If you really want to be outraged, you should go to IBM's patent search, set the search word to Microsoft, and the collection to U.S. Inventors & Companies. You'll get almost 800. You'll get 20 for just the last three months.
(Sorry, I tried a URL-encoded request, but they make it much more difficult than it has to be, probably for this very reason.)
So "Anonymous Coward" is a joke, eh? "Coward" is supposed to make us laugh, ma Taco belle?
Sure, assholes post using "Anonymous Coward". Assholes often (sometimes more often) post using a "real name", which is usually some stupid made up name (like this one). "Yeah, I'm a responsible macho man cuz I post with my real name and I don't care who flames me; I am a badd-ass mofo."
A couple of points:
Our Taco-mac-daddy may think the "Cowards" part is "funny" or a "joke". And maybe other anonymous posters agree. Well hey, let's make it totally hilarious and call them "Anonymous Niggarz", that'll be a hoot. All in jest, you know, and that term hardly offends anybody these days.
Use of the term "Cowards" implies and perpetuates a certain bias against anonymous posters. Need more proof of this bias? It turns out, apparently, that posts by "real people" are automatically given a score of one, whereas the "Anonymous Cowards" get a score of zero. I never noticed this before setting up an account.
In the US, anonymous speech is protected by the first amendment. In particuarly, political speech, such as anonymous pamphleteering, has recently been reaffirmed by the courts as protected speech. It is usually the only protection against the tyranny of the majority. This is not to say Rob MUST allow anonymous posting; it's his server, and he can pretty much do what he wants with it.
What what IS he doing with it? For one, he is recording your IP number every time you post, anonymously or not. (Use the source, Luke.) Why? The better to track you with, my dear, just in case you say something really unpopular, I suppose. You'd have to ask Rob why he'd want to be a target for some sue-happy bozo who decides they've got to know who wrote something uncomplementary about them. I guess if you're really paranoid, you could figure maybe the Feds (FBI, CIA, NSA, MiB) requested that he did do it for "legitimate law enforcement purposes". Hey, what better place to mine for crackers and other new talent?
So, here is how to really be anonymous on SlashDot:
First, you can avoid coughing up your IP by using an anonymizing web proxy that strips out your personal info.
Second, don't create a Slashdot account. Just stick it out with "Anonymous Coward"; It's less work, and you won't stand out. But if you want a name:
When you create your Slashdot account, you're required to give an e-mail address, obstensively to mail you your initial password. Now it could just tell you right there, or let you pick your own. The real purpose here is to provide another means for Rob to track you down. So, you have a couple of options:
Use one of those free e-mail services long enough to get the password. Make sure you use your anonymizing web proxy. HotMail and probably others log your IP, among other things.
Use a nymserver. This is the route I chose, to prove a point.
Third, when using your proxy, use it from a separate account (you have a Linux box, right? just make a new one). It's easier to maintain the settings you need in your browser that way. Otherwise, you need to make sure you refuse cookies from Slashdot. If you don't, the cookie Slashdot sends you when you post will reveal you once you turn the proxy back off (they tend to be too slow to leave on all the time). (Use the "Warn me before accepting a cookie" setting to see what I mean.)
So, remember this in case Rob has a change of heart and decides to ban anonymous postings all together, and you can still be anonymous.
Oh, and it wouldn't shock me in the least if this post disappeared, along with my account. If so, you can finger stupid at redneck dot efga dot org for my PGP key. My Slashdot account could disappear, but I won't.
Katz, I think you earned back a little respect, although the article seems like faint praise to me.
You'd figure that if the code is going to be sent out "over the Internet", it's going to use IP, probably UDP. Would it be broadcasted? No, you can't broadcast to the whole net for obvious reasons. You can broadcast to your local net (255.255.255.255), which routers are supposed to drop. You can broadcast to specific networks as well. Chances are, it will not be broadcasted but sent to a specific host (or perhaps a specific network) on a well-known port. If that's the case, filters in the router or firewall can keep it from being sent. Even if on Linux you had an app which tried to send to that port (I doubt this would ever get implemented into the kernel, though/proc/cpuinfo could be made to spit it out; the hypothetical/proc/cpuid should be root-readable only), you could use the kernel firewall rules to drop the packet.
OTOH, in a web browser, it could be embedded within the HTTP request. In that case, use a proxy server (squid) that can filter out the header. HTTPS is another story, over, however. Netscape allows a Security proxy. Presumably that uses HTTP to the proxy, which then does the encryption side. In that case, you could still filter the header (pre-encryption). So you run your own proxy on 127.0.0.1...
I don't think there is much chance of success (whatever "success" can be considered to be in this case), mainly because the Pentium III, as I understand it, is not a low-end consumer product. Perhaps in another year or so: The Pentium II is already nearly a low-end product. Net commerce that requires this chip-ID stuff is going to cut it's own throat, since they are excluding most of the computers out there.
Still, I would not buy a Pentium III because of this "feature", even if it is off by default. I'm not particularly a fan of the Intel architecture to begin with. As others have pointed out, this can be a boon for the Free Software/Open Source movement, since the "feature" is probably primarily a dongle for copy protection. "What, I have to buy my software all over again because I bought a new computer?!" If Intel wants to sink with Microsoft, that's their business...
Exponential growth is not sustainable. Eventually it will have to plateau out. The article predicts outstripping all Microsoft OSs in about four years. After that point, there will be relatively few people to assimilate, and the curve will start to flatten.
This gives us one to two years to develop the "killer" desktop, one that beats the Mac (a much better environment than Windoze, all stability issues aside). Linuxconf has come a long way, but needs more polishing, and COAS sounds promising. System configuration is probably still the area where the most improvement can be made. (I'm still getting a good feel for the new linuxconf that comes with RedHat 5.2, as I usually do my system configuration stuff with vi...) Will GNOME 2.0 (or KDE 3.0) be it?
Linux itself is rock-solid. We just need to make it a little more accessible for the clue-impaired. That, and help out the Wine developers, cut off Microsoft at the knees...
Your (and your wife) are presumably adults who ought to know that, if UPS (pronounced "oops") or any other shipper shows up with a package that looks damage, you should either refuse delivery outright, or immediately report damage once the package is opened, as the shipper is responsible for the package up to the point where you accept delivery for it. I really don't care what happens in the rest of the story; you just shot your own credibility, and I actually thought you had some to this point. Any computer ignorance you might have pales in comparison to this.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to be outraged, you should go to IBM's patent search, set the search word to Microsoft, and the collection to U.S. Inventors & Companies. You'll get almost 800. You'll get 20 for just the last three months.
(Sorry, I tried a URL-encoded request, but they make it much more difficult than it has to be, probably for this very reason.)
How? Will the probate court order a seance to contact your dead ass to notify you of this fact?
And at least have the guts to not be an "Anonymous Coward"
Oooh, is that why you use Hotmail? Is your last name really M?
(NT == no testicles == eunoch != UNIX)
So "Anonymous Coward" is a joke, eh? "Coward" is supposed to make us laugh, ma Taco belle?
Sure, assholes post using "Anonymous Coward". Assholes often (sometimes more often) post using a "real name", which is usually some stupid made up name (like this one). "Yeah, I'm a responsible macho man cuz I post with my real name and I don't care who flames me; I am a badd-ass mofo."
A couple of points:
Our Taco-mac-daddy may think the "Cowards" part is "funny" or a "joke". And maybe other anonymous posters agree. Well hey, let's make it totally hilarious and call them "Anonymous Niggarz", that'll be a hoot. All in jest, you know, and that term hardly offends anybody these days.
Use of the term "Cowards" implies and perpetuates a certain bias against anonymous posters. Need more proof of this bias? It turns out, apparently, that posts by "real people" are automatically given a score of one, whereas the "Anonymous Cowards" get a score of zero. I never noticed this before setting up an account.
In the US, anonymous speech is protected by the first amendment. In particuarly, political speech, such as anonymous pamphleteering, has recently been reaffirmed by the courts as protected speech. It is usually the only protection against the tyranny of the majority. This is not to say Rob MUST allow anonymous posting; it's his server, and he can pretty much do what he wants with it.
What what IS he doing with it? For one, he is recording your IP number every time you post, anonymously or not. (Use the source, Luke.) Why? The better to track you with, my dear, just in case you say something really unpopular, I suppose. You'd have to ask Rob why he'd want to be a target for some sue-happy bozo who decides they've got to know who wrote something uncomplementary about them. I guess if you're really paranoid, you could figure maybe the Feds (FBI, CIA, NSA, MiB) requested that he did do it for "legitimate law enforcement purposes". Hey, what better place to mine for crackers and other new talent?
So, here is how to really be anonymous on SlashDot:
First, you can avoid coughing up your IP by using an anonymizing web proxy that strips out your personal info.
Second, don't create a Slashdot account. Just stick it out with "Anonymous Coward"; It's less work, and you won't stand out. But if you want a name:
When you create your Slashdot account, you're required to give an e-mail address, obstensively to mail you your initial password. Now it could just tell you right there, or let you pick your own. The real purpose here is to provide another means for Rob to track you down. So, you have a couple of options:
Third, when using your proxy, use it from a separate account (you have a Linux box, right? just make a new one). It's easier to maintain the settings you need in your browser that way. Otherwise, you need to make sure you refuse cookies from Slashdot. If you don't, the cookie Slashdot sends you when you post will reveal you once you turn the proxy back off (they tend to be too slow to leave on all the time). (Use the "Warn me before accepting a cookie" setting to see what I mean.)
So, remember this in case Rob has a change of heart and decides to ban anonymous postings all together, and you can still be anonymous.
Oh, and it wouldn't shock me in the least if this post disappeared, along with my account. If so, you can finger stupid at redneck dot efga dot org for my PGP key. My Slashdot account could disappear, but I won't.
Katz, I think you earned back a little respect, although the article seems like faint praise to me.
You can still use zImage. bzImage is recommended, though. You generally get better compression, anyway. Makes no difference to lilo.
You'd figure that if the code is going to be sent out "over the Internet", it's going to use IP, probably UDP. Would it be broadcasted? No, you can't broadcast to the whole net for obvious reasons. You can broadcast to your local net (255.255.255.255), which routers are supposed to drop. You can broadcast to specific networks as well. Chances are, it will not be broadcasted but sent to a specific host (or perhaps a specific network) on a well-known port. If that's the case, filters in the router or firewall can keep it from being sent. Even if on Linux you had an app which tried to send to that port (I doubt this would ever get implemented into the kernel, though /proc/cpuinfo could be made to spit it out; the hypothetical /proc/cpuid should be root-readable only), you could use the kernel firewall rules to drop the packet.
OTOH, in a web browser, it could be embedded within the HTTP request. In that case, use a proxy server (squid) that can filter out the header. HTTPS is another story, over, however. Netscape allows a Security proxy. Presumably that uses HTTP to the proxy, which then does the encryption side. In that case, you could still filter the header (pre-encryption). So you run your own proxy on 127.0.0.1...
I don't think there is much chance of success (whatever "success" can be considered to be in this case), mainly because the Pentium III, as I understand it, is not a low-end consumer product. Perhaps in another year or so: The Pentium II is already nearly a low-end product. Net commerce that requires this chip-ID stuff is going to cut it's own throat, since they are excluding most of the computers out there.
Still, I would not buy a Pentium III because of this "feature", even if it is off by default. I'm not particularly a fan of the Intel architecture to begin with. As others have pointed out, this can be a boon for the Free Software/Open Source movement, since the "feature" is probably primarily a dongle for copy protection. "What, I have to buy my software all over again because I bought a new computer?!" If Intel wants to sink with Microsoft, that's their business...
Exponential growth is not sustainable. Eventually it will have to plateau out. The article predicts outstripping all Microsoft OSs in about four years. After that point, there will be relatively few people to assimilate, and the curve will start to flatten.
This gives us one to two years to develop the "killer" desktop, one that beats the Mac (a much better environment than Windoze, all stability issues aside). Linuxconf has come a long way, but needs more polishing, and COAS sounds promising. System configuration is probably still the area where the most improvement can be made. (I'm still getting a good feel for the new linuxconf that comes with RedHat 5.2, as I usually do my system configuration stuff with vi...) Will GNOME 2.0 (or KDE 3.0) be it?
Linux itself is rock-solid. We just need to make it a little more accessible for the clue-impaired. That, and help out the Wine developers, cut off Microsoft at the knees...
Your (and your wife) are presumably adults who ought to know that, if UPS (pronounced "oops") or any other shipper shows up with a package that looks damage, you should either refuse delivery outright, or immediately report damage once the package is opened, as the shipper is responsible for the package up to the point where you accept delivery for it. I really don't care what happens in the rest of the story; you just shot your own credibility, and I actually thought you had some to this point. Any computer ignorance you might have pales in comparison to this.