Naturally, deregulation, the method by which government supports monopolies by restricting competition in bizarre ways (as opposed to the less-fashionable old tactic, regulation, by which government supports monopolies directly), is a major contributor to the problem. But it is critical that one distinguish between the shortcomings of deregulation and the shortcomings of unregulated utilities. They are not at all the same thing.
This has nothing, really, to do with Open Source zealotry. The point is that they're not a company doing The Right Thing, they're a company trying to appear to be doing The Right Thing. The point is that it's a worthless gesture because a release of source (regardless of license) is useless without a reviewable process, that I wouldn't feel any better even if it was GPL. I never said that OSS is the only trustworthy software, only that a completely open process is the easiest one to trust.
I'm not the first to point it out, but I think the parent would benefit by having this attached:
Marketing move: Yes. Public interest: No. License Irrelevant: No.
They've released _some_ source. As long as the license isn't open and the process isn't open and it's not all auditable, there's no evidence to support the theory that it's the same source that runs the machines, and no reason to feal any more confident about the security of the voting done on those machines. So it's worth exactly nothing except to confuse the media to their benefit.
manages to forget the fact that the GPL is called "copyleft" for a reason; the purpose of the GPL is to use copyright against copyright; to turn what we expect to be copyright violation into expected use, and to turn standard practice into copyright violation. People don't really cry "copyright violation" when they see someone using code inappropriately, they say "GPL violation."
Re:What about Slashdot?
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course; the argument is that 99% of the things displayed in HTML tables aren't actually tabular.
Of course you want to prevent this, but at least when they call up you can say "Are you using AOL? Oh, I'm sorry, they have a policy of blocking our mail. We're doing our best to get this resolved, but in the meantime you might want to try someone better, and save a lot of money into the bargain."
Ever seen a [text]book done in TeX? Most of them are very dynamic, some of the least boring books I've seen. Admitted, vanilla LaTeX is limited, but LaTeX can be extended or ignored, and it's not the only macro package around.
i2p is working on being "decentralized internet", with a distributed naming system, but right now, it uses good old "hosts.txt", based on the YAGNI principle. Still, a project worth paying some attention to, they seem to have gotten some interesting things done already, and they have a sense of direction.
On the other hand, you got a beautiful camera. I have the '707, which is basically the same camera with a different color paint and an older firmware revision, and I love it.:)
Agreed -- It's not even necessarily _bad_ that Microsoft is out to make money, but having credible competition forces them to make it somewhat more honestly.
It had better have been HTML, because for sure it wasn't valid XML. As HTML it would be "wrong" but not unparseable. Unfortunately, the whole thing would be blinking, not just half of it. Of course, depending on interpretation of nested s, the ones on the end might be blinking several million times _faster_ than the ones toward the beginning.
RTA. That's actually what the thread was about, whether the arch would be called x86-64 or amd64 or ia32e or what. The consensus, I think, was that it would be x86-64, because it's vendor-neutral, but that it would be spelled x86_64 for reasons such as a) it makes autoconf happy and b) that's how it already is.
And this is true, in general. But it takes a certain amount of time for a node to become useful to the network; until then, honestly, it does more harm than good (although the new improvements should bring the balance closer to 'useless' rather than 'harmful'). When a thousand or so nodes come online all within a short period, it can really screw things up, unfortunately.
That's your decision, and your right. That's why that warning is there in the first place.
There are some people who believe that freedom of speech is the most important thing to support, that when people have the ability to share what information they want, and keep private what they want, that the rest can be dealt with.
Beyond that, your post degenerates into general uselessness. The idea that allowing Nazis (or anyone else you don't like) to speak constitutes oppression is stupid and wrong. Nobody is forced to listen; if anything, it would serve as a warning for most people of this putative Nazi threat. People are generally not as stupid as you think -- unless they're thoroughly conditioned.
See my below post, explaining how one of the greatest advantages of Freenet is that you only know about files/sites that have been advertised to you somehow, but there's no way to actually know exactly what is on the network. This, of course, makes the kind of in-band searching you're thinking of a pretty laughable idea. Other kinds of searching are possible, but besides requiring a solid freenet, they would depend on some other technologies (can you say distributed trust?) that are still in their infancy.
That freenet does anything at all is a surprise and a testament to the developers. That it doesn't do what you want just tells me that you're impatient, and you don't really understand the complexity of the problem.
Of course, you don't expect that the underground sites would necessarily _want_ the casual observer to know that they're there, do you? One of the advantages of freenet's heavy use of crypto is that you have no clue what's actually on the network, you only know what you can find.
Of course, if they were Open Farms, then the farmers could give their crops away _and_ eat them. Doesn't make it all that hard to feed their families.
Open Source is not about some misguided form of socialism, regardless of what the grandparent post claims, or there wouldn't be so many people (and large corporations) working on it. They do it because it's to their benefit as much as anyone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
I should know this... oh yes, 867-5309, that's it. No wait, that's not it. Damn you, Tommy Tutone! Only one thing to do.
.
.
111-1111 . .
Lois?
Damn!
111-1112 . .
Lois?
Damn!
111-1113 . . .
Those any of the same guys who cranked out C64/Amiga demos and rips back in the day?
That would be Edwin Abbot's Flatland.
Naturally, deregulation, the method by which government supports monopolies by restricting competition in bizarre ways (as opposed to the less-fashionable old tactic, regulation, by which government supports monopolies directly), is a major contributor to the problem. But it is critical that one distinguish between the shortcomings of deregulation and the shortcomings of unregulated utilities. They are not at all the same thing.
Um, I have no idea how fealty got into this post, but of course I meant "feel."
This has nothing, really, to do with Open Source zealotry. The point is that they're not a company doing The Right Thing, they're a company trying to appear to be doing The Right Thing. The point is that it's a worthless gesture because a release of source (regardless of license) is useless without a reviewable process, that I wouldn't feel any better even if it was GPL. I never said that OSS is the only trustworthy software, only that a completely open process is the easiest one to trust.
I'm not the first to point it out, but I think the parent would benefit by having this attached:
Marketing move: Yes.
Public interest: No.
License Irrelevant: No.
They've released _some_ source. As long as the license isn't open and the process isn't open and it's not all auditable, there's no evidence to support the theory that it's the same source that runs the machines, and no reason to feal any more confident about the security of the voting done on those machines. So it's worth exactly nothing except to confuse the media to their benefit.
manages to forget the fact that the GPL is called "copyleft" for a reason; the purpose of the GPL is to use copyright against copyright; to turn what we expect to be copyright violation into expected use, and to turn standard practice into copyright violation. People don't really cry "copyright violation" when they see someone using code inappropriately, they say "GPL violation."
Of course; the argument is that 99% of the things displayed in HTML tables aren't actually tabular.
Of course you want to prevent this, but at least when they call up you can say "Are you using AOL? Oh, I'm sorry, they have a policy of blocking our mail. We're doing our best to get this resolved, but in the meantime you might want to try someone better, and save a lot of money into the bargain."
So you're allowing millions of the world's LEAST qualified internet users to make your policy decisions?
Ever seen a [text]book done in TeX? Most of them are very dynamic, some of the least boring books I've seen. Admitted, vanilla LaTeX is limited, but LaTeX can be extended or ignored, and it's not the only macro package around.
i2p is working on being "decentralized internet", with a distributed naming system, but right now, it uses good old "hosts.txt", based on the YAGNI principle. Still, a project worth paying some attention to, they seem to have gotten some interesting things done already, and they have a sense of direction.
On the other hand, you got a beautiful camera. I have the '707, which is basically the same camera with a different color paint and an older firmware revision, and I love it. :)
Agreed -- It's not even necessarily _bad_ that Microsoft is out to make money, but having credible competition forces them to make it somewhat more honestly.
Why does parent even have a positive score? The poster demonstrates a complete lack of having read what he's replying to.
It had better have been HTML, because for sure it wasn't valid XML. As HTML it would be "wrong" but not unparseable. Unfortunately, the whole thing would be blinking, not just half of it. Of course, depending on interpretation of nested s, the ones on the end might be blinking several million times _faster_ than the ones toward the beginning.
That's well and good for the Atahalon 64, but how about the Athlon64?
RTA. That's actually what the thread was about, whether the arch would be called x86-64 or amd64 or ia32e or what. The consensus, I think, was that it would be x86-64, because it's vendor-neutral, but that it would be spelled x86_64 for reasons such as a) it makes autoconf happy and b) that's how it already is.
And this is true, in general. But it takes a certain amount of time for a node to become useful to the network; until then, honestly, it does more harm than good (although the new improvements should bring the balance closer to 'useless' rather than 'harmful'). When a thousand or so nodes come online all within a short period, it can really screw things up, unfortunately.
In response to the other bit:
That's your decision, and your right. That's why that warning is there in the first place.
There are some people who believe that freedom of speech is the most important thing to support, that when people have the ability to share what information they want, and keep private what they want, that the rest can be dealt with.
Beyond that, your post degenerates into general uselessness. The idea that allowing Nazis (or anyone else you don't like) to speak constitutes oppression is stupid and wrong. Nobody is forced to listen; if anything, it would serve as a warning for most people of this putative Nazi threat. People are generally not as stupid as you think -- unless they're thoroughly conditioned.
See my below post, explaining how one of the greatest advantages of Freenet is that you only know about files/sites that have been advertised to you somehow, but there's no way to actually know exactly what is on the network. This, of course, makes the kind of in-band searching you're thinking of a pretty laughable idea. Other kinds of searching are possible, but besides requiring a solid freenet, they would depend on some other technologies (can you say distributed trust?) that are still in their infancy.
That freenet does anything at all is a surprise and a testament to the developers. That it doesn't do what you want just tells me that you're impatient, and you don't really understand the complexity of the problem.
Of course, you don't expect that the underground sites would necessarily _want_ the casual observer to know that they're there, do you? One of the advantages of freenet's heavy use of crypto is that you have no clue what's actually on the network, you only know what you can find.
Of course, if they were Open Farms, then the farmers could give their crops away _and_ eat them. Doesn't make it all that hard to feed their families.
Open Source is not about some misguided form of socialism, regardless of what the grandparent post claims, or there wouldn't be so many people (and large corporations) working on it. They do it because it's to their benefit as much as anyone else's.
You're kidding, right? Crypto is a lot heavier than you think.