from the we-need-a-megalomaniacal-leader-for-a-change dept
For a change?
-(())
What are you interested in nowdays?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 1
You've clearly been through some rather trying circumstances. What are your interests now, and how did they change from before your arrest, to your incarceration, and continuing to after your release?
(Hope you're doing another tour sometime--missed you in SoCal.)
Ok. So you have to provide source when you redistribute.
One thing I could never figure out, though, is this: If you only release (i.e. sell) some modified GPL code to a few sources (i.e. customers), then are you obligated to provide source to the public at large, or just the few customers?
I feel that making proprietary changes to GPL code that you keep (at least temporarily) proprietary is a great business model for certain projects, possibly the best model for certain things.
Ethan Galstad:
I would be willing to do work for a company that wanted unpublished changes made to Nagios if the final product was marketed in a way that didn't violate the GPL. An ASP that might use the modified app to sell a service rather than the actual software itself would be a good example of this.
I'm no GPL expert, but doesn't the GPL legally disallow proprietary changes to GPL'ed code? And I thought that there was an upcoming GPL change that was going to address the "ASP using GPL code for profit" thing? Anything happen with that?
This ignores, I think, one of the core values that the record companies bring to the table - screening out the huge amount of unlistenable crap that's out there.
No kidding. If you need special paper, then how is this really much different than writing on a graphics tablet?
Because the special paper allows the system to algorithmically determine *which* sheet of paper you're writing on at the time, and where on that paper. So you can have paper that has checkmarks that say "fax this" or "email this" and the software knows what to do. Or, you could have a dayrunner know what and where you scheduled something and sync with Outlook. Lotsa possibilities.
-(())
Re:Okay, let me get this straight...
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
Now, let's get this straight. I think you're missing the point. Haikus are fun, no?
--()
Lack of viable business plan is *so* pre-bust
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
So--Habeas, Inc?
Fuckedcompany has no link.
Deadpool, here I come.
I've long held that if Google charged, I'd be in trouble. "How come," you ask? Well--Google is simply the best. There's nobody else there that comes close.
Think about it: how many times per day do you use Google/Google Groups? As for me, it's a bunch.
I must conclude that, if Google charged, I'd be forced to pay.
Readers were stunned to learn that Jon Katz, "controversial" columnist at the declining website slashdot.org, posted an article that questioned the use of technology.
The article in question, titled "War: What Can Technology Do for Us?" shocked any remaining readers by suggesting that technology may, in fact, not be a panacea for the ills that plague humanity.
Slashdot.org refused to comment when contacted. A reply was received by Katz, however the text of Katz's reply is unfortunately too lengthy to reprint.
I'm tired of hearing one candidate make a claim as to the efficiency of his plan, or the inefficiency of his opponent's, or some other claim to "facts" about himself or his opponent WITHOUT GIVING REFERENCES!
Even the lowliest high-school debate participant knows that without references, he or she is toast. For all I know, all the numbers I hear thrown out by the candidates are fiction. Why don't you attribute these to a particular study, so they're verifiable? If not, I know *I'm* not just taking your word for it.
Presidential candidates, I'm sure, aren't exactly blessed with large amounts of spare time. Why did you feel that responding to these questions was a productive use of your time?
Many of the readers here, I suspect, are tired of candidates spewing positions that could be lifted from the party handbook--that is, with no new ideas, no originality--just "the party line".
In what ways are you a free-thinking individual and *not* just a replaceable member of Party X?
The United States currently, as you probably know, has a "rather large" national debt. As of 10/11/00, this debt totaled $5,660,113,029,266.52 according to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/op d/opdpenny.htm. This worries me, and I suspect does the same to many of my contemporaries. It would seem that these prosperous times are the best to consider beginning to pay this off.
What is your plan to reduce our national debt, and how long would it take under your plan to pay this off?
This man does not share the belief that most/.ers have, that being, the government in inherently evil and trying to screw us over.
Ok. Maybe you don't believe this. But I believe it. And many other people believe it.
I don't believe it. The government is not inherently evil. Capable of great evil, yes. But by itself, it just is. The government is made up of individuals, each of which is capable of making the wrong decision--as we have all seen many times. The reviewer does not, IMO, believe that the government will heed this review because of an enlightened sense of morality; he said that it was in the best interest of the government and of the reviewers to ensure a fair report. I happen to agree with that assessment. I also agree with the general sentiment that if there were a concerted effort towards a coverup, it may be hard to detect (given the level of secrecy around the issue)--and that's a shame. There is a need for secrecy, but the technologies here are pretty easily fathomed--it's not rocket science!
The man's being asked to do a job. He'll do it. And he honestly believes that there will be no problems with issuing his report afterwards. And, you know? He's right.
Ah.... I don't know. "Security" and "avoidance of embarassment" are very easily interchangeable.
There may be problems, and toes stepped on, but the fact remains that significant public outcry exists. It is not in the government's interest to look like the bad guy, and more importantly, it isn't in the reviewers' interest to not be impartial. (Cynical comments about impartial reviewers having good prospects for employment these days are obvious, here)
The government isn't always out to screw us, people. Don't go bashing the guy for his point of view.
I'm not going to bash him, but I believe he's not suspicious enough. I might trust him as a person, but I'm still not going to trust his report.
Healthy suspicion doesn't have to look like paranoia. The government has a lot wrong with it, but even more is right. The fact that we can have this debate at all is evidence of the things we're doing right. Our government isn't supressing unpopular views! It's (in a fashion) welcoming them! It's far from perfect, but public opinion does get heard, and even acted upon. If the government was really out to screw you, you'd be dead. You're not, so we can happily argue about it.:)
-(())
Re:Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from?
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
What this is more similar to, as a case, is radio stations. RIAA's clientele already have vast quantities of precedent for radio stations retransmitting their material, and there's a thing called a 'license agreement' that a radio network must agree to before it can broadcast the latest Britney song... RIAA is arguing that MP3.COM have violated copyrights, much the same way that a Pirate Radio station would have done, by broadcasting material for which they (MP3) haven't obtained a right to use from RIAA's clientele...
Mp3.com does have applicable licences (ASCAP, etc.) that allow them to play licensed music, just as any restaurant, bar, or store has to have to do the same. Don't remember the link, but I *do* remember reading it.
Many of your educational missives seem to focus on the tools you use. AOLserver and TCL work, and so do alternatives.
On the other hand, the ArsDigita University *seems* to be promoting more of a concepts-based learning environment in addition to teaching the tools of the (your) trade.
I know that both skills with tools and skill with theory are both desirable; which would you sacrifice, had you have to make the choice? I suspect you'd rather have a theoretical type that needed to brush up on the tools than vice versa, but the content of your pages makes me occasionally question this conclusion. Does this situation come up in your own hiring practices?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you call someone, and pretend to be someone they trust in order to get information that you're not supposed to have.
Hey, I'm sure you're a good guy and all, but that statement is a bit much.
-(())
YHBT. HTH. HAND.
-(()) (geez, wasn't it obvious?)
For a change?
-(())
You've clearly been through some rather trying circumstances. What are your interests now, and how did they change from before your arrest, to your incarceration, and continuing to after your release?
(Hope you're doing another tour sometime--missed you in SoCal.)
-(())
Ok. So you have to provide source when you redistribute.
One thing I could never figure out, though, is this: If you only release (i.e. sell) some modified GPL code to a few sources (i.e. customers), then are you obligated to provide source to the public at large, or just the few customers?
-(())
bhsx:
I feel that making proprietary changes to GPL code that you keep (at least temporarily) proprietary is a great business model for certain projects, possibly the best model for certain things.
Ethan Galstad:
I would be willing to do work for a company that wanted unpublished changes made to Nagios if the final product was marketed in a way that didn't violate the GPL. An ASP that might use the modified app to sell a service rather than the actual software itself would be a good example of this.
I'm no GPL expert, but doesn't the GPL legally disallow proprietary changes to GPL'ed code? And I thought that there was an upcoming GPL change that was going to address the "ASP using GPL code for profit" thing? Anything happen with that?
-(())
Steve Jobs may disagree.
-(())
-(())
-(())
perfect 10, fhm, and maxim excluded of course.
No need, buddy, no need... -(())
Because the special paper allows the system to algorithmically determine *which* sheet of paper you're writing on at the time, and where on that paper. So you can have paper that has checkmarks that say "fax this" or "email this" and the software knows what to do. Or, you could have a dayrunner know what and where you scheduled something and sync with Outlook. Lotsa possibilities.
-(())
Now, let's get this straight.
I think you're missing the point.
Haikus are fun, no?
--()
So--Habeas, Inc?
Fuckedcompany has no link.
Deadpool, here I come.
-(())
I don't know where you're from, but on my planet, H2G2 is a reference material.
-(())
Think about it: how many times per day do you use Google/Google Groups? As for me, it's a bunch.
I must conclude that, if Google charged, I'd be forced to pay.
-(())
Readers were stunned to learn that Jon Katz, "controversial" columnist at the declining website slashdot.org, posted an article that questioned the use of technology.
The article in question, titled "War: What Can Technology Do for Us?" shocked any remaining readers by suggesting that technology may, in fact, not be a panacea for the ills that plague humanity.
Slashdot.org refused to comment when contacted. A reply was received by Katz, however the text of Katz's reply is unfortunately too lengthy to reprint.
I'm tired of hearing one candidate make a claim as to the efficiency of his plan, or the inefficiency of his opponent's, or some other claim to "facts" about himself or his opponent WITHOUT GIVING REFERENCES!
Even the lowliest high-school debate participant knows that without references, he or she is toast. For all I know, all the numbers I hear thrown out by the candidates are fiction. Why don't you attribute these to a particular study, so they're verifiable? If not, I know *I'm* not just taking your word for it.
-(())
Presidential candidates, I'm sure, aren't exactly blessed with large amounts of spare time. Why did you feel that responding to these questions was a productive use of your time?
-(())
Many of the readers here, I suspect, are tired of candidates spewing positions that could be lifted from the party handbook--that is, with no new ideas, no originality--just "the party line".
In what ways are you a free-thinking individual and *not* just a replaceable member of Party X?
-(())
Boxers or briefs?
-(())
The United States currently, as you probably know, has a "rather large" national debt. As of 10/11/00, this debt totaled $5,660,113,029,266.52 according to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov /op d/opdpenny.htm. This worries me, and I suspect does the same to many of my contemporaries. It would seem that these prosperous times are the best to consider beginning to pay this off.
What is your plan to reduce our national debt, and how long would it take under your plan to pay this off?
-(())
I don't believe it. The government is not inherently evil. Capable of great evil, yes. But by itself, it just is. The government is made up of individuals, each of which is capable of making the wrong decision--as we have all seen many times. The reviewer does not, IMO, believe that the government will heed this review because of an enlightened sense of morality; he said that it was in the best interest of the government and of the reviewers to ensure a fair report. I happen to agree with that assessment. I also agree with the general sentiment that if there were a concerted effort towards a coverup, it may be hard to detect (given the level of secrecy around the issue)--and that's a shame. There is a need for secrecy, but the technologies here are pretty easily fathomed--it's not rocket science!
The man's being asked to do a job. He'll do it. And he honestly believes that there will be no problems with issuing his report afterwards. And, you know? He's right.
There may be problems, and toes stepped on, but the fact remains that significant public outcry exists. It is not in the government's interest to look like the bad guy, and more importantly, it isn't in the reviewers' interest to not be impartial. (Cynical comments about impartial reviewers having good prospects for employment these days are obvious, here)
The government isn't always out to screw us, people. Don't go bashing the guy for his point of view.
Healthy suspicion doesn't have to look like paranoia. The government has a lot wrong with it, but even more is right. The fact that we can have this debate at all is evidence of the things we're doing right. Our government isn't supressing unpopular views! It's (in a fashion) welcoming them! It's far from perfect, but public opinion does get heard, and even acted upon. If the government was really out to screw you, you'd be dead. You're not, so we can happily argue about it.
-(())
'an experiment... Can you make a Unix systems administrator into a fictional character who people will find compelling?'
BOFH? Pitr?
-(())
Mp3.com does have applicable licences (ASCAP, etc.) that allow them to play licensed music, just as any restaurant, bar, or store has to have to do the same. Don't remember the link, but I *do* remember reading it.
-(())
Many of your educational missives seem to focus on the tools you use. AOLserver and TCL work, and so do alternatives.
On the other hand, the ArsDigita University *seems* to be promoting more of a concepts-based learning environment in addition to teaching the tools of the (your) trade.
I know that both skills with tools and skill with theory are both desirable; which would you sacrifice, had you have to make the choice? I suspect you'd rather have a theoretical type that needed to brush up on the tools than vice versa, but the content of your pages makes me occasionally question this conclusion. Does this situation come up in your own hiring practices?
-(())