I think the incriminating phrase from that link is:
The service can be accessed using any high-speed connection or by dial-up connections from virtually anywhere in the world.
This fits with what I've heard from Linux users who have AOL accounts. Basically, they can connect to their accounts from the web and access their email and such, but they have to access it from a non-AOL connection. From Linux there is no way to directly connect to AOL since they use some non-standard proprietary protocol, and there is no way to administer your account (ie change your email settings, etc). These are the critical things that a Linux AOL client has to be able to do.
As for the screenshots, I might be convinced if they showed the whole desktop and not just the window. As it is, I see no evidence that it is actually running on Linux (that's the downside of the efforts to make KDE look and feel like Windows, I guess). Perhaps it's an AOL client running under WINE? That would likely solve some issues, but probably not the dial-up problem, which seems to be the big one. Perhaps it's running under Windows and they just used the screen name LindowsTest? Who can tell?
One of the big problems with Lindows is that they certainly haven't made any efforts to build their credibility, and at this point I'm not prepared to take their word for anything without corroborating evidence (like a screenshot of the whole desktop with an AOL client running in a window, which I don't think is asking a lot).
If they've somehow made the Windows AOL dial-up client work under Linux I'll give them all the respect such a hack deserves, but I very much doubt that's the case.
Lindows included Netscape in their default install, which includes AIM and some links to public AOL pages, and called that an AOL client. The whole thing was a complete marketing fabrication.
The USPTO is legally prevented from making a profit. Every dollar they make (that doesn't get "borrowed" by Congress) has to be reinvested in the USPTO.
The PTO is legally prevented from making a profit. Any "excess" is reinvested to make the PTO work better, unless it is stolen^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hborrowed by Congress (it's illegal for Congress to take money from the PTO, so they just borrow it and never pay it back).
Since most people equate "making money" with "profit", that's probably what the parent meant.
That's a great list as long as you only plan to use Debian. Half of the things you list don't apply to the majority of the *nix world. Here is my short-list of apps you will always find:
ls, cd, cp, mv, mkdir, rm - your basic file system commands. Learn them, love them, they are your lifeblood.
cat - cat will always be there, usually you will have either more or pg, I wouldn't bet on less or most. If you know how to redirect and use vi you can get by without a paging viewer just fine.
man - occasionally called something else (QNX calls it use). The ability to derive meaning from man files is extremely important.
|, > - If you don't know |, you don't know *nix, and > is a close second.
sh/csh - the vast majority of *nix default to some variant of sh, of which ksh is the most common. If you know sh you can use any of the variants (ksh, bash, etc) and learn the particulars as you go. There are rumors of *nices that default to csh, but I've never encountered one. Regardless, you should be familiar with it just in case.
vi - emacs is available for every *nix, but vi is included with every *nix. vim is the most popular vi variant because it has lots of nifty features, but don't count on having it. You should be able to navigate vi using only the keys you would find on a standard typewriter.
find - They say locate is easier, but I've never seen it on a non-Linux system.
Everything else you list is non-standard or part of something else on my list (except echo, which I don't consider essential). Yeah, you can probably install most of it on any *nix system one way or another, but don't expect it to be there by default.
I would add, though, that vi is ubiquitous. Emacs is available for every *nix, vi is included with every *nix, and you will encounter situations where, for whatever reason, you won't be allowed to install the apps you would usually use.
The Linux community is larger. I'm guessing that this is because Linux was written for x86 origionally, and was therefore available for the platform just about everybody has before BSD was. Obviously this is not true now, but momentum is a hard thing to overcome. I'm not confident on my timeline here, so if someone could prove that BSD was available for x86 prior to 1991, I'd happily concede the point.
The Linux community is less mature. Obviously there are some negative aspects to this, and I'm sure you could find a few BSD folks who would be happy to list them for you. However, there are positive aspects as well. The most important, I think, is that it leads to more focus on things "normal" people (meaning people who aren't sysops) care about, like games. This lures more "normal" people into the community, who lure their frinds into the community, making it larger.
The Linux community is more vocal. I think this is largely connected to the "immaturity" of the Linux community, and serves as both blessing and curse. Regardless, the world listens to those who speak out, and the fact that our culture glorifies youth almost to the point of worship goes a long way towards mitigating the negative aspects of the lack of maturity in the public eye.
Anyway, that's my take on it. For the record, I'm a Linux guy. To my knowledge I have never used a BSD.
Yes, that would effectively eliminate the last few safe places for my Star Wars Lego models. Sadly, she won't be getting any velcro mittens for christmas...
If the band encourages, or even allows, taping at their concerts then the RIAA can't do a damn thing about it. The label doesn't own copyright on live performances, because it's impossible to own copyright on the live performance itself. Copyright only applies to the recording, and if the label isn't involved in the recording process they get no say in how the recording is used.
If Furthurnet really does restrict their content to concert recordings of bands that encourage recording concerts, then Furthurnet is perfectly legal, and the RIAA can shove their "stance" on it right up their behinds.
No, you shouldn't use Kazaa at all. Even using Kazaa Lite supports Kazaa by expanding their installed user base, which ultimately means there will be proportionately more people using the non-Lite version.
What you should have said is: If you must use P2P, join a P2P community that doesn't support this kind of BS.
The network itself is set up so that the company isn't running the servers themselves, so they can't be held directly responsible for the content that is transfered using their software (in theory).
However, the money being directed is being directed to a specific account, not distributed across the net like the servers, so there is a central target which can quite easily be sued.
15-year-old morons who have already destroyed their brains with drugs and alcohol (like, for example, my old bosses son) don't give a rip about this kind of stuff. They will still be installing Kazaa on their school networks, their dad's company's computers and where ever else they manage to get access to. It doesn't matter to them that Kazaa is stealing from the charity that their step-mom always goes to Amazon through. Hell, if they knew they'd probably think it was cool!
So, no, since that's pretty much their target market, the PR isn't going to do jack to them. The charity finding out that Kazaa is stealing their commisions and sueing them and/or sicking the FTC on them for fraud, however, just might be the straw that broke the camel's back.
It's a shame, really. There is so much legitimate possibility for P2P, it's really sad to me that it is now so tainted by this kind of scuminess.
Well, you can download QNX from their site for free for personal use (Neutrino, anyway, I'm not sure about older versions, but I'd bet you can download QNX 4 from there as well).
Where one would find Windows 1.01, though, I have no idea. Ebay, perhaps?
While it's certainly an interesting concept, it would have just made my daughter pissed off. She hated having anything on her hands, even when she was to young for them to be of any use.
That may have changed if the mittens allowed her to do something she would otherwise be able to, as is the case here, but I wouldn't bet on it.
At 2.5 years she doesn't seem to have any difficulty exploring the world, though (except maybe the height thing).
Basically the Supreme Court has said that kiddy porn does not fall under the first amendment. On the other hand more normal porn does not fall under this exemption.
There's a crucial difference: Kiddie porn, by definition, involves kids, ie people who are not old enough for any sex act they might be involved in to be legally considered consensual. Therefore, when kiddie porn is created the rights of the child involved are violated. Regular porn, on the other hand, involves consenting adults, and therefore no ones rights are being violated in it's creation. Virtual kiddie porn is protected for the same reason: no ones rights are violated in its creation.
My point is that when determining whether a particular type of pornography is protected or not, the decision generally seems to be based more on basic human rights than the First Ammendment.
Since I don't know what a Youen Wormen is, or how it might be imcapable, I'm going to have to support the origional poster on this one.
Re:Only X ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2
Hey, I'm by no means a Gore cheerleader, nor am I denying that the Clinton administration allowed some really crappy things to happen.
However, I do believe that Gore's repeated demands for recounts were justified based on the available evidence I have seen. I also don't see how anyone can deny that the current administration is and has been involved in legal shennanigans and abuse of the constitution on an unprecedented level.
I'm not suggesting that Gore wouldn't have done some of the same things, just that it wouldn't have been as blatant or as extreme. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it's also less evil, and that's important when it's effectively the only choice you have. (And yes, I would happily vote for a 3rd party candidate if I ever saw one I thought was fit for the job. Since that hasn't happened yet, I vote for the major party candidate I feel will do the least harm.)
I agree in general, but not in this case. Most likely the server would be violating his AUP, never mind the headache of trying to reach a site that's most likely on a dynamic IP, in which case you'd pretty much have to have an external front end to it anyway.
Good experience, sure, I'm all for that. But if you can't even figure out what hardware you need for a simple family server without asking/., you have a lot of other things you need to learn before you go putting your virus-spewing open relay on the 'net.
In CA, gov GD is or has signed a bill that would make stem cell research leagal in CA from ANY source even though this is against the fed gov. Hmm how does that one work?
Stem cell research isn't outlawed by federal law, you just can't use federal funds to do it.
You make some interesting points over all, but this one is inaccurate.
Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2
Did you happen to catch the talk given by the author of "The Boondocks" this last weekend? He brought up several very interesting points, but the one that most stuck out in my mind was regarding Colin Powell.
Colin Powell has been in the military for many years, he's been one of the Army's highest ranking officers for over 10 years, including during the Gulf War. As such he is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and he is the only one in the current administration who's saying "hold on here, maybe we're taking this a little too far"!
I think that really says something about the men who are running this country right now.
Re:Only 7 ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2
And do you think it would be any different if Gore were in charge?
Yes I do. If Gore were in the White House Ashcroft wouldn't be the Attorney General. He's the direct source of most of these constitutional rights violations, and he has a long history of similar action.
This means that the FBI can ask for anything and everything and no one is allowed to even mention it, much less report it in the media. If this power is being abused, how will anyone ever find out?
How can that possibly not be a violation of several Constitutional rights? Let's see: privacy, freedom of speech... If you consider the fact that (IIRC) they cannot be denied the warrant by a judge (or they don't even need one, I can't remember which it is at the moment) you get to add illegal search and seizure to the pile. Then there's all those people being held for an indefinate period with no access to legal counsel...
I hope more things like this start happening so the Supreme Court can do it's job and knock these unconstitutional laws down.
At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication
What?
How exactly does the First Ammendment not protect "vehicles of communication"? If you can say anything you want, but your prevented from communicating it to anyone else, your speech has still been stifled, and your First Ammendment rights have still been violated.
The First Ammendment doesn't just protect the act of speaking, it also protects publication (freedom of the press), or in other words: vehicles of communication. The whole point of the First Ammendment is to protect all methods of communication. If it doesn't do that, it's useless.
If you honestly think that this is even a little bit different from the subject of free speech, then you have no idea what free speech means.
Seriously, are you expecting that your bulletin board will take up that much space? How much space are we talking about here? Is this anything that couldn't be handled by a simple guestbook program on the webspace that is most likely included with your DSL service? I honestly have no idea how much web space I have, but the basic SBC/Yahoo DSL package includes 110MB of online storage.
Let your providor worry about uptime, security, the power bill, and all the other the other headaches that come along with hanging your info out on the WWW. It's not like you aren't already paying for the service!
Slashdot Mirror
I think the incriminating phrase from that link is:
The service can be accessed using any high-speed connection or by dial-up connections from virtually anywhere in the world.
This fits with what I've heard from Linux users who have AOL accounts. Basically, they can connect to their accounts from the web and access their email and such, but they have to access it from a non-AOL connection. From Linux there is no way to directly connect to AOL since they use some non-standard proprietary protocol, and there is no way to administer your account (ie change your email settings, etc). These are the critical things that a Linux AOL client has to be able to do.
As for the screenshots, I might be convinced if they showed the whole desktop and not just the window. As it is, I see no evidence that it is actually running on Linux (that's the downside of the efforts to make KDE look and feel like Windows, I guess). Perhaps it's an AOL client running under WINE? That would likely solve some issues, but probably not the dial-up problem, which seems to be the big one. Perhaps it's running under Windows and they just used the screen name LindowsTest? Who can tell?
One of the big problems with Lindows is that they certainly haven't made any efforts to build their credibility, and at this point I'm not prepared to take their word for anything without corroborating evidence (like a screenshot of the whole desktop with an AOL client running in a window, which I don't think is asking a lot).
If they've somehow made the Windows AOL dial-up client work under Linux I'll give them all the respect such a hack deserves, but I very much doubt that's the case.
There is no Linux (or Lindows) AOL client.
Lindows included Netscape in their default install, which includes AIM and some links to public AOL pages, and called that an AOL client. The whole thing was a complete marketing fabrication.
Once again: there is no Linux AOL client.
The USPTO is legally prevented from making a profit. Every dollar they make (that doesn't get "borrowed" by Congress) has to be reinvested in the USPTO.
The PTO is legally prevented from making a profit. Any "excess" is reinvested to make the PTO work better, unless it is stolen^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hborrowed by Congress (it's illegal for Congress to take money from the PTO, so they just borrow it and never pay it back).
Since most people equate "making money" with "profit", that's probably what the parent meant.
That's a great list as long as you only plan to use Debian. Half of the things you list don't apply to the majority of the *nix world. Here is my short-list of apps you will always find:
ls, cd, cp, mv, mkdir, rm - your basic file system commands. Learn them, love them, they are your lifeblood.
cat - cat will always be there, usually you will have either more or pg, I wouldn't bet on less or most. If you know how to redirect and use vi you can get by without a paging viewer just fine.
man - occasionally called something else (QNX calls it use). The ability to derive meaning from man files is extremely important.
|, > - If you don't know |, you don't know *nix, and > is a close second.
sh/csh - the vast majority of *nix default to some variant of sh, of which ksh is the most common. If you know sh you can use any of the variants (ksh, bash, etc) and learn the particulars as you go. There are rumors of *nices that default to csh, but I've never encountered one. Regardless, you should be familiar with it just in case.
vi - emacs is available for every *nix, but vi is included with every *nix. vim is the most popular vi variant because it has lots of nifty features, but don't count on having it. You should be able to navigate vi using only the keys you would find on a standard typewriter.
find - They say locate is easier, but I've never seen it on a non-Linux system.
Everything else you list is non-standard or part of something else on my list (except echo, which I don't consider essential). Yeah, you can probably install most of it on any *nix system one way or another, but don't expect it to be there by default.
Agreed.
I would add, though, that vi is ubiquitous. Emacs is available for every *nix, vi is included with every *nix, and you will encounter situations where, for whatever reason, you won't be allowed to install the apps you would usually use.
The Linux community is larger. I'm guessing that this is because Linux was written for x86 origionally, and was therefore available for the platform just about everybody has before BSD was. Obviously this is not true now, but momentum is a hard thing to overcome. I'm not confident on my timeline here, so if someone could prove that BSD was available for x86 prior to 1991, I'd happily concede the point.
The Linux community is less mature. Obviously there are some negative aspects to this, and I'm sure you could find a few BSD folks who would be happy to list them for you. However, there are positive aspects as well. The most important, I think, is that it leads to more focus on things "normal" people (meaning people who aren't sysops) care about, like games. This lures more "normal" people into the community, who lure their frinds into the community, making it larger.
The Linux community is more vocal. I think this is largely connected to the "immaturity" of the Linux community, and serves as both blessing and curse. Regardless, the world listens to those who speak out, and the fact that our culture glorifies youth almost to the point of worship goes a long way towards mitigating the negative aspects of the lack of maturity in the public eye.
Anyway, that's my take on it. For the record, I'm a Linux guy. To my knowledge I have never used a BSD.
Yes, that would effectively eliminate the last few safe places for my Star Wars Lego models. Sadly, she won't be getting any velcro mittens for christmas...
If the band encourages, or even allows, taping at their concerts then the RIAA can't do a damn thing about it. The label doesn't own copyright on live performances, because it's impossible to own copyright on the live performance itself. Copyright only applies to the recording, and if the label isn't involved in the recording process they get no say in how the recording is used.
If Furthurnet really does restrict their content to concert recordings of bands that encourage recording concerts, then Furthurnet is perfectly legal, and the RIAA can shove their "stance" on it right up their behinds.
No, you shouldn't use Kazaa at all. Even using Kazaa Lite supports Kazaa by expanding their installed user base, which ultimately means there will be proportionately more people using the non-Lite version.
What you should have said is: If you must use P2P, join a P2P community that doesn't support this kind of BS.
Two totally different things.
The network itself is set up so that the company isn't running the servers themselves, so they can't be held directly responsible for the content that is transfered using their software (in theory).
However, the money being directed is being directed to a specific account, not distributed across the net like the servers, so there is a central target which can quite easily be sued.
The PR is irrelevant.
15-year-old morons who have already destroyed their brains with drugs and alcohol (like, for example, my old bosses son) don't give a rip about this kind of stuff. They will still be installing Kazaa on their school networks, their dad's company's computers and where ever else they manage to get access to. It doesn't matter to them that Kazaa is stealing from the charity that their step-mom always goes to Amazon through. Hell, if they knew they'd probably think it was cool!
So, no, since that's pretty much their target market, the PR isn't going to do jack to them. The charity finding out that Kazaa is stealing their commisions and sueing them and/or sicking the FTC on them for fraud, however, just might be the straw that broke the camel's back.
It's a shame, really. There is so much legitimate possibility for P2P, it's really sad to me that it is now so tainted by this kind of scuminess.
Well, you can download QNX from their site for free for personal use (Neutrino, anyway, I'm not sure about older versions, but I'd bet you can download QNX 4 from there as well).
Where one would find Windows 1.01, though, I have no idea. Ebay, perhaps?
While it's certainly an interesting concept, it would have just made my daughter pissed off. She hated having anything on her hands, even when she was to young for them to be of any use.
That may have changed if the mittens allowed her to do something she would otherwise be able to, as is the case here, but I wouldn't bet on it.
At 2.5 years she doesn't seem to have any difficulty exploring the world, though (except maybe the height thing).
Basically the Supreme Court has said that kiddy porn does not fall under the first amendment. On the other hand more normal porn does not fall under this exemption.
There's a crucial difference: Kiddie porn, by definition, involves kids, ie people who are not old enough for any sex act they might be involved in to be legally considered consensual. Therefore, when kiddie porn is created the rights of the child involved are violated. Regular porn, on the other hand, involves consenting adults, and therefore no ones rights are being violated in it's creation. Virtual kiddie porn is protected for the same reason: no ones rights are violated in its creation.
My point is that when determining whether a particular type of pornography is protected or not, the decision generally seems to be based more on basic human rights than the First Ammendment.
Since I don't know what a Youen Wormen is, or how it might be imcapable, I'm going to have to support the origional poster on this one.
Hey, I'm by no means a Gore cheerleader, nor am I denying that the Clinton administration allowed some really crappy things to happen.
However, I do believe that Gore's repeated demands for recounts were justified based on the available evidence I have seen. I also don't see how anyone can deny that the current administration is and has been involved in legal shennanigans and abuse of the constitution on an unprecedented level.
I'm not suggesting that Gore wouldn't have done some of the same things, just that it wouldn't have been as blatant or as extreme. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it's also less evil, and that's important when it's effectively the only choice you have. (And yes, I would happily vote for a 3rd party candidate if I ever saw one I thought was fit for the job. Since that hasn't happened yet, I vote for the major party candidate I feel will do the least harm.)
It's the request and knowledge of the investigation that the law is designed to supress, not the evidence itself.
That's great, but it's still a violation of the First Ammendment.
I agree in general, but not in this case. Most likely the server would be violating his AUP, never mind the headache of trying to reach a site that's most likely on a dynamic IP, in which case you'd pretty much have to have an external front end to it anyway.
/., you have a lot of other things you need to learn before you go putting your virus-spewing open relay on the 'net.
Good experience, sure, I'm all for that. But if you can't even figure out what hardware you need for a simple family server without asking
In CA, gov GD is or has signed a bill that would make stem cell research leagal in CA from ANY source even though this is against the fed gov. Hmm how does that one work?
Stem cell research isn't outlawed by federal law, you just can't use federal funds to do it.
You make some interesting points over all, but this one is inaccurate.
Did you happen to catch the talk given by the author of "The Boondocks" this last weekend? He brought up several very interesting points, but the one that most stuck out in my mind was regarding Colin Powell.
Colin Powell has been in the military for many years, he's been one of the Army's highest ranking officers for over 10 years, including during the Gulf War. As such he is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and he is the only one in the current administration who's saying "hold on here, maybe we're taking this a little too far"!
I think that really says something about the men who are running this country right now.
And do you think it would be any different if Gore were in charge?
Yes I do. If Gore were in the White House Ashcroft wouldn't be the Attorney General. He's the direct source of most of these constitutional rights violations, and he has a long history of similar action.
This means that the FBI can ask for anything and everything and no one is allowed to even mention it, much less report it in the media. If this power is being abused, how will anyone ever find out?
How can that possibly not be a violation of several Constitutional rights? Let's see: privacy, freedom of speech... If you consider the fact that (IIRC) they cannot be denied the warrant by a judge (or they don't even need one, I can't remember which it is at the moment) you get to add illegal search and seizure to the pile. Then there's all those people being held for an indefinate period with no access to legal counsel...
I hope more things like this start happening so the Supreme Court can do it's job and knock these unconstitutional laws down.
At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication
What?
How exactly does the First Ammendment not protect "vehicles of communication"? If you can say anything you want, but your prevented from communicating it to anyone else, your speech has still been stifled, and your First Ammendment rights have still been violated.
The First Ammendment doesn't just protect the act of speaking, it also protects publication (freedom of the press), or in other words: vehicles of communication. The whole point of the First Ammendment is to protect all methods of communication. If it doesn't do that, it's useless.
If you honestly think that this is even a little bit different from the subject of free speech, then you have no idea what free speech means.
Seriously, are you expecting that your bulletin board will take up that much space? How much space are we talking about here? Is this anything that couldn't be handled by a simple guestbook program on the webspace that is most likely included with your DSL service? I honestly have no idea how much web space I have, but the basic SBC/Yahoo DSL package includes 110MB of online storage.
Let your providor worry about uptime, security, the power bill, and all the other the other headaches that come along with hanging your info out on the WWW. It's not like you aren't already paying for the service!