I was doing some research at a public library recently and found that one of the sites I was trying to access was blocked (I think it was deja.com of all things, go figure). I just told the librarian about it and she removed the filtering at that site. No biggie.
Are you really a libertarian? According to the Slashdot article, Bush favors filters for government-funded libraries . That doesn't limit freedom. Now, if you're really a libertarian, then you should be in favor of no government funding of libraries, which in effect filters out "all" web pages from government-funded libraries (since there wouldnt' be any). Of course, going by both the libertarian position as well as what Bush said, private citizens are able to view whatever web pages they'd like to, on their own dime or on the dime of any private library benefactors — just not the taxpayers'. I can live with that, but it sounds like you'd be able to view a whole Hell of a lot fewer web pages at the taxpayers' expense if we ever had a true libertarian government than you would with a Bush administration.
As someone with libertarian leanings, I find it annoying when people latch onto their pet issues and fail to understand the core values.
Cheers,
Re:VA Linux Needs to Buy Deja
on
Deja For Sale
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and buying 1,000,000 MMF posts would fit in well with VA Linux's earlier purchase of 1,000,000 "Mae Ling Mak naked and petrified!" posts.:)
Well, I think excellence is gonna be in the eye of the beholder, so that's why I didn't really focus on that part. Ethically, I think they're rotten at the core, but that's pretty unavoidable when you have someone like David Talbot as Editor in Chief (I'm assuming that he still is) — and I'm just talking their journalistic ethics here, not their history of sketchy business ethics. As far as excellence, it's a total judgement call, but I think they have a lot of things worth reading there, especially Camille Paglia, some good in-depth articles (when they're not mired in shallow/sloppy academic left thinking) and their Survivor and Big Brother recaps were a riot.
I might have flamed him as such before, but in honesty I have a hard time believing that Katz is so stupid to believe that what he wrote is what Bush was trying to say. He's just distorting his words, although I'm not exactly sure why — is it to be some hero to young people by ripping into some older folks (Gore and Bush) just because they don't have the same intimacy with technology the way that younger people today do? (I can't help but wonder if there's a Slashdot clone out there, based on say, farming, and the Jon Katz over there is going nuts because one of the candidates couldn't name the price of a new tractor. "Ha, what a boob! And he's gonna be our next president?!")
I also think it's especially poignant to see Katz using distortions to slam one of the candidates when that candidate is actually giving the same message that Katz was trying to put out there with his endless Hellmouth series. "Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, 'We love you'....[T]here's a larger law: Love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself." Of course, we all know how terribly uncool it would be to have someone say "We love you" to you, and coolness and cheap political slams are always more important than making someone feel good about themselves, right?
Nothing will kill Gnutella off any faster than if they implemented this. As people already knew, and the Xerox study just confirmed, these kinds of kiddies generally don't like the "giving" part of the whole sharing equation — they just stick to the "taking" part. They'd quickly move to a different theft device if this were ever implemented.
Why isn't there any quality, "legal" content on any of these file sharing services?
Because if it's legal, people will happily stick it on their website, amid more context than a mere filename. If they're dealing in porn and illegal music or software, most people want as little recognition as possible. (Think of the proud lighting on the works of art in the Louvre versus the way cockroaches scurry when you turn a light on 'em.
One contained just the bug fixes that SE also included. It did not include Internet Connection Sharing or other "New Features". That was the cheap one.
That was just the 98 Service Pack 1, avaiable on CD for $5.95, or freely downloadable.
Upgrading from Win98 to Win98SE has always costed around $90 list.
Not true. $19.95 list. It was originally called "Step-Up," although I think they changed the name of it right before release. Here's some info.
Actually, I don't think any state bar has an effect, because I'm pretty sure that you don't need to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If you've got a corrupt SCOTUS member, the recourse is pretty much the same as with presidents: Impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate. If two-thirds (I think) of the Senate votes to convict, the Justice is history.
What wasn't objective or constructive about my post? If someone wants to make a story that someone might've been tilted to vote for Microsoft because of family, it should certainly be pointed out that the single vote had absolutely no effect on the outcome. As far as any cause I might have, it's just the truth and my own entertainment.
You might not like the sides that I choose to ridicule (my "bias"), but I don't go around making things up, blatantly or otherwise — if I don't know something, it doesn't embarrass me to ask. Hell, I'd probably have half the number of posts around here if I didn't have so much material to work from, i.e., blatantly obvious mistruths. Actually, that would be some great advice for the people who hate my posts around here — "the more truth you post, the less you'll see that nasty ol' Zico around here.":)
As far as ad-hominems go, I generally won't flame someone with an open mind, and it's usually done to make a point (whether your agree with it or not) about why I think they're wrong — not for their benefit, but so that later readers can see just why the original poster might not be right. If the later readers ignore it because they don't want to deal with the flames, I can appreciate that, and so be it. Until someone wants to start paying me to make dry critiques of other posts, I'm going to stick to doing what's fun for me.
Since you say it's only a matter of time before my true nature is revealed, I'll leave it up to you to wonder why, that of my other two replies that I made in the story before your post appeared, neither of those flamed the poster, either. Hint: It's because even though the people to whom I was replying wouldn't be "on my side" here at Slashdot, they were rational and didn't make things up, and so there was absolutely no reason to flame them.
As far as "too bad" for me, I'm satisfied that enough people see my posts (Hell, I get replied to and moderated up and down enough;) ), and I know that it's just not possible to have everyone here happy with you, anyway — just ask Taco or Hemos.
If you really wanna seriously discuss this, I'm game, otherwise I'm dragging and dropping all flames to the Recycle Bin, because this is without a doubt (Score:-8, Offtopic).
It's a spanking because the ruling went against the DoJ by a vote of 8 to 1. How is that not a spanking? Sure, they could end up voting 9-0 on the case itself sometime next year, but this article's about the appeal ruling, not on the case itself, not about whether or not Steve Balmer should sport a comb-over, and not about whether or not Bill Gates could beat Steve Jobs at armwrestling. On the issue of whether or not the appeals court would view the case before it possibly goes to the Supreme Court, the DoJ got spanked.
Actually, it is pretty important in the long term, and is why the DoJ was so desperate to have it go directly to the Supremes. The reason for that is because the Appeals Court has almost seemed to have taken glee in smacking down Judge Jackson's rulings. Plus, they're probably going to be annoyed that Jackson passed them over for the Supreme Court despite their request to take the appeal themselves, so they might have even more incentive to destroy the Judge's pro-DoJ findings.
...and that's why Rehnquist is on the Supreme Court and Pugsley is teaching at the Southwestern University School of Law. Wait, ethics in Los Angeles??! Bwaahahahahah!!;)
"Software companies including Microsoft have in the past been accused of colluding with the NSA to provide backdoors into their applications." Am I the only one that doesn't find this surprising?
Uh, nobody finds that surprising.
There probably isn't a negative thing remaining that Slashdot hasn't accused Microsoft of having done.
When Jon Katz's new book comes out, I'll reserve a copy from the library and pay a kid down the street a penny a page to scan it for me. Then I'll turn it into HTML, eBook,.lit, text, PDF, etc. formats and stick it on a tripod.com website so that anyone who already owns a copy can download it into their favorite portable format.
I hope that he doesn't mind (I can't tell from his writing whether he would or not — he might genuinely appreciate it being made more accessible at no charge to him), but it doesn't really matter whether he does or not, because I'll be posting the copies regardless. (I think it's all right for me to borrow the book from the library rather than buy the book outright, since I won't be reading it myself.)
At least other people around here are finally beginning to see through their bullshit hype.
Now that that's been accomplished, I think I'll focus my efforts on teaching Slashdotters how to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLES before they post. That way they could avoid completely making complete asses out of themselves like they did in that NTFS/Linux Kernel debacle or the Chris DiBona/Outlook fiasco. I'm not optimistic, but the results will be worth it!
Heh, maybe they just sent out my version to the people posting on those "non-Compaq message boards." FWIW, mine was dated September 20 — what date do you have on the letter you saw?
Doesn't seem like Compaq really cares about the issue. Here's the response that Compaq has been mailing some of their customers today:
There have been a lot of calls and e-mails to Compaq,
as well as posts on non-Compaq message boards concerning
the iPAQ H3600 PocketPC and the ability of the unit to
recognize more than one application button being pressed
at a time.
The official answer on this is:
1. This is not a design flaw. The iPAQ Pocket PC was not designed to operate in this manner
and it is not feasible to alter the design to enable this capability.
2. Please understand that each Pocket PC hardware manufacturer designs
hardware differently.
3. Please also understand that because of this, software designers writing
applications for the Pocket PC OS have an obligation to test software with each OEM's
Pocket PC device that they claim to support before it is offered for sale.
Thank You,
Compaq eServices
Seems kind of odd that they would mention that there was discussion about this issue on "non-Compaq message boards," as if all those posts are somehow illegitimate and not worthy of consideration. Oh well...
The Game Boy emulator for CE shouldn't be a problem to port to the iPaq, but the gameplay for things like it and MAME-CE are very limited due to a serious flaw in the hardware (which will bite you no matter what OS you're running on the iPaq): The iPaq doesn't allow the joypad and any of the buttons to be pressed simultaneously, meaning that you can forget moving and jumping/firing at the same time. Pretty big limitation of you plan to use the GB emulator or MAME-CE, which works otherwise. Hopefully iPaq will get this right on their next models. FWIW, the Cassiopeias don't have this problem
You're going to have to be more subtle than that. In your effort to persuade people against Carnivore, you're creating an analogy where the FBI checking out your email is like having the government go around killing people because of their clothes. Bzzzzt. It's called a sense of proportion, look into it. Now, I wouldn't have modded you down or anything for it, but it looks like you really suckered some of the other ones into grading you up.
Also, I'm not sure why everyone thinks that pedophiles and terrorists are some masterminds who won't be caught by this. It seems like every week there's a news item about some pedophile who brought his computer in to be fixed and got nabbed when they found all the kiddie porn on his hard drive. I'm a little surprised that nobody ever complains about that here, 'cause it seems as nosy as carnivore to me, since it means that everyone's hard drives are scanned, not just people under suspicion.
Slashdot Mirror
I was doing some research at a public library recently and found that one of the sites I was trying to access was blocked (I think it was deja.com of all things, go figure). I just told the librarian about it and she removed the filtering at that site. No biggie.
Cheers,
Are you really a libertarian? According to the Slashdot article, Bush favors filters for government-funded libraries . That doesn't limit freedom. Now, if you're really a libertarian, then you should be in favor of no government funding of libraries, which in effect filters out "all" web pages from government-funded libraries (since there wouldnt' be any). Of course, going by both the libertarian position as well as what Bush said, private citizens are able to view whatever web pages they'd like to, on their own dime or on the dime of any private library benefactors — just not the taxpayers'. I can live with that, but it sounds like you'd be able to view a whole Hell of a lot fewer web pages at the taxpayers' expense if we ever had a true libertarian government than you would with a Bush administration.
As someone with libertarian leanings, I find it annoying when people latch onto their pet issues and fail to understand the core values.
Cheers,
Yeah, and buying 1,000,000 MMF posts would fit in well with VA Linux's earlier purchase of 1,000,000 "Mae Ling Mak naked and petrified!" posts. :)
Cheers,
Well, I think excellence is gonna be in the eye of the beholder, so that's why I didn't really focus on that part. Ethically, I think they're rotten at the core, but that's pretty unavoidable when you have someone like David Talbot as Editor in Chief (I'm assuming that he still is) — and I'm just talking their journalistic ethics here, not their history of sketchy business ethics. As far as excellence, it's a total judgement call, but I think they have a lot of things worth reading there, especially Camille Paglia, some good in-depth articles (when they're not mired in shallow/sloppy academic left thinking) and their Survivor and Big Brother recaps were a riot.
Cheers,
I might have flamed him as such before, but in honesty I have a hard time believing that Katz is so stupid to believe that what he wrote is what Bush was trying to say. He's just distorting his words, although I'm not exactly sure why — is it to be some hero to young people by ripping into some older folks (Gore and Bush) just because they don't have the same intimacy with technology the way that younger people today do? (I can't help but wonder if there's a Slashdot clone out there, based on say, farming, and the Jon Katz over there is going nuts because one of the candidates couldn't name the price of a new tractor. "Ha, what a boob! And he's gonna be our next president?!")
I also think it's especially poignant to see Katz using distortions to slam one of the candidates when that candidate is actually giving the same message that Katz was trying to put out there with his endless Hellmouth series. "Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, 'We love you'....[T]here's a larger law: Love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself." Of course, we all know how terribly uncool it would be to have someone say "We love you" to you, and coolness and cheap political slams are always more important than making someone feel good about themselves, right?
Cheers,
Nothing will kill Gnutella off any faster than if they implemented this. As people already knew, and the Xerox study just confirmed, these kinds of kiddies generally don't like the "giving" part of the whole sharing equation — they just stick to the "taking" part. They'd quickly move to a different theft device if this were ever implemented.
Cheers,
Why isn't there any quality, "legal" content on any of these file sharing services?
Because if it's legal, people will happily stick it on their website, amid more context than a mere filename. If they're dealing in porn and illegal music or software, most people want as little recognition as possible. (Think of the proud lighting on the works of art in the Louvre versus the way cockroaches scurry when you turn a light on 'em.
Cheers,
Heh, actually, this isn't the first time. Other oldbies might remember when Slashdot was hacked into back in 1998. (Story: http://slashdot.org/articles /98 /09/14/1949212.shtml)
Cheers,
One contained just the bug fixes that SE also included. It did not include Internet Connection Sharing or other "New Features". That was the cheap one.
That was just the 98 Service Pack 1, avaiable on CD for $5.95, or freely downloadable.
Upgrading from Win98 to Win98SE has always costed around $90 list.
Not true. $19.95 list. It was originally called "Step-Up," although I think they changed the name of it right before release. Here's some info.
Cheers,
Actually, I don't think any state bar has an effect, because I'm pretty sure that you don't need to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If you've got a corrupt SCOTUS member, the recourse is pretty much the same as with presidents: Impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate. If two-thirds (I think) of the Senate votes to convict, the Justice is history.
Cheers,
What wasn't objective or constructive about my post? If someone wants to make a story that someone might've been tilted to vote for Microsoft because of family, it should certainly be pointed out that the single vote had absolutely no effect on the outcome. As far as any cause I might have, it's just the truth and my own entertainment.
You might not like the sides that I choose to ridicule (my "bias"), but I don't go around making things up, blatantly or otherwise — if I don't know something, it doesn't embarrass me to ask. Hell, I'd probably have half the number of posts around here if I didn't have so much material to work from, i.e., blatantly obvious mistruths. Actually, that would be some great advice for the people who hate my posts around here — "the more truth you post, the less you'll see that nasty ol' Zico around here." :)
As far as ad-hominems go, I generally won't flame someone with an open mind, and it's usually done to make a point (whether your agree with it or not) about why I think they're wrong — not for their benefit, but so that later readers can see just why the original poster might not be right. If the later readers ignore it because they don't want to deal with the flames, I can appreciate that, and so be it. Until someone wants to start paying me to make dry critiques of other posts, I'm going to stick to doing what's fun for me.
Since you say it's only a matter of time before my true nature is revealed, I'll leave it up to you to wonder why, that of my other two replies that I made in the story before your post appeared, neither of those flamed the poster, either. Hint: It's because even though the people to whom I was replying wouldn't be "on my side" here at Slashdot, they were rational and didn't make things up, and so there was absolutely no reason to flame them.
As far as "too bad" for me, I'm satisfied that enough people see my posts (Hell, I get replied to and moderated up and down enough ;) ), and I know that it's just not possible to have everyone here happy with you, anyway — just ask Taco or Hemos.
If you really wanna seriously discuss this, I'm game, otherwise I'm dragging and dropping all flames to the Recycle Bin, because this is without a doubt (Score:-8, Offtopic).
Cheers,
It's a spanking because the ruling went against the DoJ by a vote of 8 to 1. How is that not a spanking? Sure, they could end up voting 9-0 on the case itself sometime next year, but this article's about the appeal ruling, not on the case itself, not about whether or not Steve Balmer should sport a comb-over, and not about whether or not Bill Gates could beat Steve Jobs at armwrestling. On the issue of whether or not the appeals court would view the case before it possibly goes to the Supreme Court, the DoJ got spanked.
Actually, it is pretty important in the long term, and is why the DoJ was so desperate to have it go directly to the Supremes. The reason for that is because the Appeals Court has almost seemed to have taken glee in smacking down Judge Jackson's rulings. Plus, they're probably going to be annoyed that Jackson passed them over for the Supreme Court despite their request to take the appeal themselves, so they might have even more incentive to destroy the Judge's pro-DoJ findings.
Cheers,
...and that's why Rehnquist is on the Supreme Court and Pugsley is teaching at the Southwestern University School of Law. Wait, ethics in Los Angeles??! Bwaahahahahah!! ;)
Cheers,
Take away Rehnquist's vote and the DoJ still gets spanked 7-1. But surely, the other seven are corrupt too, right?
Cheers,
After M$'s use of backdoors in Frontpage [...]
Okay, I'm up for a good conspiracy theorist laugh. Please explain what on earth you're talking about.
Cheers,
"Software companies including Microsoft have in the past been accused of colluding with the NSA to provide backdoors into their applications." Am I the only one that doesn't find this surprising?
Uh, nobody finds that surprising. There probably isn't a negative thing remaining that Slashdot hasn't accused Microsoft of having done.
Cheers,
When Jon Katz's new book comes out, I'll reserve a copy from the library and pay a kid down the street a penny a page to scan it for me. Then I'll turn it into HTML, eBook, .lit, text, PDF, etc. formats and stick it on a tripod.com website so that anyone who already owns a copy can download it into their favorite portable format.
I hope that he doesn't mind (I can't tell from his writing whether he would or not — he might genuinely appreciate it being made more accessible at no charge to him), but it doesn't really matter whether he does or not, because I'll be posting the copies regardless. (I think it's all right for me to borrow the book from the library rather than buy the book outright, since I won't be reading it myself.)
Cheers,
At least other people around here are finally beginning to see through their bullshit hype.
Now that that's been accomplished, I think I'll focus my efforts on teaching Slashdotters how to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLES before they post. That way they could avoid completely making complete asses out of themselves like they did in that NTFS/Linux Kernel debacle or the Chris DiBona/Outlook fiasco. I'm not optimistic, but the results will be worth it!
Cheers,
Heh, maybe they just sent out my version to the people posting on those "non-Compaq message boards." FWIW, mine was dated September 20 — what date do you have on the letter you saw?
Cheers,
Yes, I hear that they will now be focusing their efforts only on platforms which will make a profit for them. What a concept, eh? :)
Cheers,
Another conversion? Hotmail's already running on Windows — NT5/Win2K.
Cheers,
Doesn't seem like Compaq really cares about the issue. Here's the response that Compaq has been mailing some of their customers today:
Seems kind of odd that they would mention that there was discussion about this issue on "non-Compaq message boards," as if all those posts are somehow illegitimate and not worthy of consideration. Oh well...
Cheers,
The Game Boy emulator for CE shouldn't be a problem to port to the iPaq, but the gameplay for things like it and MAME-CE are very limited due to a serious flaw in the hardware (which will bite you no matter what OS you're running on the iPaq): The iPaq doesn't allow the joypad and any of the buttons to be pressed simultaneously, meaning that you can forget moving and jumping/firing at the same time. Pretty big limitation of you plan to use the GB emulator or MAME-CE, which works otherwise. Hopefully iPaq will get this right on their next models. FWIW, the Cassiopeias don't have this problem
Cheers,
Didn't you hear? They didn't think that Mozilla was late enough already, so they've now started to integrate The GIMP into the codebase. :)
Cheers,
You're going to have to be more subtle than that. In your effort to persuade people against Carnivore, you're creating an analogy where the FBI checking out your email is like having the government go around killing people because of their clothes. Bzzzzt. It's called a sense of proportion, look into it. Now, I wouldn't have modded you down or anything for it, but it looks like you really suckered some of the other ones into grading you up.
Also, I'm not sure why everyone thinks that pedophiles and terrorists are some masterminds who won't be caught by this. It seems like every week there's a news item about some pedophile who brought his computer in to be fixed and got nabbed when they found all the kiddie porn on his hard drive. I'm a little surprised that nobody ever complains about that here, 'cause it seems as nosy as carnivore to me, since it means that everyone's hard drives are scanned, not just people under suspicion.
Cheers,