Re:Yet Heroin will NEVER be legalized
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 2
By that measure, water is equally lethal.
My guess would be that water is actually quite a bit more lethal than heroin. I've heard it said that you can drown in a half cup of water -- and yet, certain irresponsible docters recommed we drink eight cups of the vile stuff a day! Think of the children!
Nintendo of America ALWAYS believed their audience was dumber, and inferior to their japanese market. I can sight NUMEROUS examples...
Well, hopefully they never expect us to learn how to spell. I did not see any of the examples you sighted. It sure would be nice if you would cite them, so I could see them, too.
Re:Yet Heroin will NEVER be legalized
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
Silly question: why didn't everyone die a century ago when they were legal?
This reason makes the GPL a contract between you and anyone who wants to use it: If you use this, be nice and share back.
But let me ask this question: wouldn't this work without the viral part of the GPL?
Of course not -- that is the viral part of the GPL. The part of the GPL you seem to be protesting is the one that gives others the right to use your code if and only if they are willing to "share back." If they don't want to share, they don't get the code. You're essentially asking, "can't I get the viral part, without the viral part?"
Wouldn't this work if there were simply a requirement that open code that is modified must have its modifications/improvements returned back to the community, but if it is part of a closed whole the closed whole may remain?
That is exactly what the GPL already does! That is the viral part of the GPL. Which do you want? The viral bit? Or not the viral bit? You can modify GPL code all you want. And as long as you don't distribute anything, you're under no obligation to release anything. But once you open up the code, and distribute it, it has to go back to the community.
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're definately trolling. You keep saying "I want the part of the GPL where people are forced to share if they want my code, without the part where they're forced to share if they want my code!" You're babbling nonsense, and I'm just feeding you right back. Sigh...
You were modded a troll because you made it so painfully obvious you've either not read anything by anyone who has any insight into the GPL, or you've chosen to ignore everything you do know.
Anyone who says, "The GPL's chief goal is its viral nature, not its copyleft. The BSD license is just as good at keeping code open and it is not viral." clearly has no idea what the copyleft is, or what distinguishes it from the BSD license. Moreover, since you apparently have access to the internet, and enough time to post on slashdot, you have access to all the documentation you would ever need to enlighten yourself.
Since you've chosen not to, you're either a troll or a blissful ignoramus. It is possible to have a rational discussion about the copyleft. It's clear you're not interested in having one.
The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community."
No, it says, "You may only use this GPL code if you give other people the same rights to use your code." (It's a recursive license. I like recursion.)
You may be pissed off that someone has said "you can use my code, but only if I can use yours," but you don't need to play with those people. It's a free world -- you can certainly go out and find people who play under the rules you like; if no-one plays with rules you like, perhaps you should spend some time figuring out why your rules don't work, either, instead of bitching about someone else's rules.
You could finally ride, as a hobo, from buenos aires to bangkok. That is a lot of terrirtory connected by ultra cheap transportation.
That would be a pretty good trick, since you I believe you can't currently ride from Buenos Aires to Chicago, or Chicago to Fairbanks. Are the Russians going to install a few hundred billion dollars worth of rail line in Canada and South America, too?
A rail connection from western Europe to the contiguous United States, under the Bering Sea would be a looooong way -- perhaps 10,000 miles? That's not an overnite train ride, even at 300 mph. And for the vast majority of people in the US and Europe, spending two or three days on a train would cost well over the price of a plane ticket's worth of lost wages.
(Understand that it takes three full days to get from Boston to Seattle by passenger rail. Passenger rail service west of Ohio is basically non-existant in the United States. A few very heavily subsidized lines are run, but slowly, and with irregular and infrequent schedules. And for most of the United States, passenger air travel is much cheaper for passengers, even after the very heavy govt. subsidies on rail. Moreover, I can't find any passenger rail from the lower 48 states to Alaska at all, and I doubt it exists, and I couldn't imagine a situation where it would ever be built.)
So, are you saying that if the aliens had three fingers on each hand and foot, they'd use the imperial measurements of three + three + three + three = twelve inches to a foot? And three feet to a yard?
Because, then, you see, for the aliens, feet would be nice since they exploit the power of three, and base three might be intuitive to aliens. Wow. I'm glad we haven't converted in the US yet. We're getting ready for our alien masters!
/. is known for horrible reporting and reporting old news more than once.
I don't mind the occassional story about Perl 6, or Microsoft's.NET platform, or even an in-depth interview with Carmack about what he's working on nowdays.
I just wish they'd stop linking to marketing material for unreleased and unimportant products. This story contains no real information about a game may never be released, will not break any new ground, and which most of us may never bother to play. That doesn't count as "news for nerds" in my book. And linking to marketing material because it incidentally contains both the words "BeOS" and "Linux" is just palm-hair growing masturbation, any way that you look at it.
No. Go back and read what was written, dickhead. The interview mentions BeOS in exactly one place (a parenthetical aside, no less). The game's technical spec's page doesn't mention BeOS at all, and only mentions Linux once.
Again, this Slashdot "story" is not about a game being released for BeOS or Linux. This "story" is just Hemos creaming his pants because the president of a big, important game company incidentally mentioned BeOS in a press release about a game that may or may not ever be released for any platform, much less Linux, BeOS, or even Macintosh.
In the event you consume more than 30kbp/s of sustained peak traffic within any 24 hour period of time, for any month, a fee of $1 per 1kbp/s will be billed to your account
I am completely clueless what a "kbp/s" is, or how "sustained peak traffic" might be measured.
He may mean something like "an average of 30 kbit per second over a 24 hour period", but that really would mean about 324 megabytes in a 24 hour period. Of course, there's no way to know exactly what he does mean, and he does say "wusage statistics are not accurate enough for you to determine your own total bandwidth", so its not at all clear what tools he's using to measure bandwith, or what exactly they are supposed to measure, or how they measure it.
The fact of the matter is that if you blow a date, then something went wrong somewhere.
This is true only if the date given to the world and the date used internally are the same date. There's no reason at all that they should be, though -- remember, release dates are provided by the marketing department. Even Linus, when he says "hopefully early December," is wearing his marketing hat, and not his developers hat.
There's nothing at all wrong with this behaviour, unless you think there's something "wrong" with marketing. Telling the world you're going to release Super-Itanium-Linux.NET v 3.0 on October 1, 2000, while simultaneously planning to actually release on October 1, 2005 is not a bad thing. People who base their lives around the release dates provided by marketing deserve the burning they get.
For an example of people confusing marketing with reality, I laughed when people here on Slashdot bitched and whined when RedHat released v7.0 without waiting for a stable gcc v3.0, stable Linux v2.4.0, stable KDE 2.0, or stable XFree86 v4.0. Christ people, get a clue -- RedHat had no way of knowing when or if those things are actually going to come out. It's OK if you're boneheaded enough to believe the hype on the release dates, but RedHat would be a very, very different company if they were dumb enough to do that.
I don't get this. It would be technologically trivial for the merchant to forward the credit card number and acount info off to the CC companies, and get back some a big n-bit number, consisting of enough information for the CC company to identify the card and the merchant authorized to use the card. Then, the merchant could totally forget the CC number forever, and just use the ugly number it got back from the CC company for any future correspondence with the CC company.
It's a long way from being a perfect system, but unlike other processes I could think of in the 30 seconds it took me to read the slashdot blurb, it wouldn't involve putting any additional software on the consumers machine, and it wouldn't involve any change in the habits of the consumer. And it wouldn't be painfully difficult to implement it for new e-commerce sites, and it wouldn't be particularly difficult to retrofit onto old e-commerce sites, either.
Oh well -- it wouldn't be much harder to implement a much more secure system than I described (i.e., the merchant wouldn't know the CC number either), but it seems credit card numbers are generally considered "disposable" by now, anyhow. There is certainly no effort made by anyone to actually keep the silly things secret.
I actually browsed thru the agreement they submitted to FCC.
Good god man... how could you read that stuff? It was a piss-poor scan of a low-quailty, 43 page FAX. My eyeballs nearly fell out of my head just looking at the first page. It would probably take me two or three hours to read that thing if I printed it out; it would take me a week if I tried to read it off the monitor. (I won't say anything about the abysmal typesetting -- I understand the reasons why people have convinced themselves that Microsoft Word produces documents that look "Good Enough", even if those reasons are all just a crock of shit.)
On the other hand, look on the bright side. If this is any indication of the technical compentency of the cable companies, we can look forward to plenty of ugly, poorly implemented and badly documented content protection schemes that will have more holes than swiss cheese, break randomly, and just generally annoy the piss out of everyone without doing anything they were meant to do.
Whoops... I should actually review my posts, before hitting submit.
What I meant to say was that you claim is that it is necessary for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it, while the Gore camp claims it is not sufficient for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it. I meant to add the most important point: these two statements do not contradict each other.
the machine counts only votes that are absolutely a positive vote.
Perhaps you should look at the definitions of "necessary" and "sufficient". Your claim is that it is necessary for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it.
The claim made by the Gore camp is that it wasn't sufficient for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it.
Even your claim is in dispute (by the by the manufacturers of the machine, no less), but that doesn't matter -- no-one provided any evidence to discard Gore's claim. Bush's lawyers didn't dispute it, and every court semed to assume it was true. The decisions always came down to other matters of law and fact.
But if you actually believe that the problem in Florida was with people who are "unable to read directions," then you've manged to shove your head very deep in the sand. Think about what actually happened some more, please.
We will eliminate the need for a refresh button by having a sophisticated internal update file system.
CmdrTaco, you should be ashamed. This isn't just a 3D GUI project by any strech of the imagination -- they're also writing a brand new file system. I can't wait!
And I see they've also developed a special "DWIM" (Do What I Mean) technology, too:
if you had folders that were not in view just move your cursor down to the bottom edge of the display box and the folder you want would automatically scroll up to your cursor.
Wow! I hope they get a patent on that, before Microsoft steals it from them!
Why did this get moderated down? It's the funniest thing I've read all day.
C'mon -- the guy called Salon less biased and better informed than the National Review. It was clear he was joking, even to me. And I'm a certified left-wing-pinko-yougurt-eating hippie. Hasn't anyone with mod points right now ever actually read the National Review or Salon?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the linux kernel should go up to 11.
By that measure, water is equally lethal.
My guess would be that water is actually quite a bit more lethal than heroin. I've heard it said that you can drown in a half cup of water -- and yet, certain irresponsible docters recommed we drink eight cups of the vile stuff a day! Think of the children!
Nintendo of America ALWAYS believed their audience was dumber, and inferior to their japanese market. I can sight NUMEROUS examples...
Well, hopefully they never expect us to learn how to spell. I did not see any of the examples you sighted. It sure would be nice if you would cite them, so I could see them, too.
Silly question: why didn't everyone die a century ago when they were legal?
With rare exceptions, they're all dead now.
This reason makes the GPL a contract between you and anyone who wants to use it: If you use this, be nice and share back.
But let me ask this question: wouldn't this work without the viral part of the GPL?
Of course not -- that is the viral part of the GPL. The part of the GPL you seem to be protesting is the one that gives others the right to use your code if and only if they are willing to "share back." If they don't want to share, they don't get the code. You're essentially asking, "can't I get the viral part, without the viral part?"
Wouldn't this work if there were simply a requirement that open code that is modified must have its modifications/improvements returned back to the community, but if it is part of a closed whole the closed whole may remain?
That is exactly what the GPL already does! That is the viral part of the GPL. Which do you want? The viral bit? Or not the viral bit? You can modify GPL code all you want. And as long as you don't distribute anything, you're under no obligation to release anything. But once you open up the code, and distribute it, it has to go back to the community.
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're definately trolling. You keep saying "I want the part of the GPL where people are forced to share if they want my code, without the part where they're forced to share if they want my code!" You're babbling nonsense, and I'm just feeding you right back. Sigh...
You were modded a troll because you made it so painfully obvious you've either not read anything by anyone who has any insight into the GPL, or you've chosen to ignore everything you do know.
Anyone who says, "The GPL's chief goal is its viral nature, not its copyleft. The BSD license is just as good at keeping code open and it is not viral." clearly has no idea what the copyleft is, or what distinguishes it from the BSD license. Moreover, since you apparently have access to the internet, and enough time to post on slashdot, you have access to all the documentation you would ever need to enlighten yourself.
Since you've chosen not to, you're either a troll or a blissful ignoramus. It is possible to have a rational discussion about the copyleft. It's clear you're not interested in having one.
The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community."
No, it says, "You may only use this GPL code if you give other people the same rights to use your code." (It's a recursive license. I like recursion.)
You may be pissed off that someone has said "you can use my code, but only if I can use yours," but you don't need to play with those people. It's a free world -- you can certainly go out and find people who play under the rules you like; if no-one plays with rules you like, perhaps you should spend some time figuring out why your rules don't work, either, instead of bitching about someone else's rules.
You could finally ride, as a hobo, from buenos aires to bangkok. That is a lot of terrirtory connected by ultra cheap transportation.
That would be a pretty good trick, since you I believe you can't currently ride from Buenos Aires to Chicago, or Chicago to Fairbanks. Are the Russians going to install a few hundred billion dollars worth of rail line in Canada and South America, too?
A rail connection from western Europe to the contiguous United States, under the Bering Sea would be a looooong way -- perhaps 10,000 miles? That's not an overnite train ride, even at 300 mph. And for the vast majority of people in the US and Europe, spending two or three days on a train would cost well over the price of a plane ticket's worth of lost wages.
(Understand that it takes three full days to get from Boston to Seattle by passenger rail. Passenger rail service west of Ohio is basically non-existant in the United States. A few very heavily subsidized lines are run, but slowly, and with irregular and infrequent schedules. And for most of the United States, passenger air travel is much cheaper for passengers, even after the very heavy govt. subsidies on rail. Moreover, I can't find any passenger rail from the lower 48 states to Alaska at all, and I doubt it exists, and I couldn't imagine a situation where it would ever be built.)
So, are you saying that if the aliens had three fingers on each hand and foot, they'd use the imperial measurements of three + three + three + three = twelve inches to a foot? And three feet to a yard?
Because, then, you see, for the aliens, feet would be nice since they exploit the power of three, and base three might be intuitive to aliens. Wow. I'm glad we haven't converted in the US yet. We're getting ready for our alien masters!
So... are you saying aliens don't use metric?
I don't mind the occassional story about Perl 6, or Microsoft's
I just wish they'd stop linking to marketing material for unreleased and unimportant products. This story contains no real information about a game may never be released, will not break any new ground, and which most of us may never bother to play. That doesn't count as "news for nerds" in my book. And linking to marketing material because it incidentally contains both the words "BeOS" and "Linux" is just palm-hair growing masturbation, any way that you look at it.
No. Go back and read what was written, dickhead. The interview mentions BeOS in exactly one place (a parenthetical aside, no less). The game's technical spec's page doesn't mention BeOS at all, and only mentions Linux once.
Again, this Slashdot "story" is not about a game being released for BeOS or Linux. This "story" is just Hemos creaming his pants because the president of a big, important game company incidentally mentioned BeOS in a press release about a game that may or may not ever be released for any platform, much less Linux, BeOS, or even Macintosh.
could someone moderate up the above post?
fifteen seconds into their Slashdotting, they're off the web
How could they be slashdotted? They're capable of serving out pages at over 9,047 kbp/s!
Usage: 9057kbp/s
Holy shit. If that means 9057 kbit / second (instead of the nonsensical 9057 kbp/s), this site managed to fill about 5 T1 lines.
Actually, in section III.A.3, guy is asking for:I am completely clueless what a "kbp/s" is, or how "sustained peak traffic" might be measured.
He may mean something like "an average of 30 kbit per second over a 24 hour period", but that really would mean about 324 megabytes in a 24 hour period. Of course, there's no way to know exactly what he does mean, and he does say "wusage statistics are not accurate enough for you to determine your own total bandwidth", so its not at all clear what tools he's using to measure bandwith, or what exactly they are supposed to measure, or how they measure it.
The fact of the matter is that if you blow a date, then something went wrong somewhere.
This is true only if the date given to the world and the date used internally are the same date. There's no reason at all that they should be, though -- remember, release dates are provided by the marketing department. Even Linus, when he says "hopefully early December," is wearing his marketing hat, and not his developers hat.
There's nothing at all wrong with this behaviour, unless you think there's something "wrong" with marketing. Telling the world you're going to release Super-Itanium-Linux.NET v 3.0 on October 1, 2000, while simultaneously planning to actually release on October 1, 2005 is not a bad thing. People who base their lives around the release dates provided by marketing deserve the burning they get.
For an example of people confusing marketing with reality, I laughed when people here on Slashdot bitched and whined when RedHat released v7.0 without waiting for a stable gcc v3.0, stable Linux v2.4.0, stable KDE 2.0, or stable XFree86 v4.0. Christ people, get a clue -- RedHat had no way of knowing when or if those things are actually going to come out. It's OK if you're boneheaded enough to believe the hype on the release dates, but RedHat would be a very, very different company if they were dumb enough to do that.
I don't get this. It would be technologically trivial for the merchant to forward the credit card number and acount info off to the CC companies, and get back some a big n-bit number, consisting of enough information for the CC company to identify the card and the merchant authorized to use the card. Then, the merchant could totally forget the CC number forever, and just use the ugly number it got back from the CC company for any future correspondence with the CC company.
It's a long way from being a perfect system, but unlike other processes I could think of in the 30 seconds it took me to read the slashdot blurb, it wouldn't involve putting any additional software on the consumers machine, and it wouldn't involve any change in the habits of the consumer. And it wouldn't be painfully difficult to implement it for new e-commerce sites, and it wouldn't be particularly difficult to retrofit onto old e-commerce sites, either.
Oh well -- it wouldn't be much harder to implement a much more secure system than I described (i.e., the merchant wouldn't know the CC number either), but it seems credit card numbers are generally considered "disposable" by now, anyhow. There is certainly no effort made by anyone to actually keep the silly things secret.
I actually browsed thru the agreement they submitted to FCC.
Good god man... how could you read that stuff? It was a piss-poor scan of a low-quailty, 43 page FAX. My eyeballs nearly fell out of my head just looking at the first page. It would probably take me two or three hours to read that thing if I printed it out; it would take me a week if I tried to read it off the monitor. (I won't say anything about the abysmal typesetting -- I understand the reasons why people have convinced themselves that Microsoft Word produces documents that look "Good Enough", even if those reasons are all just a crock of shit.)
On the other hand, look on the bright side. If this is any indication of the technical compentency of the cable companies, we can look forward to plenty of ugly, poorly implemented and badly documented content protection schemes that will have more holes than swiss cheese, break randomly, and just generally annoy the piss out of everyone without doing anything they were meant to do.
Whoops... I should actually review my posts, before hitting submit.
What I meant to say was that you claim is that it is necessary for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it, while the Gore camp claims it is not sufficient for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it. I meant to add the most important point: these two statements do not contradict each other.
the machine counts only votes that are absolutely a positive vote.
Perhaps you should look at the definitions of "necessary" and "sufficient". Your claim is that it is necessary for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it.
The claim made by the Gore camp is that it wasn't sufficient for a vote to be properly prepared for the machine to count it.
Even your claim is in dispute (by the by the manufacturers of the machine, no less), but that doesn't matter -- no-one provided any evidence to discard Gore's claim. Bush's lawyers didn't dispute it, and every court semed to assume it was true. The decisions always came down to other matters of law and fact.
But if you actually believe that the problem in Florida was with people who are "unable to read directions," then you've manged to shove your head very deep in the sand. Think about what actually happened some more, please.
And I see they've also developed a special "DWIM" (Do What I Mean) technology, too:Wow! I hope they get a patent on that, before Microsoft steals it from them!
Why did this get moderated down? It's the funniest thing I've read all day.
C'mon -- the guy called Salon less biased and better informed than the National Review. It was clear he was joking, even to me. And I'm a certified left-wing-pinko-yougurt-eating hippie. Hasn't anyone with mod points right now ever actually read the National Review or Salon?