real community effort.
I suspect that, since the Iditarod has become more "professional" a la the Olypmics, that this project isn't being done anymore. It's a pity.
Jay (=
At one point, my sister created a Hotmail account. Being a bit of a technophobe, she only gave it to two friends in meatspace. After a month, it was full of spam - for pr0n sites. I have no idea how she managed to get onto pornspammers lists, but she did. Given that I doubt my sister is interested in looking at "cum-guzzling bitches" it seems a bit odd that she'd get that junk.
I had the same problem. I created a throwaway account for use on a particular mailing list (I wanted to be able to post stuff semi-anonymously) but never actually did anything with it.
A couple of months later I come back to Hotmail and I had 70 porn ads in it. I never gave anyone the address, let alone used it for anything!
Did anyone actually look at Hotmail's Terms of Service to determine wahther or not they reserve the right to sell your Hotmail account?
Jay (=
You know, a few people have pointed at Galeon as a smaller Mozilla. I looked at the website. Just wanted to say I thought the project's heart was in the right place, but creating a GPL-MozPL crossbreed is going to make damn sure that the project never makes a commercial distribution -- what's the point of offering a smaller browser if you need the bigger browser installed to run it?
I think that's just the current version. IIRC, their plan is to offer the Gecko engine as a seperately-downloaded module. Personally, I'm curious as to why they chose to make Galeon GPL when Gecko is MPL. Are they just asking for license incompatibilities?
Jay (=
Uhh...competition? The Microsoft optical mice SUCK. If you move them too fast (such as doing a quick 180-then back in counter-strike) they will go insane and start flying the cursor around the screen. This basically makes them useless for gaming. I had one for a day before I returned it. Most likely Apple's new mouse will be just as useless.
He's right; I can't even get Counter-Strike to launch on my Mac with one of these new mice...
Jay (=
Ok...let's just for a second say that Mozilla is 'dead.'
Now, for one thing, what does this mean?
It means that the end-users have waited for so long for a product that meets their needs, they'll go somewhere else (even to *gasp* proprietary software) to get things done.
As an open-source project, Linux got by under everyone else's radar until it was complete enough to meet the needs of end-users. The same goes for Apache; it didn't get big-name recognition until it was already kicking ass in the server world. But Mozilla has the dubious distinction of being a big-name project from the time it was announced and the end-users who were hoping that in a few months' time they'd have a brand-spanking new browser are being clued into reality.
It's like watching the O.J. Simpson trial; everyone expected a quick and easy Perry Mason-style show, and instead they got a real trial -- complete with a real trial ending. The people who pinned their hopes on having a Mozilla-style browser "real soon now" to check the onslaught of MSIE have realized that it's not going to happen, and they feel like they've been let down.
By all means, make plans to standardize on Mozilla. AOL can make all they plans they want to switch their users over Mozilla (though I would point out that they're still using MSIE in the meantime). Just keep in mind that Mozilla, by their own timeline, is at least six months away from a theoretical 1.0 release. Hope developers can hold off their customers for that long...
Jay (=
Now if you want to take a look at the overall plan here is a layout of the Milestones As you can see they are at the end of what you call the feature creep, when in actuallity they are at the end of the development cycle and headed into bug/hunting performance tuning.
And the last "milestone build" released was M16 --a week late, even, but that's forgivable. That was on (according to Mozilla's site) June 13, 2000.
According to the milestone roadmap you pointed out M17 was supposed to be released three weeks after M16 was released, the end of June and M18 a month later. Where is M17?
This was supposed to be one of the first milestones to push for feature-completeness and optimization. Here's a chance for Mozilla developers to say "OK, we're done innovating, now we push to get our browser ready for prime-time" and they're dropping the ball.
Mozilla has turned into a big "develoeprs-only" party. Everyone talks about "just downloading and using the latest nightly builds" but for the casual end-user this is not an option. Yeah, I've downloaded the latest nightly builds and I haven't seen any of this great stability that everyone else is reporting.
I'm glad that Taco and others can use Mozilla as their daily browser -- wish I could share in the fun.
Jay (=
Whilst I know that I'm going to find scant support amongst a demographic known for its irreverance and disdain for tried and tested knowledge,
and a plethora of trolls who wouldn't know tried and tested knowledge if it bit them on the butt.
(But hey, I'm bored...)
I have to say that I'd honestly thought that Dungeons & Dragons had gone the way of the dodo many years ago.
That's why there's not one but two computer games based on the game system, with more to come?
When was the last time that anyone heard anything about D&D or its equally dubious successor, Magic the Gathering?
Well, Wizards of the Coast will be releasing the 3rd edition for Dungeons and Dragons in about 2 weeks, so expect to hear more about it. As for Magic the Gathering, well, they show the tournaments on EPSN2 of all places.
I had thought that roleplaying was an eighties fad whose time was thankfully past,
Not bloody likely.
Now the cycle of fantasy starts again, as this is sure to turn more youngsters from wholesome persuits to playing a game which teachings that violence and dark arts are tools for success, and that the acquisition of wealth makes you a better person.
God would I have loved to have been the first to post with the NFL crack, but there was a good point -- there are far more "socially acceptable" hobbies and interests which teach some rather poor morals.
In fact, Tracy (Dragonlance trilogy co-author) Hickamn wrote an excellent essay on morality and role-playing that I show to people whenever this topic comes up.
I'm with BADD on this one - these games teach dangerous morals to the people that are most vulnerable.
It's funny you should mention BADD -- Michael Stackpole (genre author and part of the Industry Watch segment of GAMA, the gaming industry's trade association) compiled The Pulling Report which investigates the claims of Pat Pulling (the founder of BADD) and rather expertly debunks her allegations and attacks her credibility as a "cult crime investigator".
For more on GAMA's point of view, check out their Q&A about role-playing games, with the rather interesting factoid:
"One of the more persistent claims is that role-playing games has caused teens to commit suicide. The Center for Disease Control conducted an extensive study of teen suicide and found no evidence to link role-playing games with suicide. Investigations by the Association of Gifted and Creative Children (Dublin, CA), the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (the Bronx, NY), and the American Association of Suicidology (Denver, CO) have likewise found no evidence that games encourage suicide.
Moreover, researchers point out that the most heavily weighted factor in determining a child's suicide potential is whether or not he is a loner. Participation in a group activity of any sort sharply reduces that potential. It also provides a circle of friends who can pick up on any unusual behavior and encourage their friend to get help when there is a crisis."
Jay (=
When was the last time you watched other people play D&D?
About once a month, when Kenzer & Co.'s Knights of the Dinner Table comes out.
If you want a cool sample, check out the animated shorts based on KODT. (Warning: requires recent Flash plug-in.)
Jay (=
We need to divide the world into two halves. One where all the penniless bastards who are too cheap to pay for anything go to not get paid for anything they do - and the other half where we don't mind paying for what we want. I'd like to see how that world would be - hmm.. maybe like the former Soviet Union.
What a spectacular example of not rebutting the original point.
People do things all of the time for free, beause they want to. If anything, current IP system hampers the progress of the arts because record labels convince people that:
a) The reason you want to be in a band is to make big money.
b) [more significantly] Your music is not worth producing if you can't make money off of it.
People used to own more musical instruments than they do now; families commonly had a piano in their house. Sure, we're not talking about the kind of performance you'd pay $20 for a CD of, but the important thing was people enjoyed creating music themselves.
(And for the record, your example is way off-base. Under communism, you didn't "not get paid for what you did" -- you just didn't get paid what your work was "worth". "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and all that...)
Jay (=
From the Salon article: I don't think this is the end but it sends a message that copyright will not be ignored. It shows that the basic principle of copyright protection -- as made clear in the Constitution -- is very important. Except that it's defending the wrong end of "copyright protection", Jack. ARTICLE I, SECTION 8: The Congress shall have power to [...] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (Boldface is, of course, mine; if it wasn't, maybe we wouldn't be having these arguments.) You're meant to be able to make some coin off of the creation and distribution of your "art" and then, after a reasonable time, pass it into the public domain for future generations to enjoy. Instead, people still have to pay money to see "Steamboat Willie". Why? Is "Steamboat Willie" really that timeless? It's little more than a historical footnote, anymore; the first appearance of Mickey Mouse. Big deal. Like Mickey Mouse's face isn't slowly becoming synonymous with "rampant corporate greed" to anyone over the age of 7. The court has upheld one part of the copyright trade-off -- more clearly defining what constitutes infringement upon the rights of copyright holders to duplicate or distribute protected material -- but they've been sloughing off on the other end; the part where, after a reasonable length of time, these protected works are released into the wild, to flourish and inspire. I wish the "Ghost of Intellectual Property of the Future" could trip these guys forward, say 100 years, so they could see what kind of a future their efforts would bring. Then again, I don't know if they'd cry or cheer... Jay (=
"Hollow Man" is an "Invisible Man" story starring Kevin ("Six Degrees of") Bacon. Haven't seen the movie, not shilling for it, but I guess he becomes invisible and starts stalking Elizabeth ("I was yummy-looking in Palmetto") Shue.
I was reading this discussion when the ad came on; it was kinda surreal actually...
Jay (=
My god, it's the whole script kiddie mentality in 30 seconds.
"Imagine if you could do whatever you wanted with no consequences..."
"It's amazing what you would do when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror..."
Jay (=
I can understand calling them idiots if you are referring to moral idiocy. But suggesting that they lack mental competence?
How much mental competence does it take to run a rootkit that you get from someone else? That is where probably 90% of DDoS attacks and root-compromised machines come from (keeping in mind that 90% of all statistics are meaningless).
Let's be realistic. They pulled this off. That means they're not complete morons.
It doesn't take much intelliegence to realize that it's much easier to break stuff than it is to fix it, giving kiddies a sense of power over those they "own". Sadly, that seems to be as far along the chain of logic as most script kiddies get.
We've got a real problem here. Disparaging the enemy doesn't help anything.
Yeah, it does. It allows you to vent frustration, and any script kiddies who read it might hopefully struggle up the mental food chain far enough to realize that "they're right; typing './rootkit.sh' isn't all that challenging" and look for productive means of testing their wits.
1) Better defenses. Way better.
I agree. Too bad that for every free site that tries to help w/security concerns, there are 30 people on IRC willing to hand out rootkits.
2) A strategy for counterattack, preferably legal.
Hah! No way in hell that'll ever happen. And I don't want it to, personally; if kiddies are using other machines as stepping-stones for an attack, then 'innocent' admins will find their machines being attacked by angry DDoS victims. A lynch mob mentality won't work in this case.
and optionally:
3) a way to win the war, so we can get on with our lives.
The problem is, it's like the *koff*koff* "drug war". As long as people want to be "elite hackers", there will be people willing to pass out rootkits.
The only way to win the war is to convince potential kiddies that it's better to create than to destroy. Which brings us full circle...
Jay (=
The above statement has been posted, verbatim, to probably at least half a dozen stories in the last few days (probably all of them, for all I know).
After trying to figure out if someone is trolling for karma, I figured out that all of the replies to the post are part of the post itself. If you click on any of the replies to the above post, you get the reply from the original thread.
I dunno of any of the repliers being quoted are trolls harvesting for karma, but every time this "post" and its "replies" get modded up, it wastes points better meant for real replies.
Kind of an interesting social engineering hack, if nothing else. Either way, please ignore this post in the future.
Jay (=
(My second try on this...)
The above statement has been posted, verbatim, but probably at least half a dozen stories in the last few days (probably all of them for all I know).
I thought maybe it was a bug, but most of the replies are verbatim as well. Take a look at this guy's posting history and this guy's history and this guy's history and this guy's history as well.
If if is a bug, it's a pretty serious one. If it's a campaign for trolls to harvest karma points, you people really need to get lives.
Jay (=
It cracks me up. Really. The whole idea of Linux as being "independent" of Big Corporations. You do remember who owns Sladshdot, don't you? And Freshmeat? That's right: a Big Corporation.
:-). Parasites eventually lose because the community is too eager to help out their competition."
And who owns Linux? Everybody. Slashdot and Freshmeat can be killed today; within a week or two, you'll see replacements.
Between the huge number of Linux web sites owned by VA Linux, Internet.com, IDG, and others, it's laughable that anyone could consider these sites to be less biased than say, CNet or ZDNet.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword; your side, their side, and the truth" -- John Sheridan
There is no such thing as "unbiased coverage" anymore, not since mass media became more about delivering readers to advertisers than news to readers. But at least the "Linux biased" sites are more willing to look at IT issues from a non-Microsoft-centric view -- even if it is only to grab the eyeballs of the "Microsoft-bashing open source zealots".
I think it should be well known to Slashdot that they idea of a "socially responsible" corporation is laregly a myth.
I remember seeing a quote the other day to the effect of "a corporation is an amoral construct; however, if the corporation is formed from moral people, then it is a moral corporation". Slashdot as an entity is no more or less moral than ZDNet or MSNBC, but I believe that the people who select the stories and write the features believe in what they're doing.
VA Linux wants to sell you Linux machines, and if that means promoting it in an unethical way,
then what? (You forgot to finish your sentence.)
But is it more than just the media? Think of how many Linux "celebreities" work for Big Companies: Torvalds at Transmeta,
Who IIRC got a clause in his contract stating that Transmeta doesn't own any of his Linux work (that might be blurred somewhat when it comes to the Crusoe-specific work, but if it's going into a kernel it has to be GPLed, right?)
the huge number of people at Red Hat (Alan Cox, etc),
A company that has yet to not release any of its work under an open source license (I'm qualifying here because I don't know offhand how much of Red Hat's work is done on BSD-licensed code or the like).
Larry Wall working at O'Reilly ("the biggest parasite on Open Source", according to Bruce Perens).
Actually, he was referring to Tim O'Reilly himself, not necessarily the publisher -- a dust-up over O'Reilly being given some recognition by OSI.
As for "parasites" on the Open Source Community, Bruce said in a Slashdot interview:
"Every for-profit company that participates in free software development will have to find a balance between its own needs and those of the community if it is to participate at all. I have a scale that I use to describe free software participants that runs from benefactor to symbiotic to parasite. I'd put Red Hat in the symbiotic position right now, NASA is a benefactor, and the parasites know who they are
O'Reilly beleives it serves the community best by selling books about Free Software; if you disagree, don't buy the books.
Better yet, write some comparable-quality documentation and give it away yourself. The only "parasites" I see in this are the ones demanding that the property of other people be given away for free. Me, I'm happy with what is freely available (I'm waiting for the day that someone ports the GPL StarOffice to the MacOS -- yay, a replacement for MS Word!) and if I need to pay for *gasp* proprietary software or a *shudder* non-free book to get what I need in the meantime, I will.
Jay (=
3) The web developers who posted this (and the subsequent additional posters) are idiots.
Only because you apparently haven't grasped the WaSP's point.
Only an idiot would scream for standards -in fact, base their whole mission statement on the needs for open standards- and then bash the developers working on this very request.
But Mozilla developers aren't just working on a 100% complaint web browser. There's all the extra functionality being added (IRC, mail, news, etc.) that is 100% IRRELEVANT to the Web Standards Project's desires.
In their minds Mozilla development is proceeding too slowly, and as a result making it harder on web developers who want to use standards that are 2-4 years old. It's entirely likely that WaSP will review Netscape 6 and, assuming it meets the goal of 100% standards compliance, say "You know what? We're sorry, Netscape, this browser was worth the wait." Then the onus will be back on Microsoft to improve their commitment to open standards.
Maybe AOL will be able to force their subscribers to switch to a Netscape 6/Mozilla-based browser, and trigger the final showdown as to who will control the web (AOL/Netscape, Microsoft, or a standards-compliant compromise between the two). But right now, that's all vapor. I'll believe AOL's commitment to using Mozilla when I see it.
So yes, there is a reason to bitch. Every day people settle on using IE because the one viable competitor has not had a significant functionality upgrade to their product in YEARS. (And fsck you very much, Netscape, for your insipid "Shop" button.) They're switching because IE 5.x does for them, NOW, what Netscape 4.x can't. And unless Netscape 6 is orders of magnitude better than MSIE, they won't necessarily switch back.
And then top it off by endorsing the competition - a compeditor who has absolutely NO regard for open standards in the first place.
They may have no regard for open standards, but their products currently on the market (the 5.x series) support those standards better than Netscape's current offering (the 4.x series).
Maybe people who don't have paychecks depending on what solutions they use RIGHT NOW are content to wait for Mozilla, but not everyone has that luxury.
And for the record, I have every intention of using Mozilla once it's finished. But then again, my business isn't dependant on having that solution right now.
Jay (=
http://www.mozilla.org/projec ts/seamonkey/milestones/
Jay (=
2001 Apple announces Apple Slab - fondly known as the 'G6 pizza box'
:)
The original Centris/Quadra 610s with the wide, flat design were referred to as "pizza boxes", actually.
Or was that your point?
Jay (=
Putting aside all the joke and the "evil empire" comments and everything that the /. community feels about Microsoft, don't you think that a company of that size (and with their software controlling so many critical sites around the globe> has a responsiblity to go overboard on quality assurance?
That's one of the hallmarks of being a monopoly; if you have no competition, there's not as much reason to improve your product (except maybe to add nifty vendor lock-in features).
1) you did know (or should have known) your posts were going to be distributed and archived around the world when you posted to Usenet.
And I have no problem with people storing my posts -- just people who use the text of my posts to promote their stuff without my permission.
Deja is not modifying the text of anyone's articles in any way. All they are doing is putting hypertext links on text that would not otherwise be linked. They are not taking away, they are only adding.
Yeah, they're adding all right. It'd be the same thing as changing his post from:
"Well, it is not quite that either. Many 5 port hubs use indeed 5 ports. I have an intel 5 port hub, a 6th port is for connecting to another hub. The modem is NOT called a 6 port hub."
to
"Well, it is not quite that either. Many 5 port hubs use indeed 5 ports. I have an intel 5 port hub, a 6th port is for connecting to another hub. The modem (speaking of modems, check out user reviews of this IBM Modem; it's an internal 56K, data only, data/FAX, Data/FAX/Voice(Intel x86 Compatible)) is NOT called a 6 port hub."
They are changing the meaning of his message. The whole point of hypertext is that text becomes non-linear; you can add meaning and context to the message by providing a link to referenced material or to other text that examines a conclusion in greater depth. So while they haven' touched the "text" of his message, they're certainly modified the hypertext of it.
Everyone understands that Usenet is originally a plain text forum, and any HTML markup in and around messages is clearly understood (by someone who has more than 3 brain cells) to be part of Deja, and not the original author.
That's funny, because not too long ago I would have said that "everyone understands that e-mail is a plain text forum"; thanks to Outlook Express and other "compatible" mailreaders, I can get ugly fonts, banner ads and Melissa virii in my email. Not ever having used Deja in any meaningful sense, I would have no way of knowing that the inserted links were not added by the poster in some way until I clicked on it.
And Deja's "well if you don't like it, you can always go and remove your posts from our archive" is a cowardly attempt to shift responsibility for their actions from Deja to the posters.
Jay (=
The HTML engine doesn't just render webpages, but the editor, the IRC client, the mail client etc. etc.
All things that have perfectly viable (and in most cases, free) alternatives already.
Most of the work IS on the browser,
Maybe in terms of getting it to draw an IRC windows or somesuch thing, but you'd better believe that work is being put into the backend IRC/email/news/spaghetti maker stuff as well.
and there is no evidence AT ALL that any more work would be done on the browser if they ditched the other parts, either temporarily or indefinitely.
But we can be reasonbly sure that no less work will be put into the browser, either.
And how is this best of Mozilla? It needs GNOME so isn't cross-platform at all. Wasn't that part of the point?
Maybe to the Mozilla developers, but not to me. Their idea of "cross-platform" is turning out to be "we want the browser to stick out like a sore thumb no matter what OS you're using."
What I want in terms of "cross-platform capability" is the ability to ensure that when I create a web site it will look and function as alike as possible, whether you're viewing it on the MacOS, BeOS, Win32, Linux, Unix, etc. (taking into account differences in the font selections and renderings, etc. for the various GUIs).
I don't care if it has an email client; I have one of those already. I don't care if it does newsgroups or IRC; I don't read those. (And if I did, there's those aforementioned other free alternatives.)
Someone else said it best; the Mozilla developers are out of control. They've forgotten about the people who want to have a simple, fast, standards-complaint browsing alternative to MSIE and are interested in somehow conquering the world by being able to code old arcades games into their webpages.
Jay (=
...but I'm honestly surprised that their annual arts & sciences event / fighting tournament, called "Olympiad", hasn't been slapped down yet.
Maybe a smallish LARP founded in the American southwest slips under their radar? (Maybe the people of Amtgard take great pains to make sure that, if any Olympic events are in the US, Olympiad is located well away from the area, as it's held in a different "kingdom" each year...)
Jay (=
(For more info on Amtgard, to go http://www.amtgard.com/)
The GPL isn't a license for use, it's a license for distribution. If they're not distributing copies of the modified work, then they're not obligated to distribute the source either.
If I'm merely using a piece of GPLed software, that does not entitle me to source code (unless in order to use it, I have been given a copy of my own). If I go to a library and sit down in front of an internet kiosk that uses Linux and Gnome for the UI, do I get a complimentary CD or an URL to an FTP site? No. No one has distributed a copy to me, merely given me access to the software.
If I make changes to a piece of GPLed software for my own use, I can keep those changes private. It's "fair use": the term that everyone throws around -- and rightfully so, IMO -- when it comes to translating a book into Braille for my blind cousin or space-shifting CD recordings by ripping them to MP3 format also applies to software (the source code, at least) that I get under the GPL.
Therefore, if you want to require that someone who is using your software publishes the changes to their code, you're going to have to use a different license. (*BSD won't cut it either, since it expressly allows people to keep their modifications private.)
(Slightly off-topic: An interesting test case for the GPL would be GPLed Java applets; since I am being sent java bytecode (which is "object code" or "executable code" or "binaries" or whatever language the GPL uses) then is the software being "distributed" to me?
That could have some important ramfications for the Java community...)
Jay (=