It would be *cooler* if those of us running not-mainstream operating systems could see what you were talking about:) Come on apple, open source quicktime, you know you want to:)
or I'd be able to actually see it:(. Oh well, before I went off to work they showed some footage on the news that some TVNZ cameraman had sneaked of a bunch of orcs attacking some castle. hmmm I wonder where that would be... It's been so long since I read the books. Anyway, the footage looked cewl:)
Hey has anyone else read the book called "Enigma" by Robert Harris? In it he mentions the Germans had a special Enigma machine that was more difficult to crack than the ordinary ones because it used four wheels for the encryption rather than only three. It was called "shark" and was only used by the U-Boats. Could this be one of the ones that was stolen?
In any case they had *lots* and *lots* of enigma machines to puzzle over. The difficulty was not figuring out how they worked, but figuring out how to crack them. It is similar to the problem of cracking RC5 these days. The algorithm is well known, but that doesn't make it any easier to crack. I guess this goes to show that there is no security through obscurity...
True, but then again, neither is the *average* script kiddie. The damage caused by your average DoS attack is potentially much greater than that of a bit of paint on a bridge. I mean you cant just get them to come in and wash the paint off afterwards, the damage is already done. These networks cost someone a lot of money (and in a lot of cases they are being maintained gratis) so causing them to be taken off-line for long periods costs the maintainers. It also costs everyone who wants to use them.
The way I see it this is hardly going to affect anything. Your typical "script kiddie" is gonna try to get onto ircnet, fail and just go over to efnet for the day without even noticing. I see the people that commit these sort of acts as some sort of modern day vandals, except instead of spray-painting bridges, they are bringing down servers. Sure it's immature but then they're kids, bored and looking for some sort of recognition. Being able to say "I brought down " is one way of getting that. Some of them will grow out of it. Some wont and will probably end up in jail but you'll never really be able to stop it happening.
I mean big whoop, "Our vapour is faster than their vapour" is all kind of amusing but in this case it's more like "Our vapour is faster than their hardware that is actually available right now". Am I missing the point? So what if this CPU that will be available *at the end of the year* will be faster than anything Intel or AMD have. Probably by that time Intel and AMD will have 1.4's and 1.6 's as well.
>Recognition of any "property" is an "artificially >created situation". Look, the idea that >you "own" your computer is artificial, >but that in itself hardly gives me the >right to steal it. I didn't say "The artist doesn't have a right to my money", I said "The Music Companies dont have a right to my money". The music companies didn't create the music. They didn't improve it or make it any better. All they did is market it. Why should I pay them? As for your comment about me owning my computer, I feel like I'm talking about two different things. If I download an mp3 from somewhere, the person I downloaded it from still has it so that was hardly stealing, was it? The only thing I "stole" was the fact that I didn't pay some person I don't even know for the right to listen to this music. Let me try to put this in a different way (and then I'm going to bed, so if you wanna reply you better email me:)). These people (I don't know who they are) want to sell me something. On the other hand if I go somewhere else and do something I can get the thing for free. Also I know that the cost of producing the thing is way less (and I mean *obscenely* less) than the cost they want to charge me for it. Is it illegal to download the song in that situation? Probably. Is it immoral? My head and heart tell me no.
Illegal is just a state of mind:). I download mp3's because I am unable to afford the CD's. Why am I unable to afford the CD's? Because the music companies jack the prices up to such ridiculously high levels. Why do they hike the prices? Because they can. They have the protection of the law. They are only interested in protecting the Artists copyright so long as it makes them money. Can you explain to me why a CD that costs something like $2 to produce needs to go on sale for around $30-$40?
Well doubleclick weren't exactly making that information freely available were they? In fact so far as we know they are quite likely to start charging whatever the market may bear for the information related to where you or I surf regularly and so on. This may seem like just a pun to you but think on this: what would happen if the information doubleclick has been collecting was made freely available to anyone? They would then be unable to cash in on that information so that would eliminate the profit motive. So really, doubleclick aren't making your information "free" at all (beer or speech) but rather, they want to keep it a secret as possible, so that they can make as much money off of you (or whoever they can sell it to) as possible. You do make a reasonable point though. What about personal information? Does that want to be free as well? Everyone has their own little secrets that the world is probably better off not knowing. Where do you draw the line? How about this then, information that people are hiding because it gives them power over other people should be free. This means your swiss bank account is safe (as long as it doesn't contain the money you stole from your next door neighbours), your doctors visit info would be safe, on the other hand the plans you have in the secret locked safe under your bed should be released to the world. I dunno if I'm even making any sense here. It's kinda late and I'm sick as a dog. Oh well.
My personal opinion on this is that you are wrong. Music companies do not have a "right" to my money, they simply exist in an artificially created situation, which they are able to enforce by means of the law; that is, if I want to have access to a certain CD, then I have to pay them money for it. In general, I tend to act as I see fit, and if this means breaking some law then, as long as the penalties for doing so are not too onerous, I will do so. I think most people act in more or less the same way. Therefore, I refuse to believe that I am acting wrongly by using napster. What would happen if some music company lawyer came to me and said "Stop using napster or I'll sue your ass off". Would I stand up to him? Hell no! That's what "not too onerous means" I guess. That doesn't mean I think I am acting wrongly, I just realise that what I do is against the law. I do it because I think that the price for one of these companies to stop one piddly little student trading mp3's over his 56k modem connection. "What about the artists" I hear you cry? Well shoot, what does that collection of 30 or 40 CD's against the wall tell you? I buy my CD's as and when I can afford them. If there was some way I could support the artists directly then I would do so, but on a student wage it's difficult to buy every CD you like so they are hardly losing out if I download a song or a CD that I couldn't afford. Oh well that's my rant anyway I guess. If this philosophy looks similar to Jubal Harshaw's "Rational Anarchism", that's because it is I guess. If you don't know who Jubal Harshaw is then Where Have You Been? Get thyself to a used bookstore and buy a copy of Stranger in a Strange Land.
On the contrary, welcom to the *web*. You see those things that look like '<' and '>' start these funny things called HTML "tags". Obviously you shouldn't be able to post any old "tag" or else you could do something silly like redirect all traffic to some other page or run a java applet or whatever. Hence any time the slashdot code sees a '<' or a '>' it deletes them if the "tag" isn't one of the allowed ones.
Re:I'd like this Jargon for my Fortune Cookies
on
Jargon File 4.2.0 Out
·
· Score: 1
sure why not:)
here's something I hacked up. It may do what you want. Look down the bottom for the one called "fortune.pl".
Well you could do that but I think the cool thing about having credits and easters eggs were that they all tend to be different from each other. If you want a credits listing like you suggest then a file with the names would do the same job.
While I agree that it is kind of a shame, when you look at it realistically they have literally hundreds or thousands of people working on their biggest projects. The question is where do you draw the line at who gets included? Does the guy that came in from another department for an hour to help fix a bug get on the list?
I remember the easter egg in IE4 that listed the developers working on that project. It seemed to have around a thousand names in it. To store that would take maybe 20 or 30k which would not otherwise be needed, plus the likelihood is that this amount of new code will introduce bugs and take people away from what they are really supposed to be doing:)
I find myself wondering what I would do if I was the boss. On a medium to large project (maybe less than 100 people) then the benefits of including a credits listing (namely improved staff morale and maybe increasing the products "fun factor") would outweigh the costs.
Slashdot Mirror
really?
Woohoo, this is just what we need, the ability to send in patches via osmosis! I'm sending one in now to mozilla!
It would be *cooler* if those of us running not-mainstream operating systems could see what you were talking about :) Come on apple, open source quicktime, you know you want to :)
or I'd be able to actually see it :(. Oh well, before I went off to work they showed some footage on the news that some TVNZ cameraman had sneaked of a bunch of orcs attacking some castle. hmmm I wonder where that would be... It's been so long since I read the books. Anyway, the footage looked cewl :)
Hey has anyone else read the book called "Enigma" by Robert Harris? In it he mentions the Germans had a special Enigma machine that was more difficult to crack than the ordinary ones because it used four wheels for the encryption rather than only three. It was called "shark" and was only used by the U-Boats. Could this be one of the ones that was stolen?
In any case they had *lots* and *lots* of enigma machines to puzzle over. The difficulty was not figuring out how they worked, but figuring out how to crack them. It is similar to the problem of cracking RC5 these days. The algorithm is well known, but that doesn't make it any easier to crack.
I guess this goes to show that there is no security through obscurity...
Thanks for that laugh :)
True, but then again, neither is the *average* script kiddie. The damage caused by your average DoS attack is potentially much greater than that of a bit of paint on a bridge. I mean you cant just get them to come in and wash the paint off afterwards, the damage is already done. These networks cost someone a lot of money (and in a lot of cases they are being maintained gratis) so causing them to be taken off-line for long periods costs the maintainers. It also costs everyone who wants to use them.
The way I see it this is hardly going to affect anything. Your typical "script kiddie" is gonna try to get onto ircnet, fail and just go over to efnet for the day without even noticing. I see the people that commit these sort of acts as some sort of modern day vandals, except instead of spray-painting bridges, they are bringing down servers. Sure it's immature but then they're kids, bored and looking for some sort of recognition. Being able to say "I brought down " is one way of getting that. Some of them will grow out of it. Some wont and will probably end up in jail but you'll never really be able to stop it happening.
I mean big whoop, "Our vapour is faster than their vapour" is all kind of amusing but in this case it's more like "Our vapour is faster than their hardware that is actually available right now". Am I missing the point? So what if this CPU that will be available *at the end of the year* will be faster than anything Intel or AMD have. Probably by that time Intel and AMD will have 1.4's and 1.6 's as well.
>Recognition of any "property" is an "artificially :)). These people (I don't know who they are) want to sell me something. On the other hand if I go somewhere else and do something I can get the thing for free. Also I know that the cost of producing the thing is way less (and I mean *obscenely* less) than the cost they want to charge me for it. Is it illegal to download the song in that situation? Probably. Is it immoral? My head and heart tell me no.
>created situation". Look, the idea that
>you "own" your computer is artificial,
>but that in itself hardly gives me the
>right to steal it. I didn't say "The artist doesn't have a right to my money", I said "The Music Companies dont have a right to my money". The music companies didn't create the music. They didn't improve it or make it any better. All they did is market it. Why should I pay them? As for your comment about me owning my computer, I feel like I'm talking about two different things. If I download an mp3 from somewhere, the person I downloaded it from still has it so that was hardly stealing, was it? The only thing I "stole" was the fact that I didn't pay some person I don't even know for the right to listen to this music.
Let me try to put this in a different way (and then I'm going to bed, so if you wanna reply you better email me
Illegal is just a state of mind :). I download mp3's because I am unable to afford the CD's. Why am I unable to afford the CD's? Because the music companies jack the prices up to such ridiculously high levels. Why do they hike the prices? Because they can. They have the protection of the law. They are only interested in protecting the Artists copyright so long as it makes them money. Can you explain to me why a CD that costs something like $2 to produce needs to go on sale for around $30-$40?
Well doubleclick weren't exactly making that information freely available were they? In fact so far as we know they are quite likely to start charging whatever the market may bear for the information related to where you or I surf regularly and so on. This may seem like just a pun to you but think on this: what would happen if the information doubleclick has been collecting was made freely available to anyone? They would then be unable to cash in on that information so that would eliminate the profit motive. So really, doubleclick aren't making your information "free" at all (beer or speech) but rather, they want to keep it a secret as possible, so that they can make as much money off of you (or whoever they can sell it to) as possible.
You do make a reasonable point though. What about personal information? Does that want to be free as well? Everyone has their own little secrets that the world is probably better off not knowing. Where do you draw the line? How about this then, information that people are hiding because it gives them power over other people should be free. This means your swiss bank account is safe (as long as it doesn't contain the money you stole from your next door neighbours), your doctors visit info would be safe, on the other hand the plans you have in the secret locked safe under your bed should be released to the world.
I dunno if I'm even making any sense here. It's kinda late and I'm sick as a dog. Oh well.
My personal opinion on this is that you are wrong. Music companies do not have a "right" to my money, they simply exist in an artificially created situation, which they are able to enforce by means of the law; that is, if I want to have access to a certain CD, then I have to pay them money for it.
In general, I tend to act as I see fit, and if this means breaking some law then, as long as the penalties for doing so are not too onerous, I will do so. I think most people act in more or less the same way.
Therefore, I refuse to believe that I am acting wrongly by using napster. What would happen if some music company lawyer came to me and said "Stop using napster or I'll sue your ass off". Would I stand up to him? Hell no! That's what "not too onerous means" I guess. That doesn't mean I think I am acting wrongly, I just realise that what I do is against the law. I do it because I think that the price for one of these companies to stop one piddly little student trading mp3's over his 56k modem connection.
"What about the artists" I hear you cry? Well shoot, what does that collection of 30 or 40 CD's against the wall tell you? I buy my CD's as and when I can afford them. If there was some way I could support the artists directly then I would do so, but on a student wage it's difficult to buy every CD you like so they are hardly losing out if I download a song or a CD that I couldn't afford.
Oh well that's my rant anyway I guess. If this philosophy looks similar to Jubal Harshaw's "Rational Anarchism", that's because it is I guess. If you don't know who Jubal Harshaw is then Where Have You Been? Get thyself to a used bookstore and buy a copy of Stranger in a Strange Land.
On the contrary, welcom to the *web*. You see those things that look like '<' and '>' start these funny things called HTML "tags". Obviously you shouldn't be able to post any old "tag" or else you could do something silly like redirect all traffic to some other page or run a java applet or whatever. Hence any time the slashdot code sees a '<' or a '>' it deletes them if the "tag" isn't one of the allowed ones.
here's something I hacked up. It may do what you want. Look down the bottom for the one called "fortune.pl".
Well you could do that but I think the cool thing about having credits and easters eggs were that they all tend to be different from each other. If you want a credits listing like you suggest then a file with the names would do the same job.
I remember the easter egg in IE4 that listed the developers working on that project. It seemed to have around a thousand names in it. To store that would take maybe 20 or 30k which would not otherwise be needed, plus the likelihood is that this amount of new code will introduce bugs and take people away from what they are really supposed to be doing :)
I find myself wondering what I would do if I was the boss. On a medium to large project (maybe less than 100 people) then the benefits of including a credits listing (namely improved staff morale and maybe increasing the products "fun factor") would outweigh the costs.