Without making this a gun story, if nobody has the right to have arms then there's no need to have arms. No need for hunting, there's stores that do that for you. All that's left is defense and macho-man actions at shooting ranges. The first can be accomplished with a 240-volt tripwire and the latter corrected with the same.
Their DSL offering ALLOWS SERVERS if you DO want a DIY offering. No portscans and no policies against it. I use 'em right now for my own mail server. If you're in Texas, that's Jump.Net.
The problem with that is that they do not do routine port scans. If they see you passing a lot of server-like FTP traffic they try to FTP to you. Port Sentry won't catch that. They don't just scan you for that exact reason; they might be dumb, but they're not stupid. --
And that's an utterly brilliant idea. It really is. There's just one problem: Apple did not include a compiler. =) I'm running it now and for the love of bash, I hate tcsh (flame on, trolls), but I can't get bash because there's no OS X binary that I can find. Same for everything else. And damned if I'm going the route of milking Darwin; that's a little on the crazy side.
I can see where this would perhaps be true in a national business that outsources its support, but for "local" businesses (such as the local ISP I work for) it is not. Case in point, no one in our tech support area is hired unless they know vi. Period. We don't hire monkeys. Not everyone has such a dire tech support area. --
Utter bullshit. Sorry, but please, don't make me gag.
Has it ever crossed your mind that they get royalties off radio, MTV, and VH1? That inclusion into soundtracks of movies is a profit meduim? That the government has already laid suit against them for price fixing?
It means a lot in principle. It means that RIAA is no longer trying to quietly steal work from their artists and is being up-front about their theft now. =\
Sure, 35 years is a long time. But, well, you DO still listen to the Beatles? It's been 35 years and money is still to be made. --
No one is saying the keyboard will disappear; that's stupid. What is being pioneered is an alternative input device. Nothing less, nothing more. The disabled and disorderly will still be able to use a computer. Calm down...
And I, for one, need high-speed Internet access. So nyah! --
The MP3 format itself is not illegal. The RIAA is not going after companies like RealNetworks, MusicMatch, and Xing that create software to encode MP3's. The fact that MP3's exist is not the issue here. The fact that Napster exists to facilitate the trade of MP3's is the issue.
Actually RIAA has several times recently gone after MP3 encoders and players (the Rio), so they apparently feel the format should be illegal for the same reason they feel Napster should be: it can and does facilitate the transfer of copyrighted music. --
c) You bury the radioactive waste in a subduction fault
Where it then gets pulled down into the mantle, very slowly, as magma comes up, passing through it, and pushes it out in a volcanic eruption and thereby contaminates from a few thousand acres to the whole hemisphere.
What do they expect this to do? I don't think the fact that there are OpenNap servers has hit the trial yet... =)
But, really, this is a little silly. They're not even sure at this point if there IS an infringement, yet the pull the plug? There's the "justice system" firing before they knew they had a gun again. --
When will you folks get this right? "Aqua" is a UI. "Aqua" is the style of the interface elements. "Aqua" is NOT Mac OS X. You cannot "port to Aqua." You can port to POSIX, Carbon, Cocoa, and Java on Mac OS X. You can not port a program from one OS to another OS' GUI. Please research before you write. PLEASE.
According to the laws of the vast majority, if not all, of the countries in the world, copying music or movies with the exact same quality as the original and distributing it without the consent, much less paying due royalties to, the author is theft. You can rationalize it all you want, but it's theft. Period. The difference in this whole MP3 mis-use issue is that some people "get it" and some keep on dreaming that if they keep deluding themselves that it's all for some greater cause of giving it to record companies or driving prices down or that whole "information wants to be free" sob story that they'll get away with it.
I have 8GB of MP3s. I have 200 CDs that I've encoded. I have a few I've illegally "sampled" for a day or so and then bought. Whoop. I'm not deluding myself here. For that moment, I stole it. As an anonymous poster said eariler though: I know I'm doing something illegal, now ask me if I care. It's so small compared to the crap that people are getting away with these days. And in one of the many good points Lars had in his response, we're talking millions of perfect copies a week (a day seems much to me). This is a lot bigger than my listening to a few non-singles on a CD to see if I want it.
However, MP3s are popular because people are lazy. Hey, don't give me that look, listen up: you can get off your lazy computing ass and go to a CD store, most any these days, and demo that CD in the store legally. Forgot about that, didn't you? MP3s are popular because people don't want to do that. People don't really even want to go to the store to buy the CD (don't see cdnow.com in those e-commerce death predictions, do you?). But if not only can you not have to get up and not have to wait five days for the CD, well then do it, right? That is the popularity of MP3 trading. That and the same mentality that drives "warez" in that one person feels ripped off by the price and, therefore, gives it to everyone to give it to the company that made it (not thinking for a moment that that attitude will eventually drive up the price).
We, and I say we, are thieves. Some people deny it, some revel in it. Whatever you do, just realize it, ok? I'm personally sick of the lies we pass each other just to fake that we're all innocent. Grow a spine, folks, and deal with the fact that you're a criminal... just like everyone else who's made a turn or lane change without a turn signal. =)
Calm down, grasshopper, useradd exists as does the entire arsenal of BSD admin programs. He's talking Mac-specific programs that require a GUI will not run on the command line.
Expanding our capabilities beyond previous boundaries is the whole point of technology in the first place.
It may be the point of technology, but is technology capable of it? We need to make a notation of the limits of technology, and they do exist.
Too many times we get caught up in this whirlwind of changes and end up worshipping technology like an omnipotent deity of sorts, completely forgetting that technology is not autonomous; it can go only as far as we can take it, and humans have their limits.
I wouldn't put so much "faith" in technology -- at least not any more than you put in the people behind it.
Granted, I am making a guess of sorts. I have my belief that this will not come to pass, and you, of course, have yours. So no, I can not, here and now, prove that it will not happen. Although I do see that as a form of proving a negative, so I would be doubtful I could pull it off even if I really tried.
However, as to the definition of a machine, anything made of 100% synthetic and/or processed materials. Let's not go crazy with that and make silly examples. Metal nanobots up to the "arms" that build cars.
And you're right as to the definition of my beliefs. Actually that's probably the best definition I've heard in a while. I tend to be emperical about a lot of things simply because I do not fancy being let down by presumptions made by something there is little evidence of happening. I see little evidence of this "future" of nanobots, or even the whole shebang, so I really just doubt it. I'll believe it when I see it, or don't as the case may be.
Rather simple, really. How does the student become smarter than the teacher, or even teachers? By taking all the information and using it together. But even then, the student is only as smart as all the teachers combined. There is a "human" element that would allow that student to make tangential thoughts based on what he knew and thereby, over time and practice, possibly surpass his teachers.
A machine will never do this because they will always lack that ability to take a seemingly random idea from life experience and use it to make large amounts of information spawn new information.
I'm probably not explaining it as well as I'd like, but I hope I said the basics.
Don't worry, he'll be ok. That's what happens when a person is Slashdotted. Human's don't load-balance too well. Oddly the effects are not simply a lagged response but more of a real-time homogenous spew of psudo-information. Kind of like the Windows interface, only cleaner and more consistant.
Technology is not good has been around as long as the luddites !
Yes, it's been around. The problem is that, like everything else in this world, one half of the population wants something to happen, and one half is against it. This is just another time for this to happen, and so again the rally cry is screamed: Technology is not always good; it can even be flat-out evil.
It's just that sometimes we only hear it when it is repeated, and we only listen to it when we ignore it. Not to start another thread on this topic, but look at cloning. We've been half and half about this for centuries and now that it is here we don't know what to do other than oppose it until we get our bearings straight. That will happen as well if AI/SI/CI ever comes out. One half of us will remember the shorts from the 60s about "The House That Thinks!" and the other half will remember 2001.
In 1980, it was believed that by 2000 we would have electric cars and be colonizing Mars with at least one full-duty and colonized space station. It was believed that the world would be centered around space and all that could be done out there. It was seen as the new frontier to be discovered and conquered.
Tell me, do you know when the last space shuttle took off? Neither do I. And neither do I own an electric car. Nor do I see us on Mars or in space stations. I keep seeing "we'll all be using electric cars in 10 years" every year. It's what I call the Unattainable Future. We all say it will happen eventually, but underestimate the time it will take and fail to factor in human nature.
We will not have electric cars in mass production and use anytime soon because auto makers can make so much more money on gas-powered cars, and people are used to being able to go 90 MPH if they wanted to, which no electric could dream of hitting. We are not in space because the excitement wore off as computers hit us as insanely amazing machines.
And today our current Unattainable Future is no longer world-peace, as it was during the wars of the 1960s and 1970s, no longer space exploration as it was during the birth of our space program from the 50s to the 80s . No, today the delusion rests squarely on technology and the rate of advancement.
Let me be the first here to scream out that this is insane. There is research and even progress in this sector, but it will not happen. It will not happen because people will not let machines become smarter than them; they will revolt before that happens. There will be no mass-produced nanobots because people are scared of what they cannot see and it's just not possible to make that kind of thing in quantity. You're resting your thoughts on technology that hasn't even started to be invented if you're talking mass-produced nanobots. If the technology to make them in quantity does not exist. Shouldn't that be your first unattainable dream, rather than them being used everywhere?
And an AI capable of human thought... No matter what books you read, or what sci-fi novels you read, or what delusions of "self-aware" machines you have, technology will always only be as smart as those who made it, never smarter. When you can pull intelligence out of nowhere, we can talk. Until then, this is the equivelent of vaporware.
I'm surprised that some people still think that any technological innovation is good. I mean, remember the cars of old that would say "Your door is ajar" and other very annoying things that the public just didn't like? History is full of this. This should be public knowledge at this point, IMO.
Technology should not be embraced because it's technology; technology should only be embraced because it raises our standard of living.
Slashdot Mirror
Without making this a gun story, if nobody has the right to have arms then there's no need to have arms. No need for hunting, there's stores that do that for you. All that's left is defense and macho-man actions at shooting ranges. The first can be accomplished with a 240-volt tripwire and the latter corrected with the same.
IMHO, of course.
--
Their DSL offering ALLOWS SERVERS if you DO want a DIY offering. No portscans and no policies against it. I use 'em right now for my own mail server. If you're in Texas, that's Jump.Net.
And they have a 100% uptime guarantee...
--
The problem with that is that they do not do routine port scans. If they see you passing a lot of server-like FTP traffic they try to FTP to you. Port Sentry won't catch that. They don't just scan you for that exact reason; they might be dumb, but they're not stupid.
--
And that's an utterly brilliant idea. It really is. There's just one problem: Apple did not include a compiler. =) I'm running it now and for the love of bash, I hate tcsh (flame on, trolls), but I can't get bash because there's no OS X binary that I can find. Same for everything else. And damned if I'm going the route of milking Darwin; that's a little on the crazy side.
Yeah, so, I'm learning tcsh now. =)
--
In the larger picture, FTP is inferior to HTTP for anonymous file transfers of any size.
.. click .. click .. click .. click .. click
Never downloaded a few hundred tarballs before, have you? =)
ftp>get XFree*
vs.
click
I'm sure you see the idea. =)
Besides, the only time I like HTTP file transfers is when all the RedHat install FTP servers are busy... [g]
--
Your = possessive
you're = contraction of "you" and "are"
And it's "grammar."
Dumbasses. Finish "grammer" school before you post next time.
--
Send me a TiVo recording and I'll count it relevent...
--
Ummm. No.
I can see where this would perhaps be true in a national business that outsources its support, but for "local" businesses (such as the local ISP I work for) it is not. Case in point, no one in our tech support area is hired unless they know vi. Period. We don't hire monkeys. Not everyone has such a dire tech support area.
--
Utter bullshit. Sorry, but please, don't make me gag.
Has it ever crossed your mind that they get royalties off radio, MTV, and VH1? That inclusion into soundtracks of movies is a profit meduim? That the government has already laid suit against them for price fixing?
Who's paying you off?
--
It means a lot in principle. It means that RIAA is no longer trying to quietly steal work from their artists and is being up-front about their theft now. =\
Sure, 35 years is a long time. But, well, you DO still listen to the Beatles? It's been 35 years and money is still to be made.
--
Public relations.
--
No one is saying the keyboard will disappear; that's stupid. What is being pioneered is an alternative input device. Nothing less, nothing more. The disabled and disorderly will still be able to use a computer. Calm down...
And I, for one, need high-speed Internet access. So nyah!
--
The MP3 format itself is not illegal. The RIAA is not going after companies like RealNetworks, MusicMatch, and Xing that create software to encode MP3's. The fact that MP3's exist is not the issue here. The fact that Napster exists to facilitate the trade of MP3's is the issue.
Actually RIAA has several times recently gone after MP3 encoders and players (the Rio), so they apparently feel the format should be illegal for the same reason they feel Napster should be: it can and does facilitate the transfer of copyrighted music.
--
c) You bury the radioactive waste in a subduction fault
Where it then gets pulled down into the mantle, very slowly, as magma comes up, passing through it, and pushes it out in a volcanic eruption and thereby contaminates from a few thousand acres to the whole hemisphere.
Wonderful idea.
--
What do they expect this to do? I don't think the fact that there are OpenNap servers has hit the trial yet... =)
But, really, this is a little silly. They're not even sure at this point if there IS an infringement, yet the pull the plug? There's the "justice system" firing before they knew they had a gun again.
--
When will you folks get this right? "Aqua" is a UI. "Aqua" is the style of the interface elements. "Aqua" is NOT Mac OS X. You cannot "port to Aqua." You can port to POSIX, Carbon, Cocoa, and Java on Mac OS X. You can not port a program from one OS to another OS' GUI. Please research before you write. PLEASE.
Thank you...
--
Sorry, copying isn't theft.
... just like everyone else who's made a turn or lane change without a turn signal. =)
According to the laws of the vast majority, if not all, of the countries in the world, copying music or movies with the exact same quality as the original and distributing it without the consent, much less paying due royalties to, the author is theft. You can rationalize it all you want, but it's theft. Period. The difference in this whole MP3 mis-use issue is that some people "get it" and some keep on dreaming that if they keep deluding themselves that it's all for some greater cause of giving it to record companies or driving prices down or that whole "information wants to be free" sob story that they'll get away with it.
I have 8GB of MP3s. I have 200 CDs that I've encoded. I have a few I've illegally "sampled" for a day or so and then bought. Whoop. I'm not deluding myself here. For that moment, I stole it. As an anonymous poster said eariler though: I know I'm doing something illegal, now ask me if I care. It's so small compared to the crap that people are getting away with these days. And in one of the many good points Lars had in his response, we're talking millions of perfect copies a week (a day seems much to me). This is a lot bigger than my listening to a few non-singles on a CD to see if I want it.
However, MP3s are popular because people are lazy. Hey, don't give me that look, listen up: you can get off your lazy computing ass and go to a CD store, most any these days, and demo that CD in the store legally. Forgot about that, didn't you? MP3s are popular because people don't want to do that. People don't really even want to go to the store to buy the CD (don't see cdnow.com in those e-commerce death predictions, do you?). But if not only can you not have to get up and not have to wait five days for the CD, well then do it, right? That is the popularity of MP3 trading. That and the same mentality that drives "warez" in that one person feels ripped off by the price and, therefore, gives it to everyone to give it to the company that made it (not thinking for a moment that that attitude will eventually drive up the price).
We, and I say we, are thieves. Some people deny it, some revel in it. Whatever you do, just realize it, ok? I'm personally sick of the lies we pass each other just to fake that we're all innocent. Grow a spine, folks, and deal with the fact that you're a criminal
--
Calm down, grasshopper, useradd exists as does the entire arsenal of BSD admin programs. He's talking Mac-specific programs that require a GUI will not run on the command line.
--
Expanding our capabilities beyond previous boundaries is the whole point of technology in the first place.
It may be the point of technology, but is technology capable of it? We need to make a notation of the limits of technology, and they do exist.
Too many times we get caught up in this whirlwind of changes and end up worshipping technology like an omnipotent deity of sorts, completely forgetting that technology is not autonomous; it can go only as far as we can take it, and humans have their limits.
I wouldn't put so much "faith" in technology -- at least not any more than you put in the people behind it.
--
Granted, I am making a guess of sorts. I have my belief that this will not come to pass, and you, of course, have yours. So no, I can not, here and now, prove that it will not happen. Although I do see that as a form of proving a negative, so I would be doubtful I could pull it off even if I really tried.
However, as to the definition of a machine, anything made of 100% synthetic and/or processed materials. Let's not go crazy with that and make silly examples. Metal nanobots up to the "arms" that build cars.
And you're right as to the definition of my beliefs. Actually that's probably the best definition I've heard in a while. I tend to be emperical about a lot of things simply because I do not fancy being let down by presumptions made by something there is little evidence of happening. I see little evidence of this "future" of nanobots, or even the whole shebang, so I really just doubt it. I'll believe it when I see it, or don't as the case may be.
--
Rather simple, really. How does the student become smarter than the teacher, or even teachers? By taking all the information and using it together. But even then, the student is only as smart as all the teachers combined. There is a "human" element that would allow that student to make tangential thoughts based on what he knew and thereby, over time and practice, possibly surpass his teachers.
A machine will never do this because they will always lack that ability to take a seemingly random idea from life experience and use it to make large amounts of information spawn new information.
I'm probably not explaining it as well as I'd like, but I hope I said the basics.
--
Don't worry, he'll be ok. That's what happens when a person is Slashdotted. Human's don't load-balance too well. Oddly the effects are not simply a lagged response but more of a real-time homogenous spew of psudo-information. Kind of like the Windows interface, only cleaner and more consistant.
--
Technology is not good has been around as long as the luddites !
Yes, it's been around. The problem is that, like everything else in this world, one half of the population wants something to happen, and one half is against it. This is just another time for this to happen, and so again the rally cry is screamed: Technology is not always good; it can even be flat-out evil.
It's just that sometimes we only hear it when it is repeated, and we only listen to it when we ignore it. Not to start another thread on this topic, but look at cloning. We've been half and half about this for centuries and now that it is here we don't know what to do other than oppose it until we get our bearings straight. That will happen as well if AI/SI/CI ever comes out. One half of us will remember the shorts from the 60s about "The House That Thinks!" and the other half will remember 2001.
--
In 1980, it was believed that by 2000 we would have electric cars and be colonizing Mars with at least one full-duty and colonized space station. It was believed that the world would be centered around space and all that could be done out there. It was seen as the new frontier to be discovered and conquered.
... No matter what books you read, or what sci-fi novels you read, or what delusions of "self-aware" machines you have, technology will always only be as smart as those who made it, never smarter. When you can pull intelligence out of nowhere, we can talk. Until then, this is the equivelent of vaporware.
Tell me, do you know when the last space shuttle took off? Neither do I. And neither do I own an electric car. Nor do I see us on Mars or in space stations. I keep seeing "we'll all be using electric cars in 10 years" every year. It's what I call the Unattainable Future. We all say it will happen eventually, but underestimate the time it will take and fail to factor in human nature.
We will not have electric cars in mass production and use anytime soon because auto makers can make so much more money on gas-powered cars, and people are used to being able to go 90 MPH if they wanted to, which no electric could dream of hitting. We are not in space because the excitement wore off as computers hit us as insanely amazing machines.
And today our current Unattainable Future is no longer world-peace, as it was during the wars of the 1960s and 1970s, no longer space exploration as it was during the birth of our space program from the 50s to the 80s . No, today the delusion rests squarely on technology and the rate of advancement.
Let me be the first here to scream out that this is insane. There is research and even progress in this sector, but it will not happen. It will not happen because people will not let machines become smarter than them; they will revolt before that happens. There will be no mass-produced nanobots because people are scared of what they cannot see and it's just not possible to make that kind of thing in quantity. You're resting your thoughts on technology that hasn't even started to be invented if you're talking mass-produced nanobots. If the technology to make them in quantity does not exist. Shouldn't that be your first unattainable dream, rather than them being used everywhere?
And an AI capable of human thought
--
I'm surprised that some people still think that any technological innovation is good. I mean, remember the cars of old that would say "Your door is ajar" and other very annoying things that the public just didn't like? History is full of this. This should be public knowledge at this point, IMO.
Technology should not be embraced because it's technology; technology should only be embraced because it raises our standard of living.
--