Can you imagine the crap that people will send with this? Can you imagine what an alien civilization would think of the human race?
At any rate, only an idiot would shell out the $$ for this. "'Admittedly, it is a weak signal, but it does go on forever,' Snow said." The same could be said about any electromagnetic signal. You could say the same about a toy walkie-talkie. Only idiots will pay for this service...and I don't want to know the things they would say. I hope that those messages really aren't heard by any alien civilzations, for humanity's sake.
Ok, repeat after me: "This is my supersoaker. There may be others like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my supersoaker is useless. Without my supersoaker, I am useless."
"... it doesn't have to be Windows, and as Windows is expensive and overly-complicated, quite a lot of these boxes won't be Windows. They'll be Linux, BSD or BeOS, and the customers won't really care. "
I think that customers will care, but not for good reasons. Unfortunately, Windows has dominated the market for long enough that "PC" and "Windows" are linked together in most consumers' minds.
In the world the I (and probably a good number of Slashdot readers) live, surrounded by geeks, it's easy to forget that most people, most current computer owners even, haven't even heard of Linux. At best, they saw an article in a trade mag, but they aren't giving it a lot of thought. Plus, those magazine articles are often loaded with FUD, and they make the customer less likely to want a computer sans Windows.
This is why everyone needs to read the Advocacy HOWTO. Yes, most people will prefer Windows to an operating system they haven't heard of (even if it means waiting a few months...and I'm sure Microsoft won't let anyone think that it'll be more than a few months' delay), but we can work to make sure people have heard of Linux (as well as BeOS, BSD, etc.), and that they know that they have a choice right now. When these EasyPCs come out, and they only customers can have Windows is to wait, the choice will be clear.
Maybe I'm just too skeptical...but I'm not about to quit my job and start developing OSS.
However, I think the source exchange will be A Good Thing(tm). For example, imagine a developer toying with the idea of a certain project, but wondering if it will be worth the trouble. That extra dough could be enough motivation. Or imagine a developer who has created a hack for her own use, but it's still not very robust, and she doesn't really feel like releasing it. Then she sees that company X is willing to pay $200 for it. That could be enough to convince her to clean up the bugs and release it. At any rate, I don't think this will hurt OSS, but I doubt that it will revolutionize it either.
Yes, it was Kubrick's choice (along with Warner Brothers) that it be banned. It is still banned, even though Kubrick is still dead.
Who do you mean by "Authorities"? I was certainly not implying that the government banned it. Yes, Kubrick did have input in the matter, and it seems possible that he also had input in the digital figures inserted into Eyes Wide Shut. In both movies, the government did not directly force any changes. The changes were the choice of commercial organizations, but they may have been forced because of the society in which they were applied. In one, it was sex. In another, it was violence (albiet, rape, so sex certainly played a part).
If you thought implying that British society is just as "prudish" as American, then I must not have made my point clearly. My point is this: different societies have diffences in values (however minor), and when discussing how those values affect movies, or even whether the "rules" applied to movies reflect those values, it is helpful to keep in mind that America is not the only country in which Kubrick's films have not been shown in their entirety because of those values.
It was the public's outrage over the copycat crimes related to A Clockwork Orange that caused it to be banned. It is the public's outrage over sex in entertainment that (indirectly) led to Eyes Wide Shut being altered. That outrage may not reflect the majority opinon of the public, but it does exist, and people in both countries are denied some of Kubrick's cinema because of it.
When discussing what's acceptable for European audiences and American audiences, especially when also discussing Kubrick, keep in mind that A Clockwork Orange is still banned in England.
I saw Eyes Wide Shut. I loved it. I did think the digital figures were distracting, but I don't think that I missed out on an important part of the film because of them. If Eyes Wide Shut had received an NC-17 rating, it would have been written off by many people as a porn film, which would have been more unfortunate than having the digital figures inserted. If that were the case, the vast majority of people who watched it would be hoping for a porn film, and would have been greatly disappointed (like the huge numbers of college students who cheered when Nicole Kidman undressed but slept through much of the rest of the movie in the theatre I saw it at).
At any rate, if the digital figures bother you that much, take heart. I'm sure that an uncut version will be available on video. BTW, would anyone be so kind as to post a link to the NPR story?
This article certainly carries the attitude that many BSD users seem to have -- that BSD of for real users, users with experience, users who care more about a robust, secure OS than what's currently hip; and that Linux users are "hackers" who jumped on the Linux bandwagon because it's the hip thing to do among hackers, rather than because Linux carries any advantages as an OS.
The truth is, Linux carries with it several advantages that the article only hints at. The article mentions the splits in BSD, but it doesn't discuss the problems these splits carry with them. It's nice to know that with Linux, when a new feature or better security is added to the kernel, that feature will be available to every users on many different platforms. I am certainly not an expert on BSD, so I'd appreciate it if someone who is more knowledgeable than I would tell me how often developments in FreeBSD are integrated into the development tree of NetBSD, for example.
Personally, I prefer Linux. As a student at a large university, I'm surrounded by Linux experts. I couldn't say the same about BSD. The other main advantage that Linux has for me is the applications that are being ported to Linux more and more. However, I would be willing to switch to BSD if I saw clear advantages. Unfortunately, this article seemed to be more interested in cashing in on the Linux hype by subtly bashing Linux rather than presenting the real advantages.
Close, but not quite. The bald eagle is still on the endagered species list, but about a month ago it was announced that their population is recovering nicely, and will probably be removed from the list in about a year.
Why should this be such a surprise? There are 2 reasons that Netscape released the source to Mozilla:
1) They thought that releasing the source would result in a better product, developed quickly, at less cost to them. After all, most of the work was going to be done by volunteers.
and, more important,
2) Netscape recognized OSS as being The Next Big thing. By releasing the source, not only would Netscape get the image of a cutting-edge, daring company, but it could guarantee that it would be mentioned in nearly every article about OSS software.
Well, 1 obviously didn't happen, and 2 is partly true, but the press exposure is getting less favourable. The truth that is probably obvious to most/.ers, but that Netscape failed to recognize, is that good software cannot be produced quickly and cheaply (when time is viewed as having monetary value). Mozilla is going to be good software. When it is released, anyone who values quality and hasn't been totally brainwashed by MS will eventually choose it over IE. If AOL/Netscape had any courage, they would stick it out. The delay on Mozilla's release is a major setback, but the quality of the final release of Mozilla will more than make up for that.
Disclaimer: All critisisms of Netscape are referring to upper management's decisions, not the people actually working on Mozilla.
"3) The government has no more right to determine my "morality" than YOU do"
What the hell are you talking about? Enforcing morality is one of the main functions of government. If the government does not have a right to "determine morality," then how can we justify murder being illegal? After, some people may have no moral objection to murder.
"favoring any religion in any way is against the Consitution"
Umm, where does it say that? The Constitution forbids a "state religion," but showing favouritism to a religion and making that religion the state religion are two different things. Not that I think the government should favour a certain religion.
I don't think we're going to see any real work with Mozilla source code by people outside Netscape for a little while yet. One of the real benefits of having the souce code available is that it will now be much easier to embed a web browser in all sorts of applications...with the added bonus of being able to modify the browser that is embedded (something that isn't possible with IE and OLE/ActiveX ).
Slashdot Mirror
Can you imagine the crap that people will send with this? Can you imagine what an alien civilization would think of the human race?
At any rate, only an idiot would shell out the $$ for this. "'Admittedly, it is a weak signal, but it does go on forever,' Snow said." The same could be said about any electromagnetic signal. You could say the same about a toy walkie-talkie. Only idiots will pay for this service...and I don't want to know the things they would say. I hope that those messages really aren't heard by any alien civilzations, for humanity's sake.
You're probably right. I couldn't remember which it was, and I was too lazy to check. =)
"This is for fight, and this is for fun!"
Ok, repeat after me:
"This is my supersoaker. There may be others like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my supersoaker is useless. Without my supersoaker, I am useless."
...but I'm not telling! ;-) But the question is: will the Easy PC come in 5 fruity flavours?
"... it doesn't have to be Windows, and as Windows is expensive and overly-complicated, quite a lot of these boxes won't be Windows. They'll be Linux, BSD or BeOS, and the customers won't really care. "
I think that customers will care, but not for good reasons. Unfortunately, Windows has dominated the market for long enough that "PC" and "Windows" are linked together in most consumers' minds.
In the world the I (and probably a good number of Slashdot readers) live, surrounded by geeks, it's easy to forget that most people, most current computer owners even, haven't even heard of Linux. At best, they saw an article in a trade mag, but they aren't giving it a lot of thought. Plus, those magazine articles are often loaded with FUD, and they make the customer less likely to want a computer sans Windows.
This is why everyone needs to read the Advocacy HOWTO. Yes, most people will prefer Windows to an operating system they haven't heard of (even if it means waiting a few months...and I'm sure Microsoft won't let anyone think that it'll be more than a few months' delay), but we can work to make sure people have heard of Linux (as well as BeOS, BSD, etc.), and that they know that they have a choice right now. When these EasyPCs come out, and they only customers can have Windows is to wait, the choice will be clear.
Maybe I'm just too skeptical...but I'm not about to quit my job and start developing OSS.
However, I think the source exchange will be A Good Thing(tm). For example, imagine a developer toying with the idea of a certain project, but wondering if it will be worth the trouble. That extra dough could be enough motivation. Or imagine a developer who has created a hack for her own use, but it's still not very robust, and she doesn't really feel like releasing it. Then she sees that company X is willing to pay $200 for it. That could be enough to convince her to clean up the bugs and release it. At any rate, I don't think this will hurt OSS, but I doubt that it will revolutionize it either.
Yes, it was Kubrick's choice (along with Warner Brothers) that it be banned. It is still banned, even though Kubrick is still dead.
Who do you mean by "Authorities"? I was certainly not implying that the government banned it. Yes, Kubrick did have input in the matter, and it seems possible that he also had input in the digital figures inserted into Eyes Wide Shut. In both movies, the government did not directly force any changes. The changes were the choice of commercial organizations, but they may have been forced because of the society in which they were applied. In one, it was sex. In another, it was violence (albiet, rape, so sex certainly played a part).
If you thought implying that British society is just as "prudish" as American, then I must not have made my point clearly. My point is this: different societies have diffences in values (however minor), and when discussing how those values affect movies, or even whether the "rules" applied to movies reflect those values, it is helpful to keep in mind that America is not the only country in which Kubrick's films have not been shown in their entirety because of those values.
It was the public's outrage over the copycat crimes related to A Clockwork Orange that caused it to be banned. It is the public's outrage over sex in entertainment that (indirectly) led to Eyes Wide Shut being altered. That outrage may not reflect the majority opinon of the public, but it does exist, and people in both countries are denied some of Kubrick's cinema because of it.
When discussing what's acceptable for European audiences and American audiences, especially when also discussing Kubrick, keep in mind that A Clockwork Orange is still banned in England.
I saw Eyes Wide Shut. I loved it. I did think the digital figures were distracting, but I don't think that I missed out on an important part of the film because of them. If Eyes Wide Shut had received an NC-17 rating, it would have been written off by many people as a porn film, which would have been more unfortunate than having the digital figures inserted. If that were the case, the vast majority of people who watched it would be hoping for a porn film, and would have been greatly disappointed (like the huge numbers of college students who cheered when Nicole Kidman undressed but slept through much of the rest of the movie in the theatre I saw it at).
At any rate, if the digital figures bother you that much, take heart. I'm sure that an uncut version will be available on video. BTW, would anyone be so kind as to post a link to the NPR story?
This article certainly carries the attitude that many BSD users seem to have -- that BSD of for real users, users with experience, users who care more about a robust, secure OS than what's currently hip; and that Linux users are "hackers" who jumped on the Linux bandwagon because it's the hip thing to do among hackers, rather than because Linux carries any advantages as an OS.
The truth is, Linux carries with it several advantages that the article only hints at. The article mentions the splits in BSD, but it doesn't discuss the problems these splits carry with them. It's nice to know that with Linux, when a new feature or better security is added to the kernel, that feature will be available to every users on many different platforms. I am certainly not an expert on BSD, so I'd appreciate it if someone who is more knowledgeable than I would tell me how often developments in FreeBSD are integrated into the development tree of NetBSD, for example.
Personally, I prefer Linux. As a student at a large university, I'm surrounded by Linux experts. I couldn't say the same about BSD. The other main advantage that Linux has for me is the applications that are being ported to Linux more and more. However, I would be willing to switch to BSD if I saw clear advantages. Unfortunately, this article seemed to be more interested in cashing in on the Linux hype by subtly bashing Linux rather than presenting the real advantages.
Close, but not quite. The bald eagle is still on the endagered species list, but about a month ago it was announced that their population is recovering nicely, and will probably be removed from the list in about a year.
3 year old? My fetus can turn on the computer, log in, and use ed (it thinks vi's for simpletons).
That's hilarious! What's up with the -1 score? Do people honestly think this is a troll?
"In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic"
--Homer Simpson
Why should this be such a surprise? There are 2 reasons that Netscape released the source to Mozilla:
/.ers, but that Netscape failed to recognize, is that good software cannot be produced quickly and cheaply (when time is viewed as having monetary value). Mozilla is going to be good software. When it is released, anyone who values quality and hasn't been totally brainwashed by MS will eventually choose it over IE. If AOL/Netscape had any courage, they would stick it out. The delay on Mozilla's release is a major setback, but the quality of the final release of Mozilla will more than make up for that.
1) They thought that releasing the source would result in a better product, developed quickly, at less cost to them. After all, most of the work was going to be done by volunteers.
and, more important,
2) Netscape recognized OSS as being The Next Big thing. By releasing the source, not only would Netscape get the image of a cutting-edge, daring company, but it could guarantee that it would be mentioned in nearly every article about OSS software.
Well, 1 obviously didn't happen, and 2 is partly true, but the press exposure is getting less favourable. The truth that is probably obvious to most
Disclaimer: All critisisms of Netscape are referring to upper management's decisions, not the people actually working on Mozilla.
"3) The government has no more right to determine my "morality" than YOU do"
What the hell are you talking about? Enforcing morality is one of the main functions of government. If the government does not have a right to "determine morality," then how can we justify murder being illegal? After, some people may have no moral objection to murder.
"favoring any religion in any way is against the Consitution"
Umm, where does it say that? The Constitution forbids a "state religion," but showing favouritism to a religion and making that religion the state religion are two different things. Not that I think the government should favour a certain religion.
I don't think we're going to see any real work with Mozilla source code by people outside Netscape for a little while yet. One of the real benefits of having the souce code available is that it will now be much easier to embed a web browser in all sorts of applications...with the added bonus of being able to modify the browser that is embedded (something that isn't possible with IE and OLE/ActiveX ).