Is Stallman so desperate to make Mr. Gates out to be the bad guy that heâ(TM)d sink this low?
I don't see any "low sinking" about it. First of all, the money Gates is so charitably donating, is money he acquired from an illegal monopoly, so it is reasonable to follow where it is going.
Second, there is a good argument to be made that foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are harmful and are mainly entertainment vehicles and tax shelters for the rich.
Third, why shouldn't Stallman comment on this stuff? He started the Free Software Foundation out of social consciousness and civic concern; of course, he would comment on other social issues and may well take action, even if they have nothing to do with software.
And why should Stallman be "desparate"? Free software is doing better than ever before, while Microsoft just keeps failing in everything they do.
The rest of the NeoSmart files contains more bullshit. For example:
Stallman somehow neglects to mention that â" regardless of whether morally acceptable or not â" Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software.
There is no "neglect" about it. It is not at all clear that Gates had that legal right at the time; in a sense, Gates helped establish that right, to the deteriment of us all, according to Stallman's reading.
I don't agree with what Stallman says, but he is at least consistent and logical. NeoSmart is a bunch of bullshit and FUD.
Is Microsoft getting so desperate that they have to step up their bullshit and FUD machine another notch? I guess it's a good sign.
RFSs may be used in cases of an "urgent threat to the existence or the security of the Federation or a country or physical, life or liberty of a person...
Apparently, they are drawing on a century of experience that Germany has with intrusion into people's private lives, both under right wing and left wing extremist states. Even the language of the law itself is... classic.
What has access to their system? Is every single tech person they employ trustworthy?
I don't know and it doesn't affect my privacy.
Is their security good enough?
Yes, in the sense that even no security on their end would be "good enough".
Who is middle man to your TCP transmitions?
I assume my ISP and maybe the NSA.
Do you trust your ISP?
No.
Do you login outside your PC? Can you trust those computers?
I don't have to trust them. When I do use another computer, I use an OTP.
Who else has access to your PC? Who can hack your PC?
Doesn't matter; they can't do anything with it.
Basically, you're asking all the wrong questions. If you have to rely on your ISP to be trustworthy or your computer not getting stolen, you have already lost.
We all cherish our privacy. Then we go and divulge everything about ourselves on Facebook, sprinkle our Social Security number like pixie dust across the Web and happily load up on tracking devices like GPS navigators and cellphones.
I do have a Facebook page, I do submit my social security card on-line, and I do use a GPS navigator and cell phone. I have a good idea who gets each of those items of data and why, and I have a good idea of the risks and implications.
I'm sorry the researchers don't understand the privacy implications of these different uses of private information, but the stupidity is theirs, not mine.
Their findings: Our privacy principles are wobbly. We are more or less likely to open up depending on who is asking, how they ask and in what context.
There's nothing "wobbly" about that, that's the way privacy is supposed to work, and it's the way it has worked for, oh, many millennia.
Stolen equipment gets recovered via cell phone signals all them time. The whole thing sounds like a PR fluff piece.
The real tidbit of interest here is this:
Smart controller 'internet' technology, first patented in 2003 by Rain Master, automatically adjusts water usage via a 2-way wireless communication system.
The company has a patent on controlling the sprinkler system remotely. This kind of patent is stupid and evil.
Lots of people have thought about it, and there are lots of technical solutions. That's not the question.
The question is which of the well-known solutions Intel is going to push for.
What Azul does matters to almost nobody since they simply aren't a big player and since their use of Java as the sole programming language makes their systems useless to most of the people who really need this.
the internet is useful because it provides two way communication. if you make the internet a one way system, you basically have nothing more than a fancy form of television.
And you think this is news to them? Companies like the television model and they want it back. They have the money to pay off politicians, and politicians set the agenda.
in other words, the gig is up, the effort is futile. piracy is permanent
Your ability to copy stuff across the Internet depends entirely on a legal framework that makes this possible, something that can be easily changed.
Democracies have been taken over and destroyed by corporations and special interests before, with a complete destruction of civil liberties and complete control of communications by the state.
Only a complete fool would believe that this can't happen again.
If you put 1000 cores on a chip and plug it into a PC... very little would happen in terms of speedup.
What we need to know is the memory architecture. How is memory allocated to cores? How is data transferred? What are the relative costs of accesses? How are the caches handled?
Without that information, it's pointless to think about hundreds or thousands of cores. And I suspect even Intel doesn't know the answers yet. And there's a good chance that a company other than Intel will actually deliver the solution.
What about convincing a customer they have a need for your product, when they really don't?
For people that do that, there shouldn't be a glass ceiling, they should get fired outright. Or do you believe that the customer isn't going to figure this out sooner or later?
You should try working in sales for a year, and see if you still have this attitude. When you find out just how hard the job really is, you might start appreciating those who can do it well.
Sure, it's a hard job. So is cleaning toilets. Neither of those should qualify you to lead a company.
This is what I want. I want to log into gmail, and only see my new messages. I want my old messages put away, IN FOLDERS. Storage for me to refer to later.
Click on All, then Archive to move your mail from your INBOX to the archive.
You can also move things to the archive automatically with the "Create a filter" option.
Or, if your really just want to see unread, new messages, type "is:unread in:inbox" into the search box, then bookmark the resulting and use that as your start page for reading mail.
According to AST CEO Brian Hinman, a former VP of IP and Licensing at IBM, the arrangement will keep member companies out of antitrust trouble.
This arrangement sounds like a blatant violation of the intent of anti-trust law, and there's a good chance it also violates the letter of antitrust law.
But I suppose as long as these companies keep paying lots of money to Washington, nothing is going to change.
Is this some kind of joke? What the hell do you need USB for? The only thing a wireless access point and router needs is 1) an input ethernet port, for connecting to your cable/DSL modem, 2) 4 output ethernet ports, for connecting to your wired machines (including printer), and 3) antennae for your wireless devices.
The point of having something like this run Linux is so that it can be modified and used for other purposes.
What do people plug into those USB ports? Disk drives, printers, wifi interfaces, card readers, webcams, usb drives, point-and-shoots, sensors, anything you plug into a desktop.
Look at the NSLU pages, since you're obviously too stupid to figure out why a $70 device running Linux is more useful with USB ports than without. And the extra USB ports don't cost much. Many companies already have them on their wireless routers, so why not this one?
I do tend to agree with the other reply to this; any newer router needs gigabit ports on the output.
Yeah, you would, because you don't have a clue what people are using these for. Gigabit would be nice, but USB is much, much more important for a hackable router.
As it is, just being open-source-friendly isn't quite enough to get me to upgrade; as long as my current router works, I don't have much to complain about. Unfortunately, my D-Link barely works right: I'm unable to upgrade the firmware to the newer versions, because then it won't allow wirelessly-connected devices to access my JetDirect-connected HP printer. I've emailed D-Link about it and they don't care.
I'm not surprised. They probably concluded, like I did, that there is a PBKC.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry you don't understand tax law and the way that charities are used by for-profits, but you can, in fact, give away $10k and get back $20k.
Yet another fails to grasp the fundemental concept that free software and free beer are not the same.
What I said is correct. The faulty understanding is with you.
Is Stallman so desperate to make Mr. Gates out to be the bad guy that heâ(TM)d sink this low?
I don't see any "low sinking" about it. First of all, the money Gates is so charitably donating, is money he acquired from an illegal monopoly, so it is reasonable to follow where it is going.
Second, there is a good argument to be made that foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are harmful and are mainly entertainment vehicles and tax shelters for the rich.
Third, why shouldn't Stallman comment on this stuff? He started the Free Software Foundation out of social consciousness and civic concern; of course, he would comment on other social issues and may well take action, even if they have nothing to do with software.
And why should Stallman be "desparate"? Free software is doing better than ever before, while Microsoft just keeps failing in everything they do.
The rest of the NeoSmart files contains more bullshit. For example:
Stallman somehow neglects to mention that â" regardless of whether morally acceptable or not â" Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software.
There is no "neglect" about it. It is not at all clear that Gates had that legal right at the time; in a sense, Gates helped establish that right, to the deteriment of us all, according to Stallman's reading.
I don't agree with what Stallman says, but he is at least consistent and logical. NeoSmart is a bunch of bullshit and FUD.
Is Microsoft getting so desperate that they have to step up their bullshit and FUD machine another notch? I guess it's a good sign.
RFSs may be used in cases of an "urgent threat to the existence or the security of the Federation or a country or physical, life or liberty of a person...
Apparently, they are drawing on a century of experience that Germany has with intrusion into people's private lives, both under right wing and left wing extremist states. Even the language of the law itself is... classic.
Who do they resell their data to?
I don't know and it doesn't affect my privacy.
What has access to their system? Is every single tech person they employ trustworthy?
I don't know and it doesn't affect my privacy.
Is their security good enough?
Yes, in the sense that even no security on their end would be "good enough".
Who is middle man to your TCP transmitions?
I assume my ISP and maybe the NSA.
Do you trust your ISP?
No.
Do you login outside your PC? Can you trust those computers?
I don't have to trust them. When I do use another computer, I use an OTP.
Who else has access to your PC? Who can hack your PC?
Doesn't matter; they can't do anything with it.
Basically, you're asking all the wrong questions. If you have to rely on your ISP to be trustworthy or your computer not getting stolen, you have already lost.
We all cherish our privacy. Then we go and divulge everything about ourselves on Facebook, sprinkle our Social Security number like pixie dust across the Web and happily load up on tracking devices like GPS navigators and cellphones.
I do have a Facebook page, I do submit my social security card on-line, and I do use a GPS navigator and cell phone. I have a good idea who gets each of those items of data and why, and I have a good idea of the risks and implications.
I'm sorry the researchers don't understand the privacy implications of these different uses of private information, but the stupidity is theirs, not mine.
Their findings: Our privacy principles are wobbly. We are more or less likely to open up depending on who is asking, how they ask and in what context.
There's nothing "wobbly" about that, that's the way privacy is supposed to work, and it's the way it has worked for, oh, many millennia.
Stolen equipment gets recovered via cell phone signals all them time. The whole thing sounds like a PR fluff piece.
The real tidbit of interest here is this:
Smart controller 'internet' technology, first patented in 2003 by Rain Master, automatically adjusts water usage via a 2-way wireless communication system.
The company has a patent on controlling the sprinkler system remotely. This kind of patent is stupid and evil.
Lots of people have thought about it, and there are lots of technical solutions. That's not the question.
The question is which of the well-known solutions Intel is going to push for.
What Azul does matters to almost nobody since they simply aren't a big player and since their use of Java as the sole programming language makes their systems useless to most of the people who really need this.
the internet is useful because it provides two way communication. if you make the internet a one way system, you basically have nothing more than a fancy form of television.
And you think this is news to them? Companies like the television model and they want it back. They have the money to pay off politicians, and politicians set the agenda.
in other words, the gig is up, the effort is futile. piracy is permanent
Your ability to copy stuff across the Internet depends entirely on a legal framework that makes this possible, something that can be easily changed.
Democracies have been taken over and destroyed by corporations and special interests before, with a complete destruction of civil liberties and complete control of communications by the state.
Only a complete fool would believe that this can't happen again.
If you put 1000 cores on a chip and plug it into a PC... very little would happen in terms of speedup.
What we need to know is the memory architecture. How is memory allocated to cores? How is data transferred? What are the relative costs of accesses? How are the caches handled?
Without that information, it's pointless to think about hundreds or thousands of cores. And I suspect even Intel doesn't know the answers yet. And there's a good chance that a company other than Intel will actually deliver the solution.
What about convincing a customer they have a need for your product, when they really don't?
For people that do that, there shouldn't be a glass ceiling, they should get fired outright. Or do you believe that the customer isn't going to figure this out sooner or later?
You should try working in sales for a year, and see if you still have this attitude. When you find out just how hard the job really is, you might start appreciating those who can do it well.
Sure, it's a hard job. So is cleaning toilets. Neither of those should qualify you to lead a company.
This will provide a strong incentive for space exploration. So, keep using up those rare earth elements.
I'd pay money for officially naming a star, but not for "adopting" one.
They get the 30 minute orgasms, and they have the hands... well, you get the picture.
They also get to eat all they want, and they probably don't mind being called "pigs".
This is what I want. I want to log into gmail, and only see my new messages. I want my old messages put away, IN FOLDERS. Storage for me to refer to later.
Click on All, then Archive to move your mail from your INBOX to the archive.
You can also move things to the archive automatically with the "Create a filter" option.
Or, if your really just want to see unread, new messages, type "is:unread in:inbox" into the search box, then bookmark the resulting and use that as your start page for reading mail.
Or, you can just use an IMAP client.
Maybe it's just a functionality problem. Can you auto-label incoming email?
Yes. That's what the "Create a filter" link is for.
Can you filter your inbox depending on the label?
Yes. That's what the "Create a filter" link is for.
Seriously, have you tried to manage a gmail account with several hundred of labels?
No. Granted, I only have about 300k messages, so I still get by with a few dozen labels...
Maybe you should start to figure out combinatorial uses of labels. That is, make each path component a label and then search by multiple components.
With a real hierarchical organization (read folder) it can be done
Well, then you'll be happy to hear about "Folders4Gmail"...
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/8810
Rather than just adding more features, simplify stuff.
Make Javascript faster and add a JIT and optional type declarations (in progress).
Standardize local storage.
analyzing packet sizes and inter-packet intervals ... which are easily modifiable.
This research is stupid, as is anybody that tries to implement filtering based on it.
According to AST CEO Brian Hinman, a former VP of IP and Licensing at IBM, the arrangement will keep member companies out of antitrust trouble.
This arrangement sounds like a blatant violation of the intent of anti-trust law, and there's a good chance it also violates the letter of antitrust law.
But I suppose as long as these companies keep paying lots of money to Washington, nothing is going to change.
they're demonstrating a general-purpose framework for building any GUI web application you might think of.
And why would I pick their framework over any other framework now? What does their "demonstration" actually show?
The point wasn't to create a Keynote clone. The point was to demonstrate the toolkit.
There are lots of Javascript-based presentation packages. So what does writing another one demonstrate?
What are you doing on /. anyway?
Waiting for my experiments to finish. What about you?
Microsoft: get with the plan and just adopt one of the FOSS kernels and libraries.
280slides looks nice, but there are half a dozen other on-line slide presentation programs out there (including Zoho and Google).
Why not actually innovate? Come up with a better way of creating and maintaining slide shows. Do something other people haven't done yet.
Is this some kind of joke? What the hell do you need USB for? The only thing a wireless access point and router needs is 1) an input ethernet port, for connecting to your cable/DSL modem, 2) 4 output ethernet ports, for connecting to your wired machines (including printer), and 3) antennae for your wireless devices.
The point of having something like this run Linux is so that it can be modified and used for other purposes.
What do people plug into those USB ports? Disk drives, printers, wifi interfaces, card readers, webcams, usb drives, point-and-shoots, sensors, anything you plug into a desktop.
Look at the NSLU pages, since you're obviously too stupid to figure out why a $70 device running Linux is more useful with USB ports than without. And the extra USB ports don't cost much. Many companies already have them on their wireless routers, so why not this one?
I do tend to agree with the other reply to this; any newer router needs gigabit ports on the output.
Yeah, you would, because you don't have a clue what people are using these for. Gigabit would be nice, but USB is much, much more important for a hackable router.
As it is, just being open-source-friendly isn't quite enough to get me to upgrade; as long as my current router works, I don't have much to complain about. Unfortunately, my D-Link barely works right: I'm unable to upgrade the firmware to the newer versions, because then it won't allow wirelessly-connected devices to access my JetDirect-connected HP printer. I've emailed D-Link about it and they don't care.
I'm not surprised. They probably concluded, like I did, that there is a PBKC.