Which is exactly what the current debate is about! ISP's in the UK have made it clear that they will pull a site at the mearest hint of a lawsuit.
If you'd take a moment to pull your head out of the sand and try to understand I thing I wrote, it would be quite clear to you that my point is that ISPs have every right to pull a site at any time they want, with reason or without. There's a reason why 99% of ISP contracts I've seen say that either party can cancel the contract with or without reason. If you're so worried about the problem, make sure you read the fine print and find an ISP that's a big enough sucker not to have one of these clauses. It's their right, they're providing you a service and they write the contracts.
Then none of the blame should be on the ISPs. If they have no choice in the matter, that's one thing. Then we should be attacking the government's policy and not ISPs' policies. The blame-laying here is totally off-base.
If you had a contract that said that you were allowed to host any material whatsoever on your account, and then the ISP went back on that, then you clearly have a case. But I don't think anyone ever had any contracts agreeing to allow hosting of any and all material. Reneging on a contract is a different mater from the theoretical realm of "censorship," which was what my post was about.
i'm also offended by the equation of libertarianism with anarchism. it's a total insult to anarchy. anarchy is a much more level-headed ideology than libertarianism, and has a much better chance of ever coming into being.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't that big a deal. ISPs have no responsibility to host any material they don't want to. I don't remember ISPs ever pledging that by providing a service that they were going to tolerate any and all things. The bottom line is that it's their hardware, their bandwidth, and their choice. If the government was the sole ISP and that was the only way to get information on the Internet, that would be one thing. But if an ISP wants to choose what they'll host and what they won't, that's their right. Buy a server and some bandwidth for yourself if you want to put whatever you want on the Net. Private companies have no responsibility to make sure every voice has an equal chance of being heard.
Okay, take a few deep breaths and calm down. If you would take the time to read what I said and try to understand it (I'm not sure if that's a concept that's familiar to you) you would quite clearly see that I was in no way advocating the importance of social responsibility nor was I in any way making any claims to the importance of it. All I was doing was criticizing a particular definition of it.
Think about it this way. Let's say there's an activity X. Let's say I really think activity X is a horrible activity, and it's one I would never advocate. This doesn't mean that I'm in any way being inconsistent when I argue with someone about their definition of what it means to be "doing activity X." That's exactly the case here. I was arguing the definition of something rather than its applicability in a particular case or what I think of it in general. For all you know I could think social responsibility is complete BS. Try to read and understand before flaming next time.
No, I certainly don't "get it." I don't think that's what the poster was trying to say, and even if he was trying to say that it would still be a useless statement. "Whoever is nicest has the best product" is in no way useful--is that supposed to mean that whoever has the best product must have been the one practicing the most socially responsible actions, or is it supposed to mean that the poster believes that whoever is most socially responsible to him makes the products that are the best? If it's the latter, this in no way answers the question about how socially responsible the industry is. If it's the former, it's just plain foolish.
that's just great..and just what I would expect to hear in our consumer-oriented society. So using your line of logic, you view the company making Brand X to be more "socially responsible" than Brand Y even if Brand X uses slaves to make their products, while Brand Y has entirely humane conditions and donates all of its money to charity? I realize that these are ridiculous examples, but following your line of logic they would have to hold. I know that there aren't situations exactly like this in the real world, I'm just trying to point out the ridiculousness of basing a determination of social responsibility just on product quality.
This is the third time that slashdot has posted a story that got this wrong: Netscape 6 is NOT the final "Mozilla" browser. Netscape 6 incorporates some parts of the Mozilla efforts, but NS 6 is still a commercial product with proprietary code put out by Netscape Incorporated. Mozilla is not complete, and is still in testing. When it is finished, it will not be called "Netscape" anything, it will be "Mozilla." Please try to get this right.
Good thing they're not the ones doing kernel development. When you submit a bug, they're not the ones who get it. There's a difference between doing a distrobution and working on kernel devlopment.
This is a note/plea to the users out there who are reluctant to submit bug reports. First, you must all realize that you are not dealing with Microsoft, or any other large corporation for that matter. While it may seem to you like submitting a bug report will be a waste of your time ("they'll never read it / do anything about it"), it is not. Bug reports are acted upon if they possibly can be, and everyone's bug reports are extremely valuble. The kernel development people (and anyone developing software for linux, for the matter) are very receptive to bug reports, and really need them to help them improve their software. 2.4 is only (relatively) close today because of peoples' bug reports. Submitting reports is not a waste of your time. You'll be helping yourself (when the bug is fixed), and you'll be helping all of us. So please, don't think it's a waste, or that nothing's going to be done. While calling MS with a bug report may be a waste of your time, in this case it isn't.
Man, this was by far the funniest thread today. To any of you who believe that the communist (just look at the logo) lizard is only two years old, I have but one word: SUCKER! It's just so obvious that he's an adult lizard. Look at the lines on his neck. Lizards get a new line on their neck only every year, so he's got to be at least 10 or so from the picture. Boy oh boy, the slashdot admins have gone out of their way with this one. A big round of applause for this hillarious thread!
It strikes me as somewhat redundant to have an actual robot mechanism driving the car. If you can program a robot to move its arms, shift gears, push on the pedals, etc., it would seem to me that you should be able to program the car itself to drive. Wouldn't it make more sense for a mechanism within the car to do all these tasks, instead of having an extra physical thing to accomplish the task? If you ask me, it seems like it's a bit pointless to introduce an extra physical mechanism with the possibility of failing. Why would you want to worry about an arm/leg malfunction when you could just program the car to take care of all the tasks itself? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in what advantages a robot might have over an on-board computer.
Important: Netscape 6 != Mozilla
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
Just thought I should point out that Netscape 6 is NOT the same thing as Mozilla. Netscape 6 is Netscape Inc.'s newest browser, and incoroporates some parts of the Mozilla browser. Mozilla, that we've been testing for a long time, is not Netscape 6! Mozilla is still far away from an actual release and will not be called "Netscape" anything when it's released. Please get this straight folks, Netscape 6 is still very proprietary.
Here are some other distros using partionless installs: PhatLinux, WinLinux2000, and DOSLinux. Information o nthese, as well as a great number of other Linux distros are available at linux.org. Please remember the loopback distors are slower than normal distros due to the nature of their filesystems. They are great for people wanting to try Linux, however. All you have to do to uninstall the system is delete 1 directory.
Anyway, I really don't know why I'm answering you because you obviuosly don't know what you are talking about.
I do know why I'm answering you, and it's because you don't know what you're talking about. Have you had your head buried in the sand for the past six months? Have you not even heard of, or read, the quotes from Bob Young relating to kernel development? I suggest you go seek that out and come back when you're more informed.
To: Netsnipe From: The OpenSource Community and Slashdot
Mr. Netsnipe, please stop posting things using such buzzwords as "OpenSource Community" when you clearly do not speak for the "OpenSource Community" (should I call it OSC?) nor for Slashdot as a whole. Please refrain from thanking anyone on behalf of Slashdot, or from making any comments on behalf of Slashdot. You are but one user and it should be fairly obvious that there are people of many different opinions using this forum. While I'm very happy from you that you've met Bob Young, you have far from proven that the conception that RH is the "M$" of the Linux world is a "misconception." Oh, since you met him and he seemed nice you figured you'd take his word for it that RH is a friend of your "OpenSource Community"? And a couple of posts from an employee of a corporation with much to gain from having good PR on slashdot doesn't do anything to make me think any differently of the issue. Additionally, if you so feel the need to thank bero-rh, what exactly was keeping you from emailing him and doing so? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you just wanted to be moderated up to 5 so that you'd get some positive karma. Well, I know I'm going to be moderated down to -1 for this, but let it be. I really don't care, but I feel that this had to be said.
On behalf of the OpenSource Community and Slashdot, please don't speak for the OpenSource Community or Slashdot, Netsnipe
Okay, so basically you'd agree that the original charges of Signal 11 being a "*racist*" were off base. Or, at least, you'd have to, since nothing in this last post of yours even attempts to rebut my arguments against the charges of racism. The last post of yours may be an indictment against "causcasoid" culture--something which I really have no interest in debating on slashdot, for want of anything productive coming of it, and because I know that people here tend to be much more philodoxical than philosophical--but says nothing about the actions of Signal 11. The only reason I responded to the original flame--and calling someone a racist is certainly a flame--is because I felt that it was totally unwarranted.
Rap music is inherently tied to the culture of 'African Americans'.
This may be the case, but it still doesn't change the fact that the post was intended as a parody of the speech used by rappers, and not by "people of African descent" as a whole. The vast majority of ice hockey players are caucasian. Despite that, I wouldn't find it racist if a black person were to parody stereotypical speech of hockey players (if such a thing existed). I may find it ignorant, foolish, or offensive, but I certainly wouldn't find it racist. Just because the vast majority of rappers happen to be black doesn't make it necessarily racist for him to parody rappers in general.
Then WTF was he doing? Trying to be funny? Did you find it funny? I think he knew damn well what he was doing.
Actually, you've hit the nail right on the head. I'm positive he was trying to be funny. I don't think he had any racist intentions whatsoever.
I don't think Signal11 was trying to emulate the speech of "people of African descent." The story wasn't "open source likened to culture of African Americans." The story was about rap music. Like it or not, there many many examples that back up the stereotype of "rap speak." To say that his emulation of "rap speak" is racist is ridiculous. Where did he ever mention anyone of African descent? Where die he mention race at all? If anyone is racist it's you: you're the one bringing race into this forum, you're the one telling him he's in a "protective womb of [his] lilly-white suburbs," you're the one saying he sounds like a "f*king Jim Crow klan member," and you're the one calling him (or the slashdot community) "white boy."
His post may have been offensive to you, but that doesn't mean it was "racist." Additionally, I highly doubt his post was written with intentions to offend anyone or to be racist. Isn't intention really what's important? Maybe your response to him could have been much more valuable to him and the community at large had you phrased it in less offensive terms yourself, and if you had described to him why it was offensive and why it was of questionable taste / content without flaming him.
Why is it that under related links, there is a link listed as nothing but "Linux" that links directly to Linux.com (aka VA Linux, aka parent company of Andover.net, aka parent company of slashdot)? The other links there are to ian, the person asking, cliff, the story's poster, and other Linux stories on slashdot. First of all, since when did Linux.com become the definitive source of Linux information so that it would be chosen as the most representative for a link to "Linux." Second, why doesn't the link say VA Linux? By linking to linux.com and just having the link say "Linux," you're making a pretty big leap. Slashdot be more descriptive in its links to VA Linux and should also be more careful about linking to it unless the situation is more appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
will bill try revenge?
directx part of windows!
won't work without it!
games work all over
not just on bill's piece 'o crap
let's hope this happens.
If you'd take a moment to pull your head out of the sand and try to understand I thing I wrote, it would be quite clear to you that my point is that ISPs have every right to pull a site at any time they want, with reason or without. There's a reason why 99% of ISP contracts I've seen say that either party can cancel the contract with or without reason. If you're so worried about the problem, make sure you read the fine print and find an ISP that's a big enough sucker not to have one of these clauses. It's their right, they're providing you a service and they write the contracts.
Then none of the blame should be on the ISPs. If they have no choice in the matter, that's one thing. Then we should be attacking the government's policy and not ISPs' policies. The blame-laying here is totally off-base.
If you had a contract that said that you were allowed to host any material whatsoever on your account, and then the ISP went back on that, then you clearly have a case. But I don't think anyone ever had any contracts agreeing to allow hosting of any and all material. Reneging on a contract is a different mater from the theoretical realm of "censorship," which was what my post was about.
i'm also offended by the equation of libertarianism with anarchism. it's a total insult to anarchy. anarchy is a much more level-headed ideology than libertarianism, and has a much better chance of ever coming into being.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't that big a deal. ISPs have no responsibility to host any material they don't want to. I don't remember ISPs ever pledging that by providing a service that they were going to tolerate any and all things. The bottom line is that it's their hardware, their bandwidth, and their choice. If the government was the sole ISP and that was the only way to get information on the Internet, that would be one thing. But if an ISP wants to choose what they'll host and what they won't, that's their right. Buy a server and some bandwidth for yourself if you want to put whatever you want on the Net. Private companies have no responsibility to make sure every voice has an equal chance of being heard.
Think about it this way. Let's say there's an activity X. Let's say I really think activity X is a horrible activity, and it's one I would never advocate. This doesn't mean that I'm in any way being inconsistent when I argue with someone about their definition of what it means to be "doing activity X." That's exactly the case here. I was arguing the definition of something rather than its applicability in a particular case or what I think of it in general. For all you know I could think social responsibility is complete BS. Try to read and understand before flaming next time.
No, I certainly don't "get it." I don't think that's what the poster was trying to say, and even if he was trying to say that it would still be a useless statement. "Whoever is nicest has the best product" is in no way useful--is that supposed to mean that whoever has the best product must have been the one practicing the most socially responsible actions, or is it supposed to mean that the poster believes that whoever is most socially responsible to him makes the products that are the best? If it's the latter, this in no way answers the question about how socially responsible the industry is. If it's the former, it's just plain foolish.
that's just great..and just what I would expect to hear in our consumer-oriented society. So using your line of logic, you view the company making Brand X to be more "socially responsible" than Brand Y even if Brand X uses slaves to make their products, while Brand Y has entirely humane conditions and donates all of its money to charity? I realize that these are ridiculous examples, but following your line of logic they would have to hold. I know that there aren't situations exactly like this in the real world, I'm just trying to point out the ridiculousness of basing a determination of social responsibility just on product quality.
I bet it was just a Mac G4..you remember those ads Apple was running about the US Government having classified the Mac G4 as a "supercomputer."
This is the third time that slashdot has posted a story that got this wrong: Netscape 6 is NOT the final "Mozilla" browser. Netscape 6 incorporates some parts of the Mozilla efforts, but NS 6 is still a commercial product with proprietary code put out by Netscape Incorporated. Mozilla is not complete, and is still in testing. When it is finished, it will not be called "Netscape" anything, it will be "Mozilla." Please try to get this right.
Good thing they're not the ones doing kernel development. When you submit a bug, they're not the ones who get it. There's a difference between doing a distrobution and working on kernel devlopment.
This is a note/plea to the users out there who are reluctant to submit bug reports. First, you must all realize that you are not dealing with Microsoft, or any other large corporation for that matter. While it may seem to you like submitting a bug report will be a waste of your time ("they'll never read it / do anything about it"), it is not. Bug reports are acted upon if they possibly can be, and everyone's bug reports are extremely valuble. The kernel development people (and anyone developing software for linux, for the matter) are very receptive to bug reports, and really need them to help them improve their software. 2.4 is only (relatively) close today because of peoples' bug reports. Submitting reports is not a waste of your time. You'll be helping yourself (when the bug is fixed), and you'll be helping all of us. So please, don't think it's a waste, or that nothing's going to be done. While calling MS with a bug report may be a waste of your time, in this case it isn't.
no no no..you're all wrong. you've jumped the gun. you should have poured 2.3.99pre3 bowls of hot grits down your pants.
Man, this was by far the funniest thread today. To any of you who believe that the communist (just look at the logo) lizard is only two years old, I have but one word: SUCKER! It's just so obvious that he's an adult lizard. Look at the lines on his neck. Lizards get a new line on their neck only every year, so he's got to be at least 10 or so from the picture. Boy oh boy, the slashdot admins have gone out of their way with this one. A big round of applause for this hillarious thread!
It strikes me as somewhat redundant to have an actual robot mechanism driving the car. If you can program a robot to move its arms, shift gears, push on the pedals, etc., it would seem to me that you should be able to program the car itself to drive. Wouldn't it make more sense for a mechanism within the car to do all these tasks, instead of having an extra physical thing to accomplish the task? If you ask me, it seems like it's a bit pointless to introduce an extra physical mechanism with the possibility of failing. Why would you want to worry about an arm/leg malfunction when you could just program the car to take care of all the tasks itself? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in what advantages a robot might have over an on-board computer.
Just thought I should point out that Netscape 6 is NOT the same thing as Mozilla. Netscape 6 is Netscape Inc.'s newest browser, and incoroporates some parts of the Mozilla browser. Mozilla, that we've been testing for a long time, is not Netscape 6! Mozilla is still far away from an actual release and will not be called "Netscape" anything when it's released. Please get this straight folks, Netscape 6 is still very proprietary.
Here are some other distros using partionless installs: PhatLinux, WinLinux2000, and DOSLinux. Information o nthese, as well as a great number of other Linux distros are available at linux.org. Please remember the loopback distors are slower than normal distros due to the nature of their filesystems. They are great for people wanting to try Linux, however. All you have to do to uninstall the system is delete 1 directory.
I do know why I'm answering you, and it's because you don't know what you're talking about. Have you had your head buried in the sand for the past six months? Have you not even heard of, or read, the quotes from Bob Young relating to kernel development? I suggest you go seek that out and come back when you're more informed.
From: The OpenSource Community and Slashdot
Mr. Netsnipe, please stop posting things using such buzzwords as "OpenSource Community" when you clearly do not speak for the "OpenSource Community" (should I call it OSC?) nor for Slashdot as a whole. Please refrain from thanking anyone on behalf of Slashdot, or from making any comments on behalf of Slashdot. You are but one user and it should be fairly obvious that there are people of many different opinions using this forum. While I'm very happy from you that you've met Bob Young, you have far from proven that the conception that RH is the "M$" of the Linux world is a "misconception." Oh, since you met him and he seemed nice you figured you'd take his word for it that RH is a friend of your "OpenSource Community"? And a couple of posts from an employee of a corporation with much to gain from having good PR on slashdot doesn't do anything to make me think any differently of the issue. Additionally, if you so feel the need to thank bero-rh, what exactly was keeping you from emailing him and doing so? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you just wanted to be moderated up to 5 so that you'd get some positive karma. Well, I know I'm going to be moderated down to -1 for this, but let it be. I really don't care, but I feel that this had to be said.
On behalf of the OpenSource Community and Slashdot, please don't speak for the OpenSource Community or Slashdot, Netsnipe
Okay, so basically you'd agree that the original charges of Signal 11 being a "*racist*" were off base. Or, at least, you'd have to, since nothing in this last post of yours even attempts to rebut my arguments against the charges of racism. The last post of yours may be an indictment against "causcasoid" culture--something which I really have no interest in debating on slashdot, for want of anything productive coming of it, and because I know that people here tend to be much more philodoxical than philosophical--but says nothing about the actions of Signal 11. The only reason I responded to the original flame--and calling someone a racist is certainly a flame--is because I felt that it was totally unwarranted.
This may be the case, but it still doesn't change the fact that the post was intended as a parody of the speech used by rappers, and not by "people of African descent" as a whole. The vast majority of ice hockey players are caucasian. Despite that, I wouldn't find it racist if a black person were to parody stereotypical speech of hockey players (if such a thing existed). I may find it ignorant, foolish, or offensive, but I certainly wouldn't find it racist. Just because the vast majority of rappers happen to be black doesn't make it necessarily racist for him to parody rappers in general.
Then WTF was he doing? Trying to be funny? Did you find it funny? I think he knew damn well what he was doing.
Actually, you've hit the nail right on the head. I'm positive he was trying to be funny. I don't think he had any racist intentions whatsoever.
His post may have been offensive to you, but that doesn't mean it was "racist." Additionally, I highly doubt his post was written with intentions to offend anyone or to be racist. Isn't intention really what's important? Maybe your response to him could have been much more valuable to him and the community at large had you phrased it in less offensive terms yourself, and if you had described to him why it was offensive and why it was of questionable taste / content without flaming him.
Why is it that under related links, there is a link listed as nothing but "Linux" that links directly to Linux.com (aka VA Linux, aka parent company of Andover.net, aka parent company of slashdot)? The other links there are to ian, the person asking, cliff, the story's poster, and other Linux stories on slashdot. First of all, since when did Linux.com become the definitive source of Linux information so that it would be chosen as the most representative for a link to "Linux." Second, why doesn't the link say VA Linux? By linking to linux.com and just having the link say "Linux," you're making a pretty big leap. Slashdot be more descriptive in its links to VA Linux and should also be more careful about linking to it unless the situation is more appropriate.