i'd say probably between 90-95% of those who run linux cannot afford the hardware necessary to run irix or aix, especially not with massive i/o on a couple hundred gb of disk, so why should a community that is centered around an os that has historically been built for low-mid end hardware be discussing crap that needs a $15k+ server to run on?
had you just ended your rant at "All 4 choices are beta of varying degrees; they are not ready for prime time" i'd have lauded you as a wise man, for you do have a point...and yes, the rest of your rant has a good point too. for ip-based web servers with 15k+ sites on them, we run solaris...not linux...mostly because it wouldn't handle that nearly as well. but the problem is that the tone, and your obvious dislike of the linux community, turned what could have been a halfway decent exposition of the relative merits of beta software vs. stable software into a mindless rant that made you look just as dumb as those "uninformed propaganda" slingers you rail against.
next time, check your attitude at the door or go lurk on bofh.*
fwiw...people who run beta software get what they deserve (buggy software and frequent patching), it's just a shame that jerkoffs like you usually don't get what they deserve.
you're confusing moral relativism with social rule sets...and misapprehending moral relativism while you're at it.
moral relativism makes no statements about what is "right" or what is "wrong" it merely speaks about what is "right for me" and "wrong for me". To a mass murderer, killing people is "right for me" even though for the rest of the world may think it is "wrong for me". what you're talking about is the determination that mass murder is "wrong for me...and everyone else, too" (ie. the objective term "right") which is a wildly different ball of wax.
what you are REALLY talking about are societal rule sets...those sets of customs, rules, and laws that we swear to live by in exchange for the ability to both live alongside and interact with other people. while relative morality makes subjective statements about what is "right for me" or "wrong for me" (there is no such thing as objective morality, humans are all too different), societal rule sets just outline a set of specific punishments that relate to specific activities (ie. stealing a car = 1year in prison, etc.). Societal rule sets make _absolutely no_ moral judgments (subjective or otherwise), they are merely punitive guidelines.
even should everyone accept relative morality as "right" (which would kinda defeat the purpose, no?) societal rule sets would still maintain as the barometer for what a society *as a whole* considers allowed behavior for someone who wishes to remain a member of that society.
in short, moral relativism is _not_ going to be the downfall of society...what very well may be the downfall of society is the endless horde of mindless idiots who think moral == legal and vice versa.
i think it's time to present the IOC with a giant middle finger (figuratively speaking) and have ALL the athletes keep diaries on one (or more) websites...could you imagine the IOC trying to explain an effort to intimidate or strip _everyone_ of their medals? (or whatever the penalty they've come up with is):)
yet another monolithic, greedy, power-hungry entity being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century by those goofy net.people.
and yes, they ARE right to fear us...our very existence undermines their proprietary, controlling way of life.
Think a little about the fact that you're ripping creators off.
in case you haven't sat down and thought about it, i'll do it for you...
napster users aren't ripping you off, they're ripping the record companies off. it's the fatass bloated record company that bends the artist over and gives he/she/it/them a big fat sloppy beef injection. this was the case before napster and will continue to be the case irrespective of napster's survival/demise. metallica isn't being hurt by napster, they're a goddamn mouthpiece for whatever scumbag company owns them, their music, their publishing, and the better part of their asses.
if a band comprised of four people having to split 7 points on an album between the four of 'em isn't anal violation, i dunno what is.
which begs the question: "is there such a thing as an unbiased comment"
i'll answer with a no.
charging right ahead, for some reason you feel the need to express that the comments in an oss/gnu-centric discussion group (which/. is) will probably be in line with the views and ideals expressed by the oss/gnu-type movements.
gee...i never would have thought...
i'll just wait patiently for your discourse on the fact that trees are (strangely) mostly comprised of wood.
what truly sickens me is that the sum total number of plaintiffs is 6, the five companies that control the entire recording industry: sony, emi, seagrams, bertelsmann, and time-warner...and frank music corp.
yet for some odd reason, we continue to let these massive corporations decide what music we can listen to (on a large scale)
what bothers me is how everyone assumes that KDE and GNOME are the only non-cli interfaces linux has. how about enlightenment? sawmill? blackbox? windowmaker? afterstep? as far as UI goes KDE and GNOME both blow...it's no wonder people like you call upon them to make your point.
granted, good ole raster is a huge part of the project, but i was surprised to see him mentioned at least three times ("the rasterman", "carsten haitzler", and "raster@zip.com") as was mandrake...duno if this should be attributed to their data collection methods or to messy credits files (understandable in the case of raster's typing;P)
ok, the one question that has been burning in my mind ever since the ny lwe in feb. is....what posessed whomever makes these decisions to have that god-awful band playing at the tarantella booth?
knowledge is power so if someone (or by extension some small group of people) know what the source code to a program is, they have all the power whereas in opensource, anyone with the testicular fortitude to hack at the code can share in the power of knowledge.
money is, by extension, an issue...but only in the closed-source model...if you have all the power (aka. source) in a closed-source model, you're the only one who makes money off the product. in the open source business model sorta thinghee, this doesn't work since anyone (potentially everyone) has the source and hence the power to make money off it...the way open source projects make money is by selling something else, whether it be support, packaging, manuals, whatever...anything _except_ the product based on the source since anyone can compile and release it too, you have no advantage (in a closed-source kinda sense).
basically in the closed-source model, making money off the product _depends_ on the source being closed whereas in the open-source model, making money off the product depends on _anything but_ the source, whatever state it's in.
you might want to consider switching to decaf, man. the holier-than-thou we're-right-and-anyone-who-disagrees-is-evil attitude isn't really helping your cause here.
the mpaa is trying to kill this for the same reasons that the riaa killed DAT tapes (for home use), money.
if everyone can stick a dvd drive in their computer and run a free linux dvd player, they lose money, plain and simple.
it's already been pointed out that although DeCSS makes piracy marginally easier, it'll have little or no effect on whatever piracy may go on. the cost and time consumption of dvd piracy will make it prohibitive for the time being. when the time comes that dvds can be pirated cheaply and (relatively) quickly the mpaa is going to have about as much luck stopping it as the riaa had trying to stop mp3's and the software industry in general has had trying to stop warez.
you don't give the mpaa NEARLY enough credit...they are far more intelligent than you have made them out to be. the simple truth of it is, they can see their monopoly on dvd hardware and software slipping away and they're terrified.
any action whatsoever, irregardless of how noble the cause behind it may be, that includes censorship as even the most menial part of its overall efforts is, prima facie, bad. while this point may be debated, just act as though you weren't a republican for the purpose of this post.
2) propaganda == education
irregardless of what is being taught, the two are the same, in principle. it's our moralistic definition of each that separates the two.
3) propaganda != converts
ok, this bit is mostly personal theory, so i'll leave it hanging for debate. it's been my opinion for some time that irregardless of what influence people are burdened with, after a certain age they are fairly immune to being swayed by others' words (some people more than others). that is to say, if someone (of the suitable age range) lies...even if they never do it again, their personality has been wired in such a way that they are predisposed towards lying. another way to put this is: i don't believe in reform...nobody gets reformed, they just learn not to do it again or they'll be spanked or whatever.
pertinent to this article, any "education" we should be doing ought to be aimed at the younger set of society in an effort to prevent racist inclinations from being implanted in their minds when they are still forming the bulk of what will become their "self".
silencing racist websites, in addition to being bad (see 1), will have absolutely _no_ effect whatsoever on the general sum of racist inclinations in the world as the people who generally come into contact with these sites have already formed their moral and personal opinions on the matter and _will not be swayed just cuz the damn site isn't there anymore_. any younger people for whom censorship of these sites may change their opinions due to lack of contact are negligable as anyone of a suitable enough age to be impressionable...yet old enough to roam the net at will, in order to seek these sites out, will have had some sort of outside (non-net) stimulus that has prodded them in this direction and, as such, are already predisposed to it...that is to say, even if they never make it to the website, they've still got some sort of environmental influence pushing them in the general direction of racial hatred anyway.
-
that an organization like this could even dream of promoting censorship causes my mind to reel, but the utter uselessness of it and the colossal waste of time and energy that would have to go into something like this is what truly turns my stomache. there's got to be something we can all spend time doing instead of sitting around and telling each other to "shut up."
seems their dns server is fine, just good ole slowass network solutions is takin their time about it. altho interestingly enough the ip doesn't do anything particularly interesting on the web so either it's/.ed or their isp is havin issues
Slashdot Mirror
ok, you fucking goober...HERE'S the harsh truth.
i'd say probably between 90-95% of those who run linux cannot afford the hardware necessary to run irix or aix, especially not with massive i/o on a couple hundred gb of disk, so why should a community that is centered around an os that has historically been built for low-mid end hardware be discussing crap that needs a $15k+ server to run on?
had you just ended your rant at "All 4 choices are beta of varying degrees; they are not ready for prime time" i'd have lauded you as a wise man, for you do have a point...and yes, the rest of your rant has a good point too. for ip-based web servers with 15k+ sites on them, we run solaris...not linux...mostly because it wouldn't handle that nearly as well. but the problem is that the tone, and your obvious dislike of the linux community, turned what could have been a halfway decent exposition of the relative merits of beta software vs. stable software into a mindless rant that made you look just as dumb as those "uninformed propaganda" slingers you rail against.
next time, check your attitude at the door or go lurk on bofh.*
fwiw...people who run beta software get what they deserve (buggy software and frequent patching), it's just a shame that jerkoffs like you usually don't get what they deserve.
-dk
you're confusing moral relativism with social rule sets...and misapprehending moral relativism while you're at it.
moral relativism makes no statements about what is "right" or what is "wrong" it merely speaks about what is "right for me" and "wrong for me". To a mass murderer, killing people is "right for me" even though for the rest of the world may think it is "wrong for me". what you're talking about is the determination that mass murder is "wrong for me...and everyone else, too" (ie. the objective term "right") which is a wildly different ball of wax.
what you are REALLY talking about are societal rule sets...those sets of customs, rules, and laws that we swear to live by in exchange for the ability to both live alongside and interact with other people. while relative morality makes subjective statements about what is "right for me" or "wrong for me" (there is no such thing as objective morality, humans are all too different), societal rule sets just outline a set of specific punishments that relate to specific activities (ie. stealing a car = 1year in prison, etc.). Societal rule sets make _absolutely no_ moral judgments (subjective or otherwise), they are merely punitive guidelines.
even should everyone accept relative morality as "right" (which would kinda defeat the purpose, no?) societal rule sets would still maintain as the barometer for what a society *as a whole* considers allowed behavior for someone who wishes to remain a member of that society.
in short, moral relativism is _not_ going to be the downfall of society...what very well may be the downfall of society is the endless horde of mindless idiots who think moral == legal and vice versa.
-dk
i think it's time to present the IOC with a giant middle finger (figuratively speaking) and have ALL the athletes keep diaries on one (or more) websites...could you imagine the IOC trying to explain an effort to intimidate or strip _everyone_ of their medals? (or whatever the penalty they've come up with is) :)
yet another monolithic, greedy, power-hungry entity being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century by those goofy net.people.
and yes, they ARE right to fear us...our very existence undermines their proprietary, controlling way of life.
-dk
Think a little about the fact that you're ripping creators off.
in case you haven't sat down and thought about it, i'll do it for you...
napster users aren't ripping you off, they're ripping the record companies off. it's the fatass bloated record company that bends the artist over and gives he/she/it/them a big fat sloppy beef injection. this was the case before napster and will continue to be the case irrespective of napster's survival/demise. metallica isn't being hurt by napster, they're a goddamn mouthpiece for whatever scumbag company owns them, their music, their publishing, and the better part of their asses.
if a band comprised of four people having to split 7 points on an album between the four of 'em isn't anal violation, i dunno what is.
-dk
nah, you just had your head too far up your ass to catch it
-dk
there's just something so interesting about a cartoon character that can fly sulkily...
-dk
which begs the question: "is there such a thing as an unbiased comment"
/. is) will probably be in line with the views and ideals expressed by the oss/gnu-type movements.
i'll answer with a no.
charging right ahead, for some reason you feel the need to express that the comments in an oss/gnu-centric discussion group (which
gee...i never would have thought...
i'll just wait patiently for your discourse on the fact that trees are (strangely) mostly comprised of wood.
-dk
power puff girls.
:)
feer.
-dk
are either of you twits a musician? have you ever tried to get an album distributed without the "backing" of a label? didn't think so.
-dk
as the subject says... :P
so what have ESR and the p.r. crew been doing?
-dk
where, precisely, is the rock you've been living under for the last six months or so?
-dk
dude....you raise some interesting points...but seriously, your spelling is horrid. _please_ use a dictionary next time :)
-dk
what truly sickens me is that the sum total number of plaintiffs is 6, the five companies that control the entire recording industry: sony, emi, seagrams, bertelsmann, and time-warner...and frank music corp.
yet for some odd reason, we continue to let these massive corporations decide what music we can listen to (on a large scale)
-dk
because you can still see the moderated posts if you really feel the need to. it's a time and space saving measure, not censorship. twit.
-dk
what bothers me is how everyone assumes that KDE and GNOME are the only non-cli interfaces linux has. how about enlightenment? sawmill? blackbox? windowmaker? afterstep? as far as UI goes KDE and GNOME both blow...it's no wonder people like you call upon them to make your point.
-dk
everytime i see that i swear i'm gonna sit down and write libale to rectify the error :P
-dk
check out the enlightenment stats
;P)
granted, good ole raster is a huge part of the project, but i was surprised to see him mentioned at least three times ("the rasterman", "carsten haitzler", and "raster@zip.com") as was mandrake...duno if this should be attributed to their data collection methods or to messy credits files (understandable in the case of raster's typing
-dk
ok, the one question that has been burning in my mind ever since the ny lwe in feb. is....what posessed whomever makes these decisions to have that god-awful band playing at the tarantella booth?
-dk
power, basically.
:)
knowledge is power
so if someone (or by extension some small group of people) know what the source code to a program is, they have all the power whereas in opensource, anyone with the testicular fortitude to hack at the code can share in the power of knowledge.
money is, by extension, an issue...but only in the closed-source model...if you have all the power (aka. source) in a closed-source model, you're the only one who makes money off the product. in the open source business model sorta thinghee, this doesn't work since anyone (potentially everyone) has the source and hence the power to make money off it...the way open source projects make money is by selling something else, whether it be support, packaging, manuals, whatever...anything _except_ the product based on the source since anyone can compile and release it too, you have no advantage (in a closed-source kinda sense).
basically in the closed-source model, making money off the product _depends_ on the source being closed whereas in the open-source model, making money off the product depends on _anything but_ the source, whatever state it's in.
so yes, the two are mutually exlusive
-dk
you mean the sort of time and effort it would take to hack together say...an operating system? :)
-dk
you might want to consider switching to decaf, man. the holier-than-thou we're-right-and-anyone-who-disagrees-is-evil attitude isn't really helping your cause here.
-dk
in a word, horseshit.
the mpaa is trying to kill this for the same reasons that the riaa killed DAT tapes (for home use), money.
if everyone can stick a dvd drive in their computer and run a free linux dvd player, they lose money, plain and simple.
it's already been pointed out that although DeCSS makes piracy marginally easier, it'll have little or no effect on whatever piracy may go on. the cost and time consumption of dvd piracy will make it prohibitive for the time being. when the time comes that dvds can be pirated cheaply and (relatively) quickly the mpaa is going to have about as much luck stopping it as the riaa had trying to stop mp3's and the software industry in general has had trying to stop warez.
you don't give the mpaa NEARLY enough credit...they are far more intelligent than you have made them out to be. the simple truth of it is, they can see their monopoly on dvd hardware and software slipping away and they're terrified.
-dk
1) censorship is wrong, period.
any action whatsoever, irregardless of how noble the cause behind it may be, that includes censorship as even the most menial part of its overall efforts is, prima facie, bad. while this point may be debated, just act as though you weren't a republican for the purpose of this post.
2) propaganda == education
irregardless of what is being taught, the two are the same, in principle. it's our moralistic definition of each that separates the two.
3) propaganda != converts
ok, this bit is mostly personal theory, so i'll leave it hanging for debate. it's been my opinion for some time that irregardless of what influence people are burdened with, after a certain age they are fairly immune to being swayed by others' words (some people more than others). that is to say, if someone (of the suitable age range) lies...even if they never do it again, their personality has been wired in such a way that they are predisposed towards lying. another way to put this is: i don't believe in reform...nobody gets reformed, they just learn not to do it again or they'll be spanked or whatever.
pertinent to this article, any "education" we should be doing ought to be aimed at the younger set of society in an effort to prevent racist inclinations from being implanted in their minds when they are still forming the bulk of what will become their "self".
silencing racist websites, in addition to being bad (see 1), will have absolutely _no_ effect whatsoever on the general sum of racist inclinations in the world as the people who generally come into contact with these sites have already formed their moral and personal opinions on the matter and _will not be swayed just cuz the damn site isn't there anymore_. any younger people for whom censorship of these sites may change their opinions due to lack of contact are negligable as anyone of a suitable enough age to be impressionable...yet old enough to roam the net at will, in order to seek these sites out, will have had some sort of outside (non-net) stimulus that has prodded them in this direction and, as such, are already predisposed to it...that is to say, even if they never make it to the website, they've still got some sort of environmental influence pushing them in the general direction of racial hatred anyway.
-
that an organization like this could even dream of promoting censorship causes my mind to reel, but the utter uselessness of it and the colossal waste of time and energy that would have to go into something like this is what truly turns my stomache. there's got to be something we can all spend time doing instead of sitting around and telling each other to "shut up."
-dk
"If the chinese government is so weak that it feels menaced by websites, they deserve our pity, not our flames ;)"
;P
only if it's really really scornful pity
-dk
from their whois record:
/.ed or their isp is havin issues
Domain Name: ETOY.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS.C3.NET
Name Server: NS.DESK.NL
Updated Date: 10-dec-1999
and now the nslookup...
# nslookup etoy.com NS.C3.NET
Server: visio.c3.hu
Address: 194.38.96.80
Name: etoy.com
Address: 194.38.96.183
seems their dns server is fine, just good ole slowass network solutions is takin their time about it. altho interestingly enough the ip doesn't do anything particularly interesting on the web so either it's
-dk