I think we should all chip in and buy Monica Lewinski one of the "suckclinton" domains. After all the work she did, and the pain and heartache she had to endure afterwords, it would be a small gesture of appreciation from the community for the months of entertainment we were afforded, mostly at her expense.
The point is there is reasonable doubt whenever closed source software is downloaded and run, and that doubt increases for many of us whenever the government is involved, even indirectly. My point is that questioning motives and taking a hard look at software before you run it, and taking appropriate precautions if you do chose to run it, is always a good idea. How on earth does that point become invalid, merely because the software presumably comes from a private group rather than the government? The only effect is the degree of concern one may have (depending on one's trust or distruct of government institutions), not on the validity of the precautions one takes, or the questions one asks.
Of course, the really paranoid would argue that there is no guarantee that the software isn't an NSA trojan, planted by the SETI group. And before you flame, no, I don't believe that for a minute! But when I run the software I will lock down the user it runs as (using setroot, a restricted shell, and so forth), because I simply can't be certain I know what the program is doing. And I don't have the option of looking at the source to find out.
Just because the reason given is plausible doesn't make it true (though I'm not terribly inclined to buy into the conspiracy dystopianati(TM) theory at this point). His question may be paranoid, but it is hardly stupid. Closed source from a government agency, running on your computer... what an opportunity for the NSA! It wouldn't be the first governmental abuse of volunteers.
Of course, there's nothing to prevent us from disassembling and analyzing the code, so I doubt very much there's any hanky panky going on (though once again, it wouldn't be the first time a governmental beaurocracy did something collassally stupid, either). Many of us (myself very much included) tend to leap to the defense of NASA because we see so much promise in the space program and support it so strongly. Lest we forget, NASA is another government agency which also has military dimensions (who else is going to put all those CIA/NSA/military statelites in orbit?), so a little critical questioning of their motives is never really out of place.
Having said all that, I'm off to downlooad my copy of seti@home for Linux. I will be running it as a user under a restricted, setrooted shell, but then I'd do that with any closed-source program I'd just downloaded...
I said we renounced genocide. I don't recall genocide being committed by us, or anyone else, in Hawaii. As for your slant on Hawaiian events... what you describe may or may not be accurate. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the "all rosy" official history and your infammatory depiction, but regardless, the subject is GENOCIDE, not oppression, which has a much more slippery definition.
You are not being unpatriotic. Expressing a critical viewpoint of our goverment's actions is an important check on their powers.
I think the reason CNN and others are not bombarding us with Serbian footage of bombed out buildings (they do show some pics, just not reams of them) is twofold:
(a) been there, done that, boring, no ratings (i.e. we've been seeing the same stuff for two months, and viewership is dropping. They go where the cash is...)
(b) there are no neutral observers present to provide a balanced picture of what is going on. Serbian run media is promoting one point of view, and CNN et.al., rather than graphically showing only selected, Milosevic approved footage, opts to remain neutral and show relatively little. If you'll recall other conflicts, the media is not at all shy about shoving the collective American face into the mess the government has made, if they can do so by at least nominally presenting both sides. The Yugoslavian news blackout has effectively made it impossible for them to do that, however.
What our forefathers did to the native Americans was inexcusable. What Hitler did to the Russians, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities was inexcusable. What the Serbian nationalists did to the Bosnians and the Croatians was inexcusable, and what they are doing right now to the Kosovars is inexcusable. While forming racist notions about the Serb people based on the actions of their government and an (admittedly large) group of ultranationalist mauraders would be very inappropriate, standing idly by while they murder their weaker neighbors for a THIRD time this decade would be more than inappropriate, it would be gross, even criminal, negligence.
The United States, for all its flaws and problems (and there are many), has for a long time now renounced genocide and ethnic hatred. It is time others did the same.
Would this mean there won't be lunatic fringes espousing these obscene views and policies in the future? No. But at least they wouldn't be running entire countries, and destroying four decades of unprecendented peace in a region fraught with peril and tragedy.
First, my comments make the assumption that the site(s) in question provide mp3s for download legally, a la mp3.com. Since warez sites follow a different philosophy, my comments don't really apply to them.
Reading the document it isn't really clear to me if this is allowed or not, but couldn't sites which have banner advertising simply have no banners on the pages where Dead mp3's are downloaded from. In other words, folks going to download other mp3's would see ads, as would those seeing the main page with, say, the letter indexes ("Bands whose names start with A", "B", "C", etc.), but once on the "grateful dead" page no advertising would appear. This might allow sites to pay for bandwidth, but still be in keeping with the spirit of what the Grateful Dead are trying to achieve.
Of course, then there's the ethical issue of whether Grateful Dead trading should be subsidized by the work and efforts of other bands who are, after all, competitors in a sense, which is what is arguably happening if banner ads to pay for the sites are viewed when downloading their material.
For what its worth, I agree with the philosophy the Dead are trying to promote -- I'm just wondering if there isn't an economical compromize that would be in keeping with their requirements, yet allow sites to continue to finance their existence.
We are a trading company using Linux for very mission critical applications (millions of dollars at risk every day). When our competitors' NT systems go down (in one case for 3 days!!!) we crush them. We may not be a huge company, but we are making millions thanks in no small part to a very solid, reliable, fast, and scalable platform -- Linux.
Hopefully our competitors will continue to listen to self-proclaimed "expert think tanks" like this one .
A Code Of Ethics(tm) or Professional Certifications requirements do not address the issue you raised. Syncronys Softcorp engaged in fraud, and hid behind the absurd disclaimers common in commercial software licenses to get away with it. Asuming a Code Of Ethics(tm) or Professional Certification requirement would improve actual coding (I suspect it would not, it would simply hamper such Open Source projects as Linux, since much of the talent -- students -- would suddenly be excluded from taking part BY LAW), all you would have would be a better written program which displayed misleading dials.
After having read the "Hellmouth" series to date and the related/. discussions, I have to say this has been one of the most positive, refreshing uses of the net I have seen for some time. Aside from bringing back old, forgotten memories of just how difficult and painful high-school was (and thereby improving my own empathy for some of what kids are going through today), I think it has started us down the very necessary path of taking a hard look at some of the real dysfunctional aspects of our society.
Some additional points (not very organized, but worth saying I think)
* Things must change, else we'll see (much) more of the same. Children do not go mad in a vacuum, clearly something is very wrong, and it is high time we started looking at the causes with something greater than the hitherto superficial calousness and passing interest. Blame games and superfical pop-phychology are simply no longer acceptable.
* The fact that "that's always the way it's been" is no excuse for not initiating change. Until 70 years ago war had always been considered a pretty good way of expanding one nation's influence, power, or wealth at the expense of others. While we still make war even today, very few think of it as anything other than a trajedy. 30 years ago racism was institutionalized in the US at every level, now, while racism still exists, most if not all would be very emberrassed to admit racist attitudes today. Two lessons come from these examples: (1) real progress is possibe and achievable, regardless of the length of history or lack of precedent preceeding it, BUT (2) real progress is almost always slow and painful, as evidenced by just how much work still needs to be done (vis a vis achieving a society in which war is unthinkable, and skin color is of no more, or no less, interest than hair or eye color). This is both a cause for hope and excitement, as well as a cautionary note to not place one's expectations too high, and to not grow too discouraged if ones expectations are not achieved right away.
* The net has often been touted as a tool for social change. The "hellmouth" phenominon looks like the beginning of what could be a very powerful, very positive example of this, especially if it can bridge the communication gap between those of us who have suffered under the system as it currently is, and those who have the power to facilitate change. I find it incredibly reassuring that administrators, parents, and teachers are reading the comments on/. and taking them to heart. Maybe positive change will come during my lifetime, afterall.
* "Open Source, Open Music, Open Thought, Open Minds." (Not my quote, but I'm happy to adopt/pirate it) The scientific paradigm (the open exchange of ideas which are then subject to peer review, discussion, and improvement without -- ideally -- preconcieved bias) is I believe the catalyst for this phenomenon. The net has made this paradigm available, even fundamental, to many outside of scientific circles. Like the printing press bringing literacy to the masses, the changes this will spark are nothing short of staggering. But IMHO the net is simply the medium, it is the "open thought" paradigm, finally given the means to reach a large percentage of humankind, that is the real force driving change.
* Finally, please, please, if you're going to use MS Word, turn off "smart quotes"! Those non-ISO standard characters are displayed as question marks by those of us using non-windoze browsers, and they are really distracting!
Just what the jews in Germany thought (and said) in 1939. They were right. It did pass. And in its wake:
~6 Million dead jews ~6 Million dead other misc. concentration camp victoms (gypsies, eastern europeans, etc.) ~20 Million dead Russians
and so on.
The same ugly emotions (fear, hate, etc.) which drove the holocaust, drove the horrific acts of these two dead children, are the very same emotions driving the backlash you would have us feel sympathy for. This is not a good side of us as people, and we should fight these destructive tendencies we as human beings have in whatever form they take, even when we feel sympathy for those succumbing to such emotions because of something as terrible as the shootings in Colorado.
How many emotionally scarred children, suicides, ruined lives, and additional "incidents" must take place while we sit on our thumbs spinelessly accepting this unwarrented backlash, rather than addressing the core problems which led to this tragedy, many of which Katz and others have very eloquently pointed out in this thread?
I won't belabor the thread with my own experiences as a teenager, except to note that they mirror those that many others here have expressed.
What I would like to point out is that people are simply unwilling to accept the reality of the situation, that the two shooters in Colorado were not strange freaks from the other side of the galaxy. They were human beings, Americans, not so different from any of us who have grown up here, who for whatever reason were marginalized and pushed beyond their ability to cope intellectually or emotionally, and ultimately lost it.
Unfortunately, it is much more comfortable for us to demonize them as "white supremecists," "death obsessed goths", "crazed freaks", "geeks", and so on rather than accept the uncomfortable truth that, but for a twist of circumstance and fate, they could have been any one of us. "What, me a monster! Never! You lying sack of shit! Get out of my face or I'll kick your ass, you worthless freak! How dare you!" And so on, ad nauseum, are the responses I've gotten when expressing this notion to "perfectly normal, well adjusted" people. Anyone else spot the similarity in emotion in those responses to those demonstrated so lethally by those misguided youths in Colorado?
What is even less pleasant to realize, and what almost no one is willing to accept, is that the way those two kids (now dead murders) reacted to normal, every-day conditions in the "normal" (though to them, as to many of us, unbearable) environment of high school isn't really all that unusual or insane -- they simply hit back at those they held responsible for their pain. Indeed, they did what is expected, even demanded, of us by our society when we are picked on. The only difference is degree (kill instead of strike -- the outcome may be different but the inherent violence is the same). That they struck back with pipe bombs and guns instead of words, gestures, or even sticks and fists is horrific, but it is hardly the clean break from tradition we so desperately want to believe it is. We are cruel to one another, often without immediate consequence. Our parents, teachers, counselers, etc. encourage us to "conform" and to "learn to get along" while standing idly by and watching those bigger and stronger than ourselves engage in often ruthless physical and phsychological and very non-consentual domination over us. How often have you heard the comment "no one likes a tattletale" when going to someone in authority for help or protection when feeling threatened? As I child I remember vividly adults expecting, encouraging, and sometimes demanding that we, as children, stand up to this abuse and fight back *on our own*. Well, it looks like these kids took that lesson to heart and did just that, much to our collective horror. Maybe we should reconsider just what lessons we are teaching our children. Not from video games, or television, or any other media, but in person, as uninvolved parents, teachers, counsellers, and so on. When adults start telling children "no one likes a bully," "no one likes a violent punk," or "no one likes a rascist" instead of "no one likes a tattle-tale" the maybe, just maybe, things will start to turn around. Until then, expect more of the same. Much more, if the mindless, morally bankrupt backlash our so-called leaders are engaged in continues to run its course unhindered.
I'd weep for the future, if I honestly thought there was one.
Has anyone managed to get the "linux" link referenced in the article (on the IBM viavoice page) to work? The link is there (the last one in the column of ultra-small text on the right of IBM's main ViaVoice page), but alas the linux viavoice page itself appears to be missing.
Geeks are always getting blasted by the old media.
Part of it is the simple dislike many of the social gadfly types in the media have for those of the more intellectual persuasion, part of it is opportunism (in at least two, and probably more, obvious ways: an opportunity for the old media to bash its most threatening rival -- the internet -- and an opportunity to hype a trajedy and push people's fear buttons in the hopes of keeping them mindlessly glued to the tube), and part of it is simple incompetence and shoddy journalism resulting more from laziness and lack of talent than any overt malice.
The reality is that (at least in the US) nearly all young people are using the net, so of course no one should be surprised that some of those who go off the deep end are using it as well. Shall we start assuming all (or most, or even many) automobile drivers are serial killers, simply because nearly all serial killers drive cars?
I just spent most of the last two days at Comdex and the "Linux Global Summit" and I too saw Linus speak. I do not know how anyone could come away with the notion that he spent an hour bashing Microsoft. Apart from a few well-timed and humorous off-the-cuff quips regarding Microsoft's notorious lack of reliability, his entire speach was focused on where Linux is and where it is going, not on what Microsoft is doing. Frankly, if it had been otherwise I (and I think many others) would have been disappointed, since as non-users of Microsoft we don't really care where they are going today, tommorow, next week, or next year.
The newspapaer article was completely off base, exaggerated, and out of context. Sadly, this is nothing new when it comes to reporting computer-related issues.
I have to agree here. I can see their point -- perhaps they made a go of selling manuals to cover the costs and even with the slashdot effect it wasn't enough -- but I can't help feeling I've been suckered into buying an expensive book that I'm now much less likely to use... unless I plunk down even more cash for a piece of software that up until yesterday was free. I guess too many people are dumping windows for Linux for the "charge the windows dweebs out the ass to subsidize the free Linux version" paradigm to work.
Their target is not the "hacker/free/opensource culture," or even the "cracker/2600/warez culture," as much as it is the clueless clueful wannabes of both subcultures. Since there appears to be an endless supply of clueless clueful wannabes of every genre, it is probably a pretty good market to be appealing to. If Kipling is successful, it will be amusing to see how quickly said bag becomes associated with such clueless folks, until being seen toting such a bag around results in one becoming labelled as such almost immediately.:-) One wonders how long it will be before owning such a bag becomes an emberrassment...
Hmmm... perhaps it is similar to Finlandization? (Though stockholm is not in Finland, it is in Sweden). Finlandization was a term during the cold war for "friendly" countries which deferred to the Soviet Union on some issues out of fear of invasion or other retaliation. For example, Russians escaping to Finland were ruitinely sent back to Russia, so much so that the border between the USSR and Finland wasn't particularly well garded, unlike other "iron curtain" frontiers elsewhere in Europe. I took it to mean "selling out some of your basic values for a little short-term security." Perhaps the meaning has different historical roots than Finlandization -- anyone have a more definitive answer?
This sounds like an excellent idea! I like the idea that we can already upload data in the current format, with a utility to convert the compiled data to XML when it is ready. If this is the approach Rob and you are looking at, may I suggest you make that explicitly known so we know whether we should go ahead and upload our CD info now or wait. Obviously, for compilation CDs waiting is in order, as the current format doesn't support artists/track yet. If this is a bad idea from your perspective, that would be good to know also. Good luck!
Has anyone else noticed the extreme antisocial behavior inherent to many of the internet porn sites? And no, I'm not anti-porn, pro censorship, or anything else of that ilk -- my desktop backgrounds would shock many a straitlaced person.
However, I have encountered numerous porn sites which have a tendancy to be very antisocial when it comes to java scripting, not to mention eye-numbing graphics that are irritatingly distracting from the interest at hand (looking at people engaged in various natural/unnatural acts). Before surfing for porn I always have to disable javascript, lest my entire browser is hijacked! Unfortunately I need javascript for a couple of sites I use regularly (aviation weather sites mostly), else I would leave it disabled always. As an example of "hijacking", some sites refuse to ever let you leave, popping up another netscape window after you've closed or exited the porn site. The only way out is to quit Netscape -- you can't kill the windows fast enough to get out otherwise! Other sites pop up twenty or thirty (or infinite) browser windows to various advertisments -- extremely obnoxious (this slowed my xsession down once so bad I had to log in remotely and reboot -- and even that took awhile). Do these people think I'd ever give them one red cent for any product they're trying to push after treating my machine in such a way? Who the fuck are these idiots, to treat the internet, my machine, and my browser, as if it were a broadcast medium where they should control the content and determine where I surf to?
If all the porn sites become PIII only the only skin off my nose will be the time lost to dig out some old scripts and start ripping stuff down from the binaries news groups again. These idiots offend me, not by their content, but by the disdain, arrogance, and disrespect with which they treat me, the consumer, and my property.
If the anti-microsoft bias of slashdot annoys you, go somewhere else. Pro-Microsoft news outlets may become more difficult to find as MS's behavior becomes more flagrant and public ("you reap what you sow, Billy Boy"), but right now they're a dime a dozen and would love to add your mouse clicks to their statistics.
What you are describing is CRACKING, not hacking./. of all places should at least get the terminology right!
Linus Torvalds is a hacker.
Meatnick was a cracker.
Big difference.
That having been said, it IS an interesting philosophical question as to whether or not there is a legitimate role for CRACKING, and if so, what exactly that role would be.
How was the original actually copied? Did you use cdparanoia, cdda2wav, or xcdroast's copy facility? I'm not an audio guru by any streatch of the imagination, but I do recall that there are framing and timing issues with respect to the digital to analog conversion and bit sampling rates. Perhaps similar issues arise when capturing music and converting it to another, intermediate digital format. I can't for the life of me see why this would be so, but like you, I have observed definite degridation in some cases. It seems to vary, depending on the make/model of cdrom one is capturing from as well. You are right -- it is counterintuitive. Perhaps cdparanoia is effective at correcting this -- I haven't gotten around to trying it yet, but the docs do address some of the "physical media" issues which can arise, and how the program addresses them (by resampling the corrupted data, interpolation if recovery is not possible, and so on). If I get a chance this weekend I'll try cdparanoia out -- I haven't had cause to rip any cd's lately. Anyone else with experience using cdparanoia care to comment?
(Of course, it goes without saying that the audio output from the cdrom to the sound card is analog -- but cdda2wav and cdparanoia use the scsi interface which *should* be digital to digital.)
This is very distressing indeed (though hardly suprising). What will be even more distressing will be the corporate apologists who will almost certainly step in to belittle slashdotters who are understandably outraged at this action, probably citing the "holy writ" of IP law. In a world of the Lawyers, by the Lawyers, and for the Lawyers, where the words "you've got mail" (not to mention just about any other phrase in any human language) can be magically converted into "intellectual property" status by the arcane magic of the trademark, it should be no surprise that such things happen.
After all, those who step out of line and desecrate the sanctity of Intellectual Property(tm) can't be real people, and must therefor deserve the wrath they bring down upon themselves. Why else would our legal institutions, in which we are expected and required to place so much trust (under pain of punishment and social censure, complete with such labels as "slashdot longhair," "leftist radical," "pinko commie bastard," "shameless free thinker" and the like), come down so hard on them? Why else indeed. With the new copyright legislation in America set to kick in in another few months (and the near certainty that similar legislation will be enacted by other governments as well -- probably as a direct result American pressure), the only thing left say is the unsettling truth that, for all the distress such headlines may bring us, we ain't seen nothing yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we should all chip in and buy Monica Lewinski one of the "suckclinton" domains. After all the work she did, and the pain and heartache she had to endure afterwords, it would be a small gesture of appreciation from the community for the months of entertainment we were afforded, mostly at her expense.
:-)
That explains all those bad sectors I have to remap every Monday morning after a long weekend of alcohol consumption!
:-)
Can you really be certain?
The point is there is reasonable doubt whenever closed source software is downloaded and run, and that doubt increases for many of us whenever the government is involved, even indirectly. My point is that questioning motives and taking a hard look at software before you run it, and taking appropriate precautions if you do chose to run it, is always a good idea. How on earth does that point become invalid, merely because the software presumably comes from a private group rather than the government? The only effect is the degree of concern one may have (depending on one's trust or distruct of government institutions), not on the validity of the precautions one takes, or the questions one asks.
Of course, the really paranoid would argue that there is no guarantee that the software isn't an NSA trojan, planted by the SETI group. And before you flame, no, I don't believe that for a minute! But when I run the software I will lock down the user it runs as (using setroot, a restricted shell, and so forth), because I simply can't be certain I know what the program is doing. And I don't have the option of looking at the source to find out.
Just because the reason given is plausible doesn't make it true (though I'm not terribly inclined to buy into the conspiracy dystopianati(TM) theory at this point). His question may be paranoid, but it is hardly stupid. Closed source from a government agency, running on your computer ... what an opportunity for the NSA! It wouldn't be the first governmental abuse of volunteers.
Of course, there's nothing to prevent us from disassembling and analyzing the code, so I doubt very much there's any hanky panky going on (though once again, it wouldn't be the first time a governmental beaurocracy did something collassally stupid, either). Many of us (myself very much included) tend to leap to the defense of NASA because we see so much promise in the space program and support it so strongly. Lest we forget, NASA is another government agency which also has military dimensions (who else is going to put all those CIA/NSA/military statelites in orbit?), so a little critical questioning of their motives is never really out of place.
Having said all that, I'm off to downlooad my copy of seti@home for Linux. I will be running it as a user under a restricted, setrooted shell, but then I'd do that with any closed-source program I'd just downloaded...
I said we renounced genocide. I don't recall genocide being committed by us, or anyone else, in Hawaii. As for your slant on Hawaiian events ... what you describe may or may not be accurate. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the "all rosy" official history and your infammatory depiction, but regardless, the subject is GENOCIDE, not oppression, which has a much more slippery definition.
You are not being unpatriotic. Expressing a critical viewpoint of our goverment's actions is an important check on their powers.
...)
I think the reason CNN and others are not bombarding us with Serbian footage of bombed out buildings (they do show some pics, just not reams of them) is twofold:
(a) been there, done that, boring, no ratings
(i.e. we've been seeing the same stuff for two months, and viewership is dropping. They go where the cash is
(b) there are no neutral observers present to provide a balanced picture of what is going on. Serbian run media is promoting one point of view, and CNN et.al., rather than graphically showing only selected, Milosevic approved footage, opts to remain neutral and show relatively little. If you'll recall other conflicts, the media is not at all shy about shoving the collective American face into the mess the government has made, if they can do so by at least nominally presenting both sides. The Yugoslavian news blackout has effectively made it impossible for them to do that, however.
What our forefathers did to the native Americans was inexcusable. What Hitler did to the Russians, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities was inexcusable. What the Serbian nationalists did to the Bosnians and the Croatians was inexcusable, and what they are doing right now to the Kosovars is inexcusable. While forming racist notions about the Serb people based on the actions of their government and an (admittedly large) group of ultranationalist mauraders would be very inappropriate, standing idly by while they murder their weaker neighbors for a THIRD time this decade would be more than inappropriate, it would be gross, even criminal, negligence.
The United States, for all its flaws and problems (and there are many), has for a long time now renounced genocide and ethnic hatred. It is time others did the same.
Would this mean there won't be lunatic fringes espousing these obscene views and policies in the future? No. But at least they wouldn't be running entire countries, and destroying four decades of unprecendented peace in a region fraught with peril and tragedy.
First, my comments make the assumption that the site(s) in question provide mp3s for download legally, a la mp3.com. Since warez sites follow a different philosophy, my comments don't really apply to them.
Reading the document it isn't really clear to me if this is allowed or not, but couldn't sites which have banner advertising simply have no banners on the pages where Dead mp3's are downloaded from. In other words, folks going to download other mp3's would see ads, as would those seeing the main page with, say, the letter indexes ("Bands whose names start with A", "B", "C", etc.), but once on the "grateful dead" page no advertising would appear. This might allow sites to pay for bandwidth, but still be in keeping with the spirit of what the Grateful Dead are trying to achieve.
Of course, then there's the ethical issue of whether Grateful Dead trading should be subsidized by the work and efforts of other bands who are, after all, competitors in a sense, which is what is arguably happening if banner ads to pay for the sites are viewed when downloading their material.
For what its worth, I agree with the philosophy the Dead are trying to promote -- I'm just wondering if there isn't an economical compromize that would be in keeping with their requirements, yet allow sites to continue to finance their existence.
comments? other ideas?
jean
We are a trading company using Linux for very mission critical applications (millions of dollars at risk every day). When our competitors' NT systems go down (in one case for 3 days!!!) we crush them. We may not be a huge company, but we are making millions thanks in no small part to a very solid, reliable, fast, and scalable platform -- Linux.
Hopefully our competitors will continue to listen to self-proclaimed "expert think tanks" like this one .
A Code Of Ethics(tm) or Professional Certifications requirements do not address the issue you raised. Syncronys Softcorp engaged in fraud, and hid behind the absurd disclaimers common in commercial software licenses to get away with it. Asuming a Code Of Ethics(tm) or Professional Certification requirement would improve actual coding (I suspect it would not, it would simply hamper such Open Source projects as Linux, since much of the talent -- students -- would suddenly be excluded from taking part BY LAW), all you would have would be a better written program which displayed misleading dials.
After having read the "Hellmouth" series to date and the related /. discussions, I have to say this has been one of the most positive, refreshing uses of the net I have seen for some time. Aside from bringing back old, forgotten memories of just how difficult and painful high-school was (and thereby improving my own empathy for some of what kids are going through today), I think it has started us down the very necessary path of taking a hard look at some of the real dysfunctional aspects of our society.
/. and taking them to heart. Maybe positive change will come during my lifetime, afterall.
Some additional points (not very organized, but worth saying I think)
* Things must change, else we'll see (much) more of the same. Children do not go mad in a vacuum, clearly something is very wrong, and it is high time we started looking at the causes with something greater than the hitherto superficial calousness and passing interest. Blame games and superfical pop-phychology are simply no longer acceptable.
* The fact that "that's always the way it's been" is no excuse for not initiating change. Until 70 years ago war had always been considered a pretty good way of expanding one nation's influence, power, or wealth at the expense of others. While we still make war even today, very few think of it as anything other than a trajedy. 30 years ago racism was institutionalized in the US at every level, now, while racism still exists, most if not all would be very emberrassed to admit racist attitudes today. Two lessons come from these examples: (1) real progress is possibe and achievable, regardless of the length of history or lack of precedent preceeding it, BUT (2) real progress is almost always slow and painful, as evidenced by just how much work still needs to be done (vis a vis achieving a society in which war is unthinkable, and skin color is of no more, or no less, interest than hair or eye color). This is both a cause for hope and excitement, as well as a cautionary note to not place one's expectations too high, and to not grow too discouraged if ones expectations are not achieved right away.
* The net has often been touted as a tool for social change. The "hellmouth" phenominon looks like the beginning of what could be a very powerful, very positive example of this, especially if it can bridge the communication gap between those of us who have suffered under the system as it currently is, and those who have the power to facilitate change. I find it incredibly reassuring that administrators, parents, and teachers are reading the comments on
* "Open Source, Open Music, Open Thought, Open Minds." (Not my quote, but I'm happy to adopt/pirate it) The scientific paradigm (the open exchange of ideas which are then subject to peer review, discussion, and improvement without -- ideally -- preconcieved bias) is I believe the catalyst for this phenomenon. The net has made this paradigm available, even fundamental, to many outside of scientific circles. Like the printing press bringing literacy to the masses, the changes this will spark are nothing short of staggering. But IMHO the net is simply the medium, it is the "open thought" paradigm, finally given the means to reach a large percentage of humankind, that is the real force driving change.
* Finally, please, please, if you're going to use MS Word, turn off "smart quotes"! Those non-ISO standard characters are displayed as question marks by those of us using non-windoze browsers, and they are really distracting!
> This too shall pass.
Just what the jews in Germany thought (and said) in 1939. They were right. It did pass. And in its wake:
~6 Million dead jews
~6 Million dead other misc. concentration camp victoms (gypsies, eastern europeans, etc.)
~20 Million dead Russians
and so on.
The same ugly emotions (fear, hate, etc.) which drove the holocaust, drove the horrific acts of these two dead children, are the very same emotions driving the backlash you would have us feel sympathy for. This is not a good side of us as people, and we should fight these destructive tendencies we as human beings have in whatever form they take, even when we feel sympathy for those succumbing to such emotions because of something as terrible as the shootings in Colorado.
How many emotionally scarred children, suicides, ruined lives, and additional "incidents" must take place while we sit on our thumbs spinelessly accepting this unwarrented backlash, rather than addressing the core problems which led to this tragedy, many of which Katz and others have very eloquently pointed out in this thread?
I won't belabor the thread with my own experiences as a teenager, except to note that they mirror those that many others here have expressed.
What I would like to point out is that people are simply unwilling to accept the reality of the situation, that the two shooters in Colorado were not strange freaks from the other side of the galaxy. They were human beings, Americans, not so different from any of us who have grown up here, who for whatever reason were marginalized and pushed beyond their ability to cope intellectually or emotionally, and ultimately lost it.
Unfortunately, it is much more comfortable for us to demonize them as "white supremecists," "death obsessed goths", "crazed freaks", "geeks", and so on rather than accept the uncomfortable truth that, but for a twist of circumstance and fate, they could have been any one of us. "What, me a monster! Never! You lying sack of shit! Get out of my face or I'll kick your ass, you worthless freak! How dare you!" And so on, ad nauseum, are the responses I've gotten when expressing this notion to "perfectly normal, well adjusted" people. Anyone else spot the similarity in emotion in those responses to those demonstrated so lethally by those misguided youths in Colorado?
What is even less pleasant to realize, and what almost no one is willing to accept, is that the way those two kids (now dead murders) reacted to normal, every-day conditions in the "normal" (though to them, as to many of us, unbearable) environment of high school isn't really all that unusual or insane -- they simply hit back at those they held responsible for their pain. Indeed, they did what is expected, even demanded, of us by our society when we are picked on. The only difference is degree (kill instead of strike -- the outcome may be different but the inherent violence is the same). That they struck back with pipe bombs and guns instead of words, gestures, or even sticks and fists is horrific, but it is hardly the clean break from tradition we so desperately want to believe it is. We are cruel to one another, often without immediate consequence. Our parents, teachers, counselers, etc. encourage us to "conform" and to "learn to get along" while standing idly by and watching those bigger and stronger than ourselves engage in often ruthless physical and phsychological and very non-consentual domination over us. How often have you heard the comment "no one likes a tattletale" when going to someone in authority for help or protection when feeling threatened? As I child I remember vividly adults expecting, encouraging, and sometimes demanding that we, as children, stand up to this abuse and fight back *on our own*. Well, it looks like these kids took that lesson to heart and did just that, much to our collective horror. Maybe we should reconsider just what lessons we are teaching our children. Not from video games, or television, or any other media, but in person, as uninvolved parents, teachers, counsellers, and so on. When adults start telling children "no one likes a bully," "no one likes a violent punk," or "no one likes a rascist" instead of "no one likes a tattle-tale" the maybe, just maybe, things will start to turn around. Until then, expect more of the same. Much more, if the mindless, morally bankrupt backlash our so-called leaders are engaged in continues to run its course unhindered.
I'd weep for the future, if I honestly thought there was one.
Has anyone managed to get the "linux" link referenced in the article (on the IBM viavoice page) to work? The link is there (the last one in the column of ultra-small text on the right of IBM's main ViaVoice page), but alas the linux viavoice page itself appears to be missing.
Geeks are always getting blasted by the old media.
Part of it is the simple dislike many of the social gadfly types in the media have for those of the more intellectual persuasion, part of it is opportunism (in at least two, and probably more, obvious ways: an opportunity for the old media to bash its most threatening rival -- the internet -- and an opportunity to hype a trajedy and push people's fear buttons in the hopes of keeping them mindlessly glued to the tube), and part of it is simple incompetence and shoddy journalism resulting more from laziness and lack of talent than any overt malice.
The reality is that (at least in the US) nearly all young people are using the net, so of course no one should be surprised that some of those who go off the deep end are using it as well. Shall we start assuming all (or most, or even many) automobile drivers are serial killers, simply because nearly all serial killers drive cars?
I just spent most of the last two days at Comdex and the "Linux Global Summit" and I too saw Linus speak. I do not know how anyone could come away with the notion that he spent an hour bashing Microsoft. Apart from a few well-timed and humorous off-the-cuff quips regarding Microsoft's notorious lack of reliability, his entire speach was focused on where Linux is and where it is going, not on what Microsoft is doing. Frankly, if it had been otherwise I (and I think many others) would have been disappointed, since as non-users of Microsoft we don't really care where they are going today, tommorow, next week, or next year.
The newspapaer article was completely off base, exaggerated, and out of context. Sadly, this is nothing new when it comes to reporting computer-related issues.
I have to agree here. I can see their point -- perhaps they made a go of selling manuals to cover the costs and even with the slashdot effect it wasn't enough -- but I can't help feeling I've been suckered into buying an expensive book that I'm now much less likely to use ... unless I plunk down even more cash for a piece of software that up until yesterday was free. I guess too many people are dumping windows for Linux for the "charge the windows dweebs out the ass to subsidize the free Linux version" paradigm to work.
Their target is not the "hacker/free/opensource culture," or even the "cracker/2600/warez culture," as much as it is the clueless clueful wannabes of both subcultures. Since there appears to be an endless supply of clueless clueful wannabes of every genre, it is probably a pretty good market to be appealing to. If Kipling is successful, it will be amusing to see how quickly said bag becomes associated with such clueless folks, until being seen toting such a bag around results in one becoming labelled as such almost immediately. :-) One wonders how long it will be before owning such a bag becomes an emberrassment ...
Hmmm ... perhaps it is similar to Finlandization? (Though stockholm is not in Finland, it is in Sweden). Finlandization was a term during the cold war for "friendly" countries which deferred to the Soviet Union on some issues out of fear of invasion or other retaliation. For example, Russians escaping to Finland were ruitinely sent back to Russia, so much so that the border between the USSR and Finland wasn't particularly well garded, unlike other "iron curtain" frontiers elsewhere in Europe. I took it to mean "selling out some of your basic values for a little short-term security." Perhaps the meaning has different historical roots than Finlandization -- anyone have a more definitive answer?
This sounds like an excellent idea! I like the idea that we can already upload data in the current format, with a utility to convert the compiled data to XML when it is ready. If this is the approach Rob and you are looking at, may I suggest you make that explicitly known so we know whether we should go ahead and upload our CD info now or wait. Obviously, for compilation CDs waiting is in order, as the current format doesn't support artists/track yet. If this is a bad idea from your perspective, that would be good to know also. Good luck!
Has anyone else noticed the extreme antisocial behavior inherent to many of the internet porn sites? And no, I'm not anti-porn, pro censorship, or anything else of that ilk -- my desktop backgrounds would shock many a straitlaced person.
However, I have encountered numerous porn sites which have a tendancy to be very antisocial when it comes to java scripting, not to mention eye-numbing graphics that are irritatingly distracting from the interest at hand (looking at people engaged in various natural/unnatural acts). Before surfing for porn I always have to disable javascript, lest my entire browser is hijacked! Unfortunately I need javascript for a couple of sites I use regularly (aviation weather sites mostly), else I would leave it disabled always. As an example of "hijacking", some sites refuse to ever let you leave, popping up another netscape window after you've closed or exited the porn site. The only way out is to quit Netscape -- you can't kill the windows fast enough to get out otherwise! Other sites pop up twenty or thirty (or infinite) browser windows to various advertisments -- extremely obnoxious (this slowed my xsession down once so bad I had to log in remotely and reboot -- and even that took awhile). Do these people think I'd ever give them one red cent for any product they're trying to push after treating my machine in such a way? Who the fuck are these idiots, to treat the internet, my machine, and my browser, as if it were a broadcast medium where they should control the content and determine where I surf to?
If all the porn sites become PIII only the only skin off my nose will be the time lost to dig out some old scripts and start ripping stuff down from the binaries news groups again. These idiots offend me, not by their content, but by the disdain, arrogance, and disrespect with which they treat me, the consumer, and my property.
Partisan? Perhaps.
But absolutely accurate.
If the anti-microsoft bias of slashdot annoys you, go somewhere else. Pro-Microsoft news outlets may become more difficult to find as MS's behavior becomes more flagrant and public ("you reap what you sow, Billy Boy"), but right now they're a dime a dozen and would love to add your mouse clicks to their statistics.
What you are describing is CRACKING, not hacking. /. of all places should at least get the terminology right!
Linus Torvalds is a hacker.
Meatnick was a cracker.
Big difference.
That having been said, it IS an interesting philosophical question as to whether or not there is a legitimate role for CRACKING, and if so, what exactly that role would be.
How was the original actually copied? Did you use cdparanoia, cdda2wav, or xcdroast's copy facility? I'm not an audio guru by any streatch of the imagination, but I do recall that there are framing and timing issues with respect to the digital to analog conversion and bit sampling rates. Perhaps similar issues arise when capturing music and converting it to another, intermediate digital format. I can't for the life of me see why this would be so, but like you, I have observed definite degridation in some cases. It seems to vary, depending on the make/model of cdrom one is capturing from as well. You are right -- it is counterintuitive. Perhaps cdparanoia is effective at correcting this -- I haven't gotten around to trying it yet, but the docs do address some of the "physical media" issues which can arise, and how the program addresses them (by resampling the corrupted data, interpolation if recovery is not possible, and so on). If I get a chance this weekend I'll try cdparanoia out -- I haven't had cause to rip any cd's lately. Anyone else with experience using cdparanoia care to comment?
(Of course, it goes without saying that the audio output from the cdrom to the sound card is analog -- but cdda2wav and cdparanoia use the scsi interface which *should* be digital to digital.)
This is very distressing indeed (though hardly suprising). What will be even more distressing will be the corporate apologists who will almost certainly step in to belittle slashdotters who are understandably outraged at this action, probably citing the "holy writ" of IP law. In a world of the Lawyers, by the Lawyers, and for the Lawyers, where the words "you've got mail" (not to mention just about any other phrase in any human language) can be magically converted into "intellectual property" status by the arcane magic of the trademark, it should be no surprise that such things happen.
After all, those who step out of line and desecrate the sanctity of Intellectual Property(tm) can't be real people, and must therefor deserve the wrath they bring down upon themselves. Why else would our legal institutions, in which we are expected and required to place so much trust (under pain of punishment and social censure, complete with such labels as "slashdot longhair," "leftist radical," "pinko commie bastard," "shameless free thinker" and the like), come down so hard on them? Why else indeed. With the new copyright legislation in America set to kick in in another few months (and the near certainty that similar legislation will be enacted by other governments as well -- probably as a direct result American pressure), the only thing left say is the unsettling truth that, for all the distress such headlines may bring us, we ain't seen nothing yet.