> We have had Dali, Sagan, Kip Thorne, Hawkin, Poe, Twain, Sigmund Frued, Einstein,
uhuh.
> Torvalds,
Who?
I like Linus as much as the next guy, but he doesn't belong in this list.
> the great minds of our past century and a half, I find them equal.
FYI: Poe's been dead for 154 years.
> We have harnessed fusion,
Nope.
> mapped the genome,
Only a few months ago, and I don't believe that it's been independently reviewed as of yet.
> created antibiotics,
s/created/discovered/
> peered deep into the hearts of galaxies a 100,000,000 light years away,
Nope, we haven't done that.
> forged fiber optics,
That word, forged, I do not think it means what you think it means.
> designed the integrated circuit,
Well, there you go, you got one. Well done.
>People three hundred years from now will look back upon us and wonder how a civilization that >could barely put a man on the moon (a feat that will surely be trivial to them)
My apologies on taking so long to respond. I forgot all about this thread.
This: But in 1750 Parliament enacted a law declaring that "no mill or other engine for rolling or slitting iron," "nor any furnace for making steel shall be erected in the colonies"
which I assume you intended to render in bold, does not mean the same thing as "England... forbade metal tools from being imported or produced here [in America]."
Your cite refers to the Iron Act of 1750, which was intended to limit the growth of the colonial iron industry, not to eliminate the existing industry. In fact, by 1750, there were iron mines and works all over the colonies that were not subject to the Act. Further, the only restriction it placed on the import of finished iron goods into the colonies was that the goods had to come from England.
You also have the motivation for the Iron Act wrong. It had nothing to do with fear of American self-sufficiency. Britain was running out of wood to fuel their furnaces, and was importing much of their raw iron from Sweden. In an effort to reduce their dependence on "foreign iron", Parliament looked for methods of encouraging the production of raw iron in the colonies.
In addition, the British finished iron goods industry was concerned about competition from American works.
The Iron Act was the method that was selected to deal with these two conditions. The act contained two main provisions:
Elimination of duties on raw iron exported to Britian, and prohibition on the sale of raw iron to countries other than Britian.
Restrictions on the construction of new factories for the manufacture of finished iron goods.
Of course, the Act didn't have the intended effect, because it was largely ignored in the colonies. That's not relevant to your point being incorrect, though.
This is all standard colonial mercantile law, even if you don't recognize it as such. The colony produces the raw materials, and the mother country produces the finished goods. If you monopolize the market of goods available for import into your colony, while simultaneously monopolizing their export market, you make all the money. They did the same thing with a whole pile of other products, some of which are mentioned in your "cite".
It was mostly a blatant handout to the British iron industry - but hey, that's politics.
In short, the Iron Act had little to do with fear of the colonies' self-sufficiency, and nearly everything to do with what we'd today call "special interests" in the British iron industry.
It's not exactly a new design. Before the "cooks everything" folding grills came along, they were smaller and called "pocket sandwich grills". I have one in my basement that's at least 15 or 20 years old.
Holy crap, what happened to my youth?
*ahem* excuse me.
Anyhoo, someone in marketing finally figured out what many college students already knew: you could cook a hamburger, a steak, or even bacon in one of those little grills. Make it a little bigger, a little hotter, and come up with a better way to get the grease out (previously "pour onto your hands"), and you have a can't-miss product.
And then, you add George Foreman to the mix? Wow, I say. Wow, indeed.
Keep in mind that getting Mr. Foreman's endorsement probably wasn't all that much of a challenge. You're talking about a guy who named all 268 of his sons "George Foreman". Getting him to sign on probably didn't involve any negotiations beyond, "Its name is also George Foreman."
>before the American Revolution, England was so afraid of America becoming self-suffiecient (and >thus not needing them anymore) they forbade metal tools from being imported or produced here.
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
Yea, and then he handed over his lunch money.
If you're going to grease yourself up for the RIAA, don't try to rationalize it by saying you skipped the reacharound.
All music is open source
on
Open Source Music
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When you listen to music, you're listening to the source code. There is no compiler. If you can hear it, you can reproduce it.
*However*, if she *really* wanted to be open source in action as well as name, she'd have sheet music available for all of the works in the library. Unfortunately, I don't know how one would go about notating "dunkin donuts screaming match", "interferences between layers of random waveforms generate these blips and cracks", and whatever else the raver dopeheads are recording nowadays.
Wow. That list is a fantastic demonstration of the limited life experience of a teenage nerd.
metalsmithing - I know at least two smiths. It's a far cry from the "one in every village" setup of a century ago, but it's by no means "lost".
sewing - your mother let you leave the house without knowing how to sew? No, I don't mean darn socks and hem pants; I mean sew, as in "assemble an article of clothing from fabric and thread". No? Go home, posthaste, and tell her she's a bad mother.
baking bread - I bake bread all the time. I don't keep track, but it's probably a 50/50 split between machine bread an "real" bread. Give it a try, instructions are available.
making soap - I know two people that make their own soap. It isn't hard.
knot tying - *lots* of people can tie knots. Talk to a sailor, or a fisherman, or a 13 year old Boy Scout.
Of course, if you're just looking to pick up dirt hippies, this should be all you need.
brewing beer - I'm pretty sure that you can buy beermaking supplies at Walmart now.
woodcarving - There's a whole community of them out there, you just need to look.
yogurt and cheese - drive up to Vermont (or, I imagine, Wisconsin) sometime. There are people up there making cheese - *great* cheese - in their garages.
I'm not going to bother to look for you, but I imagine that there's a newsgroup for each and every one of these subjects. Christ, you can't even geek right.
How about this: Rather than blathering about learning "lost arts", take a few months to expand your frame of reference just slightly. You'll realize that most of the things that you think are "lost", aren't.
This is a *big* deal, and it's not because we get to do the happy dance around the OSS tree.
Information created by the federal government is not subject to copyright protection. WPIDalamar is wrong, and needs to go read Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
Section 3.4.3.2 of NPG 2210.1A, referenced in the article, mentions this lack of copyright protection:
"3.4.3.2. Copyrights - Software created solely by an officer or employee of the U. S. Government as part of that person's official duties is a work of the U. S. Government. Copyright protection is not currently available in the United States for a work of the U. S. Government. However, the Government can claim foreign copyrights for software created by its employees and can receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment.
The sticky part of this is the overlap between national security/IP precautions and Title 17. The policies regarding the release of NASA's software are defined in NPG 2210.1A. Section 2.2 of this document outlines several possible release levels. The least restrictive level is "Approved for Public Domain Release"; All other levels are more restrictive than that due to security, patent, or export control issues.
What these jokers are trying to do is get the most open form of release - "Approved for Public Domain Release" - switched to "Approved for Release Under [Some] License". This is less freedom than before. They practically state this explicitly when they say "...Open Source and Public Domain are not the same thing. We want the protections that an
Open Source license can give us."
This is not a Good Thing.
Fortunately, it's pretty obvious that it's a violation of Title 17, and it'll probably never fly.
In the House, Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, backs an idea of Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford internet guru. She wants hackers who track down the worst offenders to get huge bounties. This is a terrible idea that will make millionaires of two classes of people: reprobates who illegally maraud through others' hard drives;
Maraud through others' hard drives? Um, how?
No, really. How?
Granted, I've only read Rep. Lofgren's press release on the proposed measure, but I don't see anything in there about Joe Citizen going out and investigating spammers himself. It only talks about rewards for "information that leads to the successful collection of civil fines". There's nothing about hacking a spammers system, staking out his house, or the employment of any other invasive methods.
I can appreciate hyperbole as much as the next guy, but you're way off base here.
and those who have built their expertise about spam by peddling it.
...because sending spam is the only way to learn anything about spam, right?
Oh, wait...
Charles Schumer, New York's Democratic senator, has a better approach: a do-not-spam list with stiff fines, modelled on the one the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will launch this summer to tackle the suddenly quaint-seeming problem of phone solicitation.
This solution ignores so, so many things.
I have better than seventy email addresses that come to me. I'm webmaster@, hostmaster@, and abuse@ a few dozen domains. Do I have to register each and every one of those addresses in order to make them off-limits to spammers?
What happens when a spammer in Korea or Brazil harvests this list and sends spam to the addresses on it? We can't exactly send the local sheriff over to his office to serve him.
Even if the list was blind - i.e. you can only see if a specific address exists on it, rather than downloading the whole thing - it'll only serve as a confirmation system for dictionary attacks. Rather than sending dummy mail to every possible ten-character-or-less username at a given domain, a spammer can just bounce his list off the do-not-spam list server for confirmation. If anything, this makes getting valid addresses substantially easier.
The do-not-call database only works because it's no easier to exploit than a simple sequential war dialer attack, and expensive for international operaters to make telemarketing calls from outside U.S. jurisdiction. Attempting to apply the same solution to a fundamentally different medium is completely unworkable.
Spam is different
Well, at least you get that. Now, apply that knowledge.
because the marginal cost of sending additional solicitations is virtually zero. To the spammer, that is. The entire infrastructure for this enterprise is subsidised by other people:
This is a common oversimplification. Except in cases of utilization of open relays - something we already have a marginally workable technical solution for dealing with - this isn't entirely true. The spammers still need a few servers on their end with which to send out the mail.
They used to need bandwidth, too, but that's gotten so cheap that it's not even worth talking about. Again, though, there's a technical solution: Broadband ISP's need to be more vigilant about their customers' behavior.
(
Yes, this includes blocking port 25 for dialup customers. I know this is an unpopular notion here on/., but it's something that I happen to agree is necessary. If you want to run a business off the end of a connection, you should get a real business connection. The reduction in spam volume that would come from simply prohibiting mail servers behind dynamic connections is too large of a win to ignore.
...and this isn't the right place to ask about the application of the law in your local area.
I've run a software company out of my home since 1997.
Generally speaking, regulations prohibiting the operation of a business from a residential zone only come into play if you're mucking about in your neighbors' quality of life *and* one of them complains about it. IOW, having a semi deliver stock to your house twice a day is probably against regulations, but no one is going to say anything unless your neighbors complain.
For a software business, even one with a couple of employees, none of that is going to matter. You'll won't be getting deliveries, you won't have customers coming and going, and you don't even really need a sign out front.
Note that I'm talking about municipal regulations, not neighborhood covenants. If you've made the unwise decision to purchase where anyone but you (and, as usual, the government) has the authority to dictate what *your property* may be used for...well, that's your own fault.
>You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected >representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents
For varying values of "dozen".
There are nine justices on the Supreme Court, not twelve.
I just posted about this below, but I'll mention it up here, too.
If you're going to use Partition Fuckup, er, Magic, get a copy of BPR from ACR.
It's saved PowerQuest's sorry ass from a messy, machine-gun-toting kuroth invasion on at least three occasions.
Of course, it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to just beat the hard disk with a 5 pound sledge. The odds that it'll get hosed are about the same as they'd be if you use Partition Magic on it.
It gives you something to do on Saturdays. See, the sendmail team knows how tedious it is to do things like spend time with your wife and kids, play fetch with the dog, wax the car, and mow the lawn. Therefore, every two to four weeks, they release a fantastic new remote exploit, so you can spend your Saturday patching stuff or running your package management program of choice.
This stands in start constrast to qmail. If you were running qmail, you'd have no choice but to spend all that annoying "quality" time with your friends and family. Secure and reliable? Honestly, I don't know what DJB was thinking.
I don't know if I've every actually sat through the whole video. The younger brother of a friend of mine had a copy of it when I was younger, and I saw bits and pieces of it then.
All I really remember about it was (a) dozens of hot, morally-challenged women, and (b) codpieces.
I tried being a rock star, but I wound up as a programmer instead. That's the same, isn't it?
> I wonder how he could have ever sold out like that...
Jason Newsted, formerly (?) of Metallica, gave the best answer to this that I've ever heard:
"Yes, we sold out... every seat in the house, everywhere we play."
Money can be an extremely powerful motivating factor, and it can lead you to make internal rationalizations that you'd never consider making for free. Playing music you love and living with four guys in a studio apartment kinda sucks, even when it's not compared to playing music you like (or even tolerate) and living in a 10000 square foot house with a dozen hot groupies.
Have you guys seen Kiss Exposed? Christ, I'd wear grease paint and a leather codpiece all day long to get a life like that.
Yea, the B&N development server was seven feet from my desk after Firefly moved to the Kendall Square office. I forget the name of the guy that was working on it. They came into the game a few months after Ziff-Davis, afaik.
Iirc, the B&N site was developed using a newer version of the software, one that had moved away from the parsed html model.
I don't remember Lauch.com at all. There were also a couple of other sites, BostonEats and a movie rating site, although I think those were both internal projects.
I was responsible for, afaik, the only operational installation of the initial version of Firefly's software. It was for a Ziff-Davis project, rating shareware in their software library. In that version they used parsed html to do everything; I'm not familiar with how the later versions worked.
I've never met him, but I was apparently implementing designs created by a guy named Bob Sweeny. His site has some screen shots.
As Bob says, the project fell apart sometime after it was implemented. I don't know the story behind that.
I was at the company meeting when they were first discussing MS's interest in them. There was a lot of talk about how MS was just looking at them, and not getting ready to pull a Borg. A few months later, the company was broken up and moved to the West coast.
>How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music >pirating?
It's all about money, remember? As long as the right people are getting paid, they won't care.
>Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast?
Read the article, tool. "Multiple CD burners".
>Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?"
It's live, so sure, it's not going to have the polish of a studio CD. They'll probably be mastering straight from the board, though, so the sound quality should be fine - certainly better than the recording done on a mini cassette in the audience.
Slashdot Mirror
> We have had Dali, Sagan, Kip Thorne, Hawkin, Poe, Twain, Sigmund Frued, Einstein,
uhuh.
> Torvalds,
Who?
I like Linus as much as the next guy, but he doesn't belong in this list.
> the great minds of our past century and a half, I find them equal.
FYI: Poe's been dead for 154 years.
> We have harnessed fusion,
Nope.
> mapped the genome,
Only a few months ago, and I don't believe that it's been independently reviewed as of yet.
> created antibiotics,
s/created/discovered/
> peered deep into the hearts of galaxies a 100,000,000 light years away,
Nope, we haven't done that.
> forged fiber optics,
That word, forged, I do not think it means what you think it means.
> designed the integrated circuit,
Well, there you go, you got one. Well done.
>People three hundred years from now will look back upon us and wonder how a civilization that
>could barely put a man on the moon (a feat that will surely be trivial to them)
Yes, of course. Flying cars.
Sounds to me like the whole moon is infested with Paradroids.
(For the youngin's, here, here, and here.)
This:
But in 1750 Parliament enacted a law declaring that "no mill or other engine for rolling or slitting iron," "nor any furnace for making steel shall be erected in the colonies"
which I assume you intended to render in bold, does not mean the same thing as "England
Your cite refers to the Iron Act of 1750, which was intended to limit the growth of the colonial iron industry, not to eliminate the existing industry. In fact, by 1750, there were iron mines and works all over the colonies that were not subject to the Act. Further, the only restriction it placed on the import of finished iron goods into the colonies was that the goods had to come from England.
You also have the motivation for the Iron Act wrong. It had nothing to do with fear of American self-sufficiency. Britain was running out of wood to fuel their furnaces, and was importing much of their raw iron from Sweden. In an effort to reduce their dependence on "foreign iron", Parliament looked for methods of encouraging the production of raw iron in the colonies.
In addition, the British finished iron goods industry was concerned about competition from American works.
The Iron Act was the method that was selected to deal with these two conditions. The act contained two main provisions:
Of course, the Act didn't have the intended effect, because it was largely ignored in the colonies. That's not relevant to your point being incorrect, though.
This is all standard colonial mercantile law, even if you don't recognize it as such. The colony produces the raw materials, and the mother country produces the finished goods. If you monopolize the market of goods available for import into your colony, while simultaneously monopolizing their export market, you make all the money. They did the same thing with a whole pile of other products, some of which are mentioned in your "cite".
It was mostly a blatant handout to the British iron industry - but hey, that's politics.
In short, the Iron Act had little to do with fear of the colonies' self-sufficiency, and nearly everything to do with what we'd today call "special interests" in the British iron industry.
It's not exactly a new design. Before the "cooks everything" folding grills came along, they were smaller and called "pocket sandwich grills". I have one in my basement that's at least 15 or 20 years old.
Holy crap, what happened to my youth?
*ahem* excuse me.
Anyhoo, someone in marketing finally figured out what many college students already knew: you could cook a hamburger, a steak, or even bacon in one of those little grills. Make it a little bigger, a little hotter, and come up with a better way to get the grease out (previously "pour onto your hands"), and you have a can't-miss product.
And then, you add George Foreman to the mix? Wow, I say. Wow, indeed.
Keep in mind that getting Mr. Foreman's endorsement probably wasn't all that much of a challenge. You're talking about a guy who named all 268 of his sons "George Foreman". Getting him to sign on probably didn't involve any negotiations beyond, "Its name is also George Foreman."
>before the American Revolution, England was so afraid of America becoming self-suffiecient (and
>thus not needing them anymore) they forbade metal tools from being imported or produced here.
Cite, please?
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
Yea, and then he handed over his lunch money.
If you're going to grease yourself up for the RIAA, don't try to rationalize it by saying you skipped the reacharound.
When you listen to music, you're listening to the source code. There is no compiler. If you can hear it, you can reproduce it.
*However*, if she *really* wanted to be open source in action as well as name, she'd have sheet music available for all of the works in the library. Unfortunately, I don't know how one would go about notating "dunkin donuts screaming match", "interferences between layers of random waveforms generate these blips and cracks", and whatever else the raver dopeheads are recording nowadays.
- metalsmithing - I know at least two smiths. It's a far cry from the "one in every village" setup of a century ago, but it's by no means "lost".
- sewing - your mother let you leave the house without knowing how to sew? No, I don't mean darn socks and hem pants; I mean sew, as in "assemble an article of clothing from fabric and thread". No? Go home, posthaste, and tell her she's a bad mother.
- baking bread - I bake bread all the time. I don't keep track, but it's probably a 50/50 split between machine bread an "real" bread. Give it a try, instructions are available.
- making soap - I know two people that make their own soap. It isn't hard.
- knot tying - *lots* of people can tie knots. Talk to a sailor, or a fisherman, or a 13 year old Boy Scout.
- brewing beer - I'm pretty sure that you can buy beermaking supplies at Walmart now.
- woodcarving - There's a whole community of them out there, you just need to look.
- yogurt and cheese - drive up to Vermont (or, I imagine, Wisconsin) sometime. There are people up there making cheese - *great* cheese - in their garages.
I'm not going to bother to look for you, but I imagine that there's a newsgroup for each and every one of these subjects. Christ, you can't even geek right.Of course, if you're just looking to pick up dirt hippies, this should be all you need.
How about this: Rather than blathering about learning "lost arts", take a few months to expand your frame of reference just slightly. You'll realize that most of the things that you think are "lost", aren't.
--
(Score: 5, Condescending)
f. Someone got tired of watching this lazy(1) shithead(2) tool around on a $5000 penis extension, so they cut the chain and tossed it into the river.
(1) 83 pounds, and he doesn't carry it inside? Come on. That beats even the "too lazy to walk" thing.
(2) $5000 toy, $5 chain. Get a real lock.
Information created by the federal government is not subject to copyright protection. WPIDalamar is wrong, and needs to go read Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105: Section 3.4.3.2 of NPG 2210.1A, referenced in the article, mentions this lack of copyright protection: The sticky part of this is the overlap between national security/IP precautions and Title 17. The policies regarding the release of NASA's software are defined in NPG 2210.1A. Section 2.2 of this document outlines several possible release levels. The least restrictive level is "Approved for Public Domain Release"; All other levels are more restrictive than that due to security, patent, or export control issues.
What these jokers are trying to do is get the most open form of release - "Approved for Public Domain Release" - switched to "Approved for Release Under [Some] License". This is less freedom than before. They practically state this explicitly when they say "...Open Source and Public Domain are not the same thing. We want the protections that an Open Source license can give us."
This is not a Good Thing.
Fortunately, it's pretty obvious that it's a violation of Title 17, and it'll probably never fly.
Let's just take a look at Mr. Caldwell's ideas:
...because sending spam is the only way to learn anything about spam, right?
/., but it's something that I happen to agree is necessary. If you want to run a business off the end of a connection, you should get a real business connection. The reduction in spam volume that would come from simply prohibiting mail servers behind dynamic connections is too large of a win to ignore.
In the House, Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, backs an idea of Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford internet guru. She wants hackers who track down the worst offenders to get huge bounties. This is a terrible idea that will make millionaires of two classes of people: reprobates who illegally maraud through others' hard drives;
Maraud through others' hard drives? Um, how?
No, really. How?
Granted, I've only read Rep. Lofgren's press release on the proposed measure, but I don't see anything in there about Joe Citizen going out and investigating spammers himself. It only talks about rewards for "information that leads to the successful collection of civil fines". There's nothing about hacking a spammers system, staking out his house, or the employment of any other invasive methods.
I can appreciate hyperbole as much as the next guy, but you're way off base here.
and those who have built their expertise about spam by peddling it.
Oh, wait...
Charles Schumer, New York's Democratic senator, has a better approach: a do-not-spam list with stiff fines, modelled on the one the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will launch this summer to tackle the suddenly quaint-seeming problem of phone solicitation.
This solution ignores so, so many things.
I have better than seventy email addresses that come to me. I'm webmaster@, hostmaster@, and abuse@ a few dozen domains. Do I have to register each and every one of those addresses in order to make them off-limits to spammers?
What happens when a spammer in Korea or Brazil harvests this list and sends spam to the addresses on it? We can't exactly send the local sheriff over to his office to serve him.
Even if the list was blind - i.e. you can only see if a specific address exists on it, rather than downloading the whole thing - it'll only serve as a confirmation system for dictionary attacks. Rather than sending dummy mail to every possible ten-character-or-less username at a given domain, a spammer can just bounce his list off the do-not-spam list server for confirmation. If anything, this makes getting valid addresses substantially easier.
The do-not-call database only works because it's no easier to exploit than a simple sequential war dialer attack, and expensive for international operaters to make telemarketing calls from outside U.S. jurisdiction. Attempting to apply the same solution to a fundamentally different medium is completely unworkable.
Spam is different
Well, at least you get that. Now, apply that knowledge.
because the marginal cost of sending additional solicitations is virtually zero. To the spammer, that is. The entire infrastructure for this enterprise is subsidised by other people:
This is a common oversimplification. Except in cases of utilization of open relays - something we already have a marginally workable technical solution for dealing with - this isn't entirely true. The spammers still need a few servers on their end with which to send out the mail.
They used to need bandwidth, too, but that's gotten so cheap that it's not even worth talking about. Again, though, there's a technical solution: Broadband ISP's need to be more vigilant about their customers' behavior.
(
Yes, this includes blocking port 25 for dialup customers. I know this is an unpopular notion here on
...and this isn't the right place to ask about the application of the law in your local area.
I've run a software company out of my home since 1997.
Generally speaking, regulations prohibiting the operation of a business from a residential zone only come into play if you're mucking about in your neighbors' quality of life *and* one of them complains about it. IOW, having a semi deliver stock to your house twice a day is probably against regulations, but no one is going to say anything unless your neighbors complain.
For a software business, even one with a couple of employees, none of that is going to matter. You'll won't be getting deliveries, you won't have customers coming and going, and you don't even really need a sign out front.
Note that I'm talking about municipal regulations, not neighborhood covenants. If you've made the unwise decision to purchase where anyone but you (and, as usual, the government) has the authority to dictate what *your property* may be used for...well, that's your own fault.
>No, I read the articles linked in the Slashdot story.
Look buddy, if you're going to be pulling shit like that, I'm afraid you're just going to have to leave.
"But Aquaman, you cannot marry a woman without gills, you're from two different worlds."
...
"Oh, I've wasted my life."
>You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected
>representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents
For varying values of "dozen".
There are nine justices on the Supreme Court, not twelve.
>Too bad nobody could save your sorry ass from a lifelong case of loser-itus.
I just love flamebait AC logic.
PQ writes lackluster software, ergo I'm a loser.
Yea, that makes sense.
I just posted about this below, but I'll mention it up here, too.
If you're going to use Partition Fuckup, er, Magic, get a copy of BPR from ACR.
It's saved PowerQuest's sorry ass from a messy, machine-gun-toting kuroth invasion on at least three occasions.
Of course, it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to just beat the hard disk with a 5 pound sledge. The odds that it'll get hosed are about the same as they'd be if you use Partition Magic on it.
When things get too hairy for your sissy Linux boot floppy to fix, ACR will rescue things for you. It's expensive, but it's worth every penny.
> What does [sendmail] do that [qmail] doesn't?
It gives you something to do on Saturdays. See, the sendmail team knows how tedious it is to do things like spend time with your wife and kids, play fetch with the dog, wax the car, and mow the lawn. Therefore, every two to four weeks, they release a fantastic new remote exploit, so you can spend your Saturday patching stuff or running your package management program of choice.
This stands in start constrast to qmail. If you were running qmail, you'd have no choice but to spend all that annoying "quality" time with your friends and family. Secure and reliable? Honestly, I don't know what DJB was thinking.
I don't know if I've every actually sat through the whole video. The younger brother of a friend of mine had a copy of it when I was younger, and I saw bits and pieces of it then.
All I really remember about it was (a) dozens of hot, morally-challenged women, and (b) codpieces.
I tried being a rock star, but I wound up as a programmer instead. That's the same, isn't it?
Isn't it?
*sigh*
> I wonder how he could have ever sold out like that...
Jason Newsted, formerly (?) of Metallica, gave the best answer to this that I've ever heard:
"Yes, we sold out... every seat in the house, everywhere we play."
Money can be an extremely powerful motivating factor, and it can lead you to make internal rationalizations that you'd never consider making for free. Playing music you love and living with four guys in a studio apartment kinda sucks, even when it's not compared to playing music you like (or even tolerate) and living in a 10000 square foot house with a dozen hot groupies.
Have you guys seen Kiss Exposed? Christ, I'd wear grease paint and a leather codpiece all day long to get a life like that.
Music school? What the fuck are you thinking?
Yea, the B&N development server was seven feet from my desk after Firefly moved to the Kendall Square office. I forget the name of the guy that was working on it. They came into the game a few months after Ziff-Davis, afaik.
Iirc, the B&N site was developed using a newer version of the software, one that had moved away from the parsed html model.
I don't remember Lauch.com at all. There were also a couple of other sites, BostonEats and a movie rating site, although I think those were both internal projects.
> Any other old Firefly people on Slashdot?
I was responsible for, afaik, the only operational installation of the initial version of Firefly's software. It was for a Ziff-Davis project, rating shareware in their software library. In that version they used parsed html to do everything; I'm not familiar with how the later versions worked.
I've never met him, but I was apparently implementing designs created by a guy named Bob Sweeny. His site has some screen shots.
As Bob says, the project fell apart sometime after it was implemented. I don't know the story behind that.
I was at the company meeting when they were first discussing MS's interest in them. There was a lot of talk about how MS was just looking at them, and not getting ready to pull a Borg. A few months later, the company was broken up and moved to the West coast.
>How will the RIAA react to this, seeing as this is legitimizing one of the oldest forms of music
>pirating?
It's all about money, remember? As long as the right people are getting paid, they won't care.
>Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast?
Read the article, tool. "Multiple CD burners".
>Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?"
It's live, so sure, it's not going to have the polish of a studio CD. They'll probably be mastering straight from the board, though, so the sound quality should be fine - certainly better than the recording done on a mini cassette in the audience.