Umm... I think you should read about how OSes actually work before you post again and embarass yourself further.
Programs free up memory all the time and it's cleared by the OS and given to other programs. That's part of the virtual memory subsystem. It's been that way for years and years. The only commonly used OS that didn't do that that I know of in the past 15 years is MS-DOS.
This means that RAM needs consistency verified bits like the ones used on hard-drives to tell fsck that things were shut down cleanly.
Someone mentioned that you could have the BIOS auto-detect when you purposely shut things down, or hit the reset button. Well, what happens if the BIOS is buggy and that function doesn't work? It's much better to have a bit that says that something claims that memory is in a valid state for shutdown than something that specially flags that you want to erase memory on startup.
This would cause problems in power failure situations, but that could easily (and cheaply) be solved by having a capacitor bank 'UPS' that could keep the machine running for about 5 seconds or so while the OS went through the motions to put itself in a hibernating state.
If you convince publishers to put in an unsupported Linux directory, try to get them to include a Linux option on the response card.
I know I've always added in a Linux option when there wasn't one. Sending in those registration cards is always an invitation to be spammed, but I think that small inconvenience is well worth the direct feedback I can send about using Linux.
Yeah, the difference is that some of those things are things you might want, and one of those things is something you get whether you want it or not.
BTW, I don't agree with the first one. I've thought about it a lot, and while I really and truly do believe very strongly in the first ammendment, the actions that are taken to produce child pornography are not ones that I wish to in any way legitamize. Most of the children who are involved in child pornography are horribly exploited and end up living (often short) horribly painful lives.
It wouldn't have as much traffic as the search itself. The search itself is spammed out over the entire net, then the replies come back. Sending out the verification requests to the particular sites that supposedly responded would be somewhat less traffic than the initial search request.
Re:Probalistic Analysis of Blacklists
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
This could be fixed by having the blacklisters be a known list of people who digitally sign their blacklists. That way, if some blacklister blacklists something you disagree with, you can easily filter their blacklists. This also prevents the blacklisters from being prosecuted for copyright violation. This is sort of like the Usenet cancel moose concept.
A number of the suggested schemes have the disadvantage of giving out the ID of someone who can be implicated in copyright violations by the actions required of them by the protocol.
Just doing my part to help destroy the obsolete notion of copyright.
Bush is utterly scary. Anybody who buys up all the domains people might use to criticize him with, then sues the person who found a good domain that he didn't think of is scary. Anybody who says "There ought to be limits on freedom." in the context of free speech is scary. I'm sorry, but GW Bush is the last person I would want in office. An alchoholic picked up off a street would be better. A carbon rod would be better. Anybody would be better.
I feel exactly the same way. I dislike both candidates, but Bush frightens the bejeezus out of me, and Gore merely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm probably going to vote for Gore in this election even though I would rather vote for Browne. It's just _so_ important that Bush not be elected. *shudder*
I recall this very distinctly. Is what something Id was actually unhappy about.
They did purposely delay the release of the Windows->Linux conversion patches until well after the Linux version hit the stores. This was to try to get people to hold off on buying the Windows version and simply wait for the Linux version to show up.
Some companies won't fix the hole, even if it's widely known. They only respond to huge masses of complaints generated by sysadmins running a script and noticing it works.
I think publishing a script with the announcement of the hole is irresponsible. After a month or two with no fix, publishing a script is reasonable.
Your post made a huge amount of sense to me, and after thinking about it, I have this analogy...
Not posting holes in vendors products is like not telling anyone that the X model safe from Acme Corp. is susceptible to being broken into by knocking three times on the hinges, hitting the dial with a hammer, then using a stethescope.
Not telling people about your security setup is like not publishing your building plan or telling people the specific location of the security desk with all the monitors.
The first should be widely publicized. The second should be kept as secret as possible and changed occasionally just for good measure.
I was somewhat taken in by the hoax, but after it was revealed, I thought it was hilarious. My time spent looking at their website was well worth the laugh I got later.:-)
You can produce all you want and not give away your creations for free. You have a perfect right to not show anybody anything you've created unless you get money. You do not have a right to tell them what to do with it.
Copyright is not about preventing stuff from being taken from you. It's about telling other people what they can do with what they own in the hopes that you can make more money. At one point in time, this restriction was not unreasonable. Now it is. Deal with it.
Stop trying to claim that copyright is some holy thing handed down by God itself. The truth is, copyright was limited in effectiveness to the time in our history between the invention of mass publishing and the time that mass publishing became so cheap anybody could do it.
Copyright is no longer effective. It no longer works. Figure out something that does work and stop whining about a situation that has irrevocably changed. If people listen to your whining enough, and try to make copyright work against all odds, our society will be plunged into a dark age of tyranny.
It wasn't that the plot was horrible, or that our dialogue was borderline ridiculous, it's those finicky moviegoers wanting all that flashbang 3D animation stuff! Yeah! That's it! We couldn't possibly be producing garbage here.
I think 'El Dorado' was successful, and not a bad movie. I think DreamWorks in general does good animation. In fact, I see them on purpose largely because they're not Disney and don't try to be.
I think this is a perfectly OK thing for Deja to do. I will simply never ever recommend them to anybody as a way to read news anymore. It isn't a copyright issue, it's a 'spam' issue. I define 'spam' as all advertisement that attempts to invade my 'signal' space without me asking it to.
As for the corporation vs. people argument. Likening anti-corporatism to racism is a bit of an interesting idea. I'm beginning to think it was a mistake in the first place to give corporations any legal standing as individuals of any kind.
Actually, what Katz said was exactly what I thought as I watched the movie.
I kinda wondered if that was a part of the reason for the X-Men's popularity. A sort of tapping into the unconcious undercurrent of a community of people bonded by a certain kind of shared pain.
It's a theme I see repeated a lot in the comics that people seem to go for. Mythology often reflects a shared spirit. I think it's a valid comparison.
Seen in this light, Rogue's line "Do they hurt when they come out?" and Wolverine's reply "Yeah, every time." was classic, and one of the most poignant scenes in the movie. Abilities and skills that are useful and feared, and yet, every time you use them you feel like you've deepened the gulf between you and everyone else.
*chuckle* My personal philosophy includes a few elements of nihilism, but I'm not that down on the existence of an objective reality and our ability to figure out what it is.
As far as my comment goes, I should perhaps have ammended it with "It's about what works, and what doesn't. Copyright simply doesn't work anymore.". I think that better states what I was on about.
That's not what he's saying. You're using a bunch of charged phrases like 'question the status quo' to try to obscure his point. His point is that some way of altering your perception of the world are more dangerous than other, and that drugs tend to be a more dangerous way than many.
Of course, mountain climbing is also a dangerous way to change your outlook on the world, but we seem to accept that as a society.:-)
I don't like the government set rate idea very much either.
Seeing that copyright is dead, can you think of a solution to your problem? It is dead you know, no matter how much you want it not to be. It's gone the way of the dodo, and it's never coming back.
I would love for you to be able to operate somehow, and I wish I had an answer. Maybe people would buy your stuff anyway. I suspect that if I were into vinyl, I would.
Whether it's wrong or not is largely moot. You can't actually stop people from doing it anymore. The copyright laws now have about as much force as laws against spitting in the street.
If you would like to live in a town that rigidly and strictly enforced laws against spitting in the streets, I guess you might like living in a nation that rigidly and strictly enforced copyright law.
Stop thinking about it in terms of what's right, and what's wrong, because it doesn't matter.
Besides, it's wrongness is questionable anyway. I don't think you can really treat things that would be covered under patent or copyright law as property in any strict sense.
Some system will arise, because, as someone else pointed out, all artists have to do is refuse to perform or record unless they're paid. People want music. People want stories, novels, pictures, and all manner of art. Some system will arise by which artists can create their art and not starve.
Just encrypting your e-mail with PGP is not enough. The sender and recipient histories can still be tracked. Here is my proposed solution to this problem...
Have several anonymous remailers scattered around the world with well published public keys. Each remailer will decrypt the message with it's private key, find the new sender in the decrypted message, strip the original envelope information, and send the message along to the next remailer.
Your message ends up encrypted in multiple layers that get stripped off one by one by each remailer. Eventually, it will get to its destination where the recipient will strip the last layer of encryption off.
This way, there is no reasonable way anybody can track who you're getting messages from, or who you're sending them to. Even if the remailers keep connect logs, or message logs, you still can't tell.
I'm thinking of writing this up as a python script that uses gpg and that can be set up as a filter in your.forward or.qmail file.
When I was in college, I did a lot to try to encourage female people to like computers. Mostly because (since I've been working them since I was a little kid) I wanted more women I could relate to easily. Sadly, very, very few women were interested in technology. Most of them were interested in decent paying jobs and good careers. They were kind of disheartening to talk to. *sigh*
It's very difficult to have done something all your life and not be able to talk about it with the person you're with.
Not only that, but I discovered that it was hard to find women outside of the computer field who were interested in 'deep' ideas, and liked talking about them. I have a strong interest in various branches of philosophy, especially with regards questions involving the nature of consciousness, and I've hard a very hard time finding women with any interest in that kind of thing either. It's quite depressing.
I think my luck may have changed recently though.:-)
One thing that bothered me about that article, is the 'oooh, icky-poo!' attitude of the female people they quoted. IMHO, the woman they quoted can go have and have her stupid non-tech career, and I hope she fails miserably and has a disgusting job while seeing all those icky geeks around her do well. I hate this attitude, and nothing makes me shut down more with regards to helping someone than hearing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... I think you should read about how OSes actually work before you post again and embarass yourself further.
Programs free up memory all the time and it's cleared by the OS and given to other programs. That's part of the virtual memory subsystem. It's been that way for years and years. The only commonly used OS that didn't do that that I know of in the past 15 years is MS-DOS.
This means that RAM needs consistency verified bits like the ones used on hard-drives to tell fsck that things were shut down cleanly.
Someone mentioned that you could have the BIOS auto-detect when you purposely shut things down, or hit the reset button. Well, what happens if the BIOS is buggy and that function doesn't work? It's much better to have a bit that says that something claims that memory is in a valid state for shutdown than something that specially flags that you want to erase memory on startup.
This would cause problems in power failure situations, but that could easily (and cheaply) be solved by having a capacitor bank 'UPS' that could keep the machine running for about 5 seconds or so while the OS went through the motions to put itself in a hibernating state.
If you convince publishers to put in an unsupported Linux directory, try to get them to include a Linux option on the response card.
I know I've always added in a Linux option when there wasn't one. Sending in those registration cards is always an invitation to be spammed, but I think that small inconvenience is well worth the direct feedback I can send about using Linux.
Yeah, there is that argument. *sigh* It's a hard problem.
Yeah, the difference is that some of those things are things you might want, and one of those things is something you get whether you want it or not.
BTW, I don't agree with the first one. I've thought about it a lot, and while I really and truly do believe very strongly in the first ammendment, the actions that are taken to produce child pornography are not ones that I wish to in any way legitamize. Most of the children who are involved in child pornography are horribly exploited and end up living (often short) horribly painful lives.
It wouldn't have as much traffic as the search itself. The search itself is spammed out over the entire net, then the replies come back. Sending out the verification requests to the particular sites that supposedly responded would be somewhat less traffic than the initial search request.
This could be fixed by having the blacklisters be a known list of people who digitally sign their blacklists. That way, if some blacklister blacklists something you disagree with, you can easily filter their blacklists. This also prevents the blacklisters from being prosecuted for copyright violation. This is sort of like the Usenet cancel moose concept.
A number of the suggested schemes have the disadvantage of giving out the ID of someone who can be implicated in copyright violations by the actions required of them by the protocol.
Just doing my part to help destroy the obsolete notion of copyright.
Bush is utterly scary. Anybody who buys up all the domains people might use to criticize him with, then sues the person who found a good domain that he didn't think of is scary. Anybody who says "There ought to be limits on freedom." in the context of free speech is scary. I'm sorry, but GW Bush is the last person I would want in office. An alchoholic picked up off a street would be better. A carbon rod would be better. Anybody would be better.
I feel exactly the same way. I dislike both candidates, but Bush frightens the bejeezus out of me, and Gore merely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm probably going to vote for Gore in this election even though I would rather vote for Browne. It's just _so_ important that Bush not be elected. *shudder*
I recall this very distinctly. Is what something Id was actually unhappy about.
They did purposely delay the release of the Windows->Linux conversion patches until well after the Linux version hit the stores. This was to try to get people to hold off on buying the Windows version and simply wait for the Linux version to show up.
Some companies won't fix the hole, even if it's widely known. They only respond to huge masses of complaints generated by sysadmins running a script and noticing it works.
I think publishing a script with the announcement of the hole is irresponsible. After a month or two with no fix, publishing a script is reasonable.
Your post made a huge amount of sense to me, and after thinking about it, I have this analogy...
Not posting holes in vendors products is like not telling anyone that the X model safe from Acme Corp. is susceptible to being broken into by knocking three times on the hinges, hitting the dial with a hammer, then using a stethescope.
Not telling people about your security setup is like not publishing your building plan or telling people the specific location of the security desk with all the monitors.
The first should be widely publicized. The second should be kept as secret as possible and changed occasionally just for good measure.
I was somewhat taken in by the hoax, but after it was revealed, I thought it was hilarious. My time spent looking at their website was well worth the laugh I got later. :-)
You can produce all you want and not give away your creations for free. You have a perfect right to not show anybody anything you've created unless you get money. You do not have a right to tell them what to do with it.
Copyright is not about preventing stuff from being taken from you. It's about telling other people what they can do with what they own in the hopes that you can make more money. At one point in time, this restriction was not unreasonable. Now it is. Deal with it.
Stop trying to claim that copyright is some holy thing handed down by God itself. The truth is, copyright was limited in effectiveness to the time in our history between the invention of mass publishing and the time that mass publishing became so cheap anybody could do it.
Copyright is no longer effective. It no longer works. Figure out something that does work and stop whining about a situation that has irrevocably changed. If people listen to your whining enough, and try to make copyright work against all odds, our society will be plunged into a dark age of tyranny.
It wasn't that the plot was horrible, or that our dialogue was borderline ridiculous, it's those finicky moviegoers wanting all that flashbang 3D animation stuff! Yeah! That's it! We couldn't possibly be producing garbage here.
I think 'El Dorado' was successful, and not a bad movie. I think DreamWorks in general does good animation. In fact, I see them on purpose largely because they're not Disney and don't try to be.
I think this is a perfectly OK thing for Deja to do. I will simply never ever recommend them to anybody as a way to read news anymore. It isn't a copyright issue, it's a 'spam' issue. I define 'spam' as all advertisement that attempts to invade my 'signal' space without me asking it to.
As for the corporation vs. people argument. Likening anti-corporatism to racism is a bit of an interesting idea. I'm beginning to think it was a mistake in the first place to give corporations any legal standing as individuals of any kind.
I want to see if my signature looks right. :-)
Actually, what Katz said was exactly what I thought as I watched the movie.
I kinda wondered if that was a part of the reason for the X-Men's popularity. A sort of tapping into the unconcious undercurrent of a community of people bonded by a certain kind of shared pain.
It's a theme I see repeated a lot in the comics that people seem to go for. Mythology often reflects a shared spirit. I think it's a valid comparison.
Seen in this light, Rogue's line "Do they hurt when they come out?" and Wolverine's reply "Yeah, every time." was classic, and one of the most poignant scenes in the movie. Abilities and skills that are useful and feared, and yet, every time you use them you feel like you've deepened the gulf between you and everyone else.
*chuckle* My personal philosophy includes a few elements of nihilism, but I'm not that down on the existence of an objective reality and our ability to figure out what it is.
As far as my comment goes, I should perhaps have ammended it with "It's about what works, and what doesn't. Copyright simply doesn't work anymore.". I think that better states what I was on about.
That's not what he's saying. You're using a bunch of charged phrases like 'question the status quo' to try to obscure his point. His point is that some way of altering your perception of the world are more dangerous than other, and that drugs tend to be a more dangerous way than many.
Of course, mountain climbing is also a dangerous way to change your outlook on the world, but we seem to accept that as a society. :-)
I don't like the government set rate idea very much either.
Seeing that copyright is dead, can you think of a solution to your problem? It is dead you know, no matter how much you want it not to be. It's gone the way of the dodo, and it's never coming back.
I would love for you to be able to operate somehow, and I wish I had an answer. Maybe people would buy your stuff anyway. I suspect that if I were into vinyl, I would.
Whether it's wrong or not is largely moot. You can't actually stop people from doing it anymore. The copyright laws now have about as much force as laws against spitting in the street.
If you would like to live in a town that rigidly and strictly enforced laws against spitting in the streets, I guess you might like living in a nation that rigidly and strictly enforced copyright law.
Stop thinking about it in terms of what's right, and what's wrong, because it doesn't matter.
Besides, it's wrongness is questionable anyway. I don't think you can really treat things that would be covered under patent or copyright law as property in any strict sense.
Some system will arise, because, as someone else pointed out, all artists have to do is refuse to perform or record unless they're paid. People want music. People want stories, novels, pictures, and all manner of art. Some system will arise by which artists can create their art and not starve.
Just encrypting your e-mail with PGP is not enough. The sender and recipient histories can still be tracked. Here is my proposed solution to this problem...
Have several anonymous remailers scattered around the world with well published public keys. Each remailer will decrypt the message with it's private key, find the new sender in the decrypted message, strip the original envelope information, and send the message along to the next remailer.
Your message ends up encrypted in multiple layers that get stripped off one by one by each remailer. Eventually, it will get to its destination where the recipient will strip the last layer of encryption off.
This way, there is no reasonable way anybody can track who you're getting messages from, or who you're sending them to. Even if the remailers keep connect logs, or message logs, you still can't tell.
I'm thinking of writing this up as a python script that uses gpg and that can be set up as a filter in your .forward or .qmail file.
When I was in college, I did a lot to try to encourage female people to like computers. Mostly because (since I've been working them since I was a little kid) I wanted more women I could relate to easily. Sadly, very, very few women were interested in technology. Most of them were interested in decent paying jobs and good careers. They were kind of disheartening to talk to. *sigh*
It's very difficult to have done something all your life and not be able to talk about it with the person you're with.
Not only that, but I discovered that it was hard to find women outside of the computer field who were interested in 'deep' ideas, and liked talking about them. I have a strong interest in various branches of philosophy, especially with regards questions involving the nature of consciousness, and I've hard a very hard time finding women with any interest in that kind of thing either. It's quite depressing.
I think my luck may have changed recently though. :-)
One thing that bothered me about that article, is the 'oooh, icky-poo!' attitude of the female people they quoted. IMHO, the woman they quoted can go have and have her stupid non-tech career, and I hope she fails miserably and has a disgusting job while seeing all those icky geeks around her do well. I hate this attitude, and nothing makes me shut down more with regards to helping someone than hearing it.