> So RedHat and Suse 'don't really count' as Linux?
Not for purposes of problems with distribution of problem packages. They are big enough to just pick up the phone and talk to the right person to make things work. But you won't find either JRE in Debian's unfree section for example, and they will distribute just about anything there. How about ya just to hit distrowatch and count the ones distributing a JRE or JDK. If they could many would. The fact that outside of RHEL and Suse, two per seat licensed distros, the number approximates zero says something.
No you can't. You may only distribute the runtime as a part of a larger software package that REQUIRES the JRE. What you can't do is distribute it with a Linux or BSD distribution. Which is why I don't have one installed right now, haven't felt any need to go through the bother just to see Java ads in my browser.
If anyone can explain Sun's logic behind restricting the widest possible distribution of the JRE I'd certainly love to hear it.
> The obvious response is "well, duh, if they are secret you wouldn't > know about them, would you?"
Well a Fed had better not be dumb enough to try that trick on us. Because I'd be asshat enough to reply something along the lines of:
"Well we developed our policy on PATRIOT based on the published law so if you have any addendums you can bring them up at the next scheduled meeting of the Beauregard Parish Library Board of Control and they can reevaluate our policy. This is a government instituition operating under the control of the Soverign State of Louisiana's chain of command and is not directly subject to Federal control. We are required to submit to warrants lawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, but since you lack one of those and are now becoming irrational and disruptive I must insist that you leave this facility. Should you fail to do so I shall call the Sheriff's Office and ask for their assistance in removing you and authenticating your credentials."
The last bit is because the odds of a real FBI agent being dumb enough to try "well it is a secret law" crap is pretty low, but a CIA or NSA agent posing as FBI might, but certainly wouldn't want a Sheriff checking his fake papers.
> In other words, why worry about a warrant at all? Just trust the feds, > they're your friends. And they never lie.
Please. Did you even read the post? Or perhaps I just wasn't being clear enough. If a Fed is going to bother driving at least fifty miles to show up at our door, we figure that it is reasonable they will either have a warrent already or will be able to get one so fast as not to matter so we have decided that we won't be an asshole about it and go ahead and start data collection. But had you actually READ my post, you would know our policy is NOT to release without one. The reason for this is that I live in Louisiana and we have had a law on the books for decades requiring a warrant for the release of patron records from a public library.
We might be backwards ass country folk with a screwed up legal system based on French instead of English laws, but we do get a few things right down here in the swamps.
> I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate > doing ridiculous things,
Yes it is sometimes a fuzzy line between free speach and sedition/inciting to riot/etc. But the line does have to be drawn.
> I mean, being a member of a white supremacist group and owning a > machine gun doesn't mean you're a murdering psycho and can be thrown > away for it,
Not at all. But first let us lose the machine gun since you need to pass an FBI background check before being issued a permit for one of those. Ok, a white supremisist is perfectly within his rights to proclaim the superiority of the White Race, even for revoking the 14th Amendment, hell they can even advocate repeal of the 13th. They can rant all they want about the evils of affirmative action or forced bussing, the supposed inferiority of the 'mud races'. They can strut around in jackboots and Nazi regalia for all anyone cares like the skinheads do. Then can even get away with veiled hints of the 'revolution to come'. What I think we can all agree they can't do is get up in front of the group and yell "Lets go lynch us a nigger or two." The actual line is in a fuzzy area somewhere between those last two statements.
This asshat demonstrates a compound that renders crops susceptable to herbicides, and in the same display with said compound has statements that threaten to use these chemicals in a "war" against modern agriculture. This is means, motive and a threat in one neat package wrapped up with a bow. If that isn't a clear and present danger would someone please give me the new "progressive" redefination of the term? Or can I just assume it has been rewritten to be "Bush and Ashcroft are the #1 and #2 threat to the World."
> Under the Patriot Act (and don't kid yourself into thinking parts of it > are not classified) if I tried that now I personally would be charged > with obstruction of justice.
I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about. I work in a public library and went through all this tinfoil hat stuff already when all the Nadorites went into a frenzy. (Think I'm being extreme? Well I was AT the Texas Library Assoc Convention a few months ago and watched Mr. Nader get more standing ovations than Kerry will likely get at the Democratic Convention next month.)
> I am literally not allowed to request a warrant if the Patriot Act is > brought up.
Wrong. Our orders are that if a Fed asks for ANYTHING we respond that we aren't authorized to do ANYTHING and to pick up the phone for our boss. She will get in touch with the city attorney (our legal representation of record) and they will handle it from there. But while that happens we should begin collecting the information, but stall on any turnover until we hear from her.
And yes they do nead a warrant to actually take anything, but it is generally considered that a Fed on site will have little problem with that detail and to assume they either already have one or soon will so go ahead and start collecting the requested info. No sense being a total asshole about it.
> Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request happened.
Yes, this part IS true. Not sure how I personally come down on this one, but it does make a certain sense. But the more I ponder it the potential for misuse is just fscking huge so I guess I'd prefer to see that section of PATRIOT sunset.
> If bio-tech is SO VERY SAFE, then lets just require the company to post > a bond of say one trillion dollars should unforeseen damages occur from > the release of genetically modified organisms.
You make a very good point, and in a sane world would make perfect sense. However we live in an insane one currently. What would happen is that with a trillion dollars up for grabs every single ambulance chasing politically motivated lawyer on the planet would start launching wave after wave of lawsuit hoping to hit the biggest bonanza in the history of scum sucking lawyers. The tobacco settlement would be peanuts compared to bagging a TRILLION dollars and somewhere random chance, aided by an activist judge, would assemble 12 mental defectives into a jury willing to crack open the piggy bank on the flimsiest of evidence, and it wouldn't matter if it took ten thousand pulls of the lever waiting on a jackpot that huge.
Insurance companies don't survive without having enough brain cells rubbing together to calculate the near 100% probability of such an outcome, so the premium would be priced accordingly.
> What pisses me the fuck off here, what really drives the rage with > which I've been posting lately, is that you folks have co-opted a > political movement and philosophy that was once associated with > patience, humility, and honor, constructed a bizarre mythology of code > words in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist, that has > wrapped a lust for power and wealth in the American flag.
Sigh. Guess you don't get out much.... or even watch TV. Socialists have a long history of wearing out one label and 'reinventing' themselves under a new one. Back around the turn of the 20'th Century 'Socialist' was a perfectly respectable political label. But as it actually went into practice and rapidly descended into the horrors of Stalinism in Russia and then National Socialism in Germany it fell out of favor for reasons which should be obvious to all. (If it isn't obvious to you, get off slashdot and pick up a history book!)
Thus the modern 'Liberal' was born. Swiping the name made respectable by the Classical Liberals of the 18 and 19th Century was a genius stroke of marketing. But by the 1970s and 1980s it had become obvious that people had caught on to the fact that the modern "Liberals" where the same old income redistributionists and group rights race baiters under a new name and if an opponent hurled the label "Liberal" and made it stick a pol was toast.
The Democratic party didn't start to face that reality for another decade when the "New Democrats" were born and Bill Clinton ascended to the White House. Then promptly set out to govern as caricitures of Liberalism, leading the voters to respond by creating Speaker Gingrich and Pres. Clinton stuffing a sock in Hillary's mouth and tacking towards the center a bit. But the "New Democrats" had an element in their movement who actually wanted to change the soap, not just design a new box with "New & Improved" on the label.
We now know which side won that battle for the Democratic Party. So now we have the Howard "I have a scream" Dean phenom and the "Progressive" movement, which is the same Socalists/Liberal ideas fired by anger now that the Democrats are nominally out of power for the first time in recent memory. Disagree with my assessment? Well then name some major policy differences between the three labels?
I'm not yanking code words out of my ass and seeing Commies under every rug, I'm reading their fucking webpages you silly twit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a few of the fringe nutjob's webpages to confirm for yourself that 'critical theory' prattle almost always appears on pages by obvious crackpot Marxists. After all, they needed a new name for Marxism since even the Russians don't want anything to do with it anymore.
Which brings us to this specific asshat. He is making very public statements threatening to release chemicals to DESTROY CROPS! Should we really wait until he actually does it? Or knowing the gutless nature of most academic green terrorists, gets one of his young and stupid students to do it for him.
As others have alreadt pointed out, the police got suspecious when they were in his house investigating a death. So they had every reason in the world to be there, and since the spouse is always the first suspect, he had to get investigated until they were SURE the death was from natural causes. They were doing their job, by the book.
Next we get this paragraph in the story:
"Kurtz created a display of small soy, corn and canola plants growing under large incubating lamps. The exhibit said some of the plants had been treated with a compound that made them vulnerable to herbicide. A nearby computer screen explained that, if successful, the compound would be the newest weapon in the war on advanced agricultural technology."
Sounds like typical "Earth First!" ecoterrorism brewing to me. Combine this with a peek at this asshat's website and a mention of "critical theory" on the toplevel, which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves. So is this guy a terrorist? Perhaps not himself.... yet. Does he consort with them? Probably. Does he support their aims? By his own admission, an unqualified yes.
> All of them have slight incompatibilities which require (often minor) > changes, and the C standard library is several orders of magnitude > less complex than the J2SE class libraries.
Dealing with such issues is what GNU autoconf was designed for. Along with platform issues such as endianness, 32/64 bit, where to install components, etc. Someday Java is going to have to climb out of it's emulated playpen and face some of those questions as well, especially the 64 bit question. And I really doubt the J2SE libs are more complex than glibc and the other standard GNU libs. Remember that glibc isn't your father's libc anymore. It handles threads, i18n and Unicode these days just like the Java libs. If you say J2SE is more complex than the ANSI specified C libs, you would probably be correct.
> Many is the time I have got out code from a few years ago and found it > would not compile even with the same brand of compiler.
And your Java 1.0 code builds perfectly on 1.4? Languages evolve and grow, lest they die. This requires some effort to update old codebases and is a PITA, but required.
> Well there goes the main benefit of Java: you ship compiled binary > code and let your users and customers decide where it should be > deployed.
As a FS/OSS advocate I don't really care about binary only distribution. And I do believe in choice, which is why the customer should be able to deploy ANYWHERE, not just in places you supply an installer for. You Java zealots like to forget that detail don't ya. No prebuilt installer and most of your target audience can't deploy it.
less INSTALL [optional local tweaking]./configure; make ; make install
Not quite as user friendly as InstallShield but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn how to use.
> including those which don't have '/usr/lib'
No, but they have a local version where standard shared libraries are kept.
> Ah yes, the paragons of patent-unencumbered file formats, JPEG and GIF.
Each was open for a decade before patent trolls tried to cash in. And I haven't given up on JPEG, there is good reason to hope that particular troll will fail.
> Thank God for the elimination of a myriad of different AV formats. > Now you'll excuse me while I go sort out my > WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG-collection, get out my > WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG-player and start listening to some > WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGGs.
A) If you will take a look at the history, yes this is a reduction.
B) the process is still ongoing
C) Most modern players will play all but OGG without any worry. OGG is the new kid on the block.
D) All of the remaining formats have strengths that have kept them around.
WAV is the only one of the bunch taht easily stores raw uncompressed samples. Also, by being a wrapper format, it can contain other formats such as MP3.
MP3 is going to be with us because so much content is in the format already and so many players handle it. Same for MPEG for video.
AVI is not only another container format, it is the only widely deployed format that is suitable for holding a version for editing. No, quicktime doesn't count because it is only usable on niche hardware despite players being available on Windows.
WMV really only exists to hold proprietary content encoded with closed codecs and of course Not Invented Here syndrome at MS. But the wrapper format is fairly well understood and MS doesn't seem to launch squadrons of patent lawyers at folk who write implementations.
OGG is of course the Open world's great white hope. They are making slow but steady progress and just might conquer the world. They would have a better shot if OGG (the wrapper format) supported uncompressed samples and easy editing.
Um, which platform do you use - it wouldn't be Linux x86
No, x86_64, where some twiddling is still sometimes required.
> All the Java I've written seems to run fine without modification under > MacOSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris...
And you have just described the universe where Java apps run. How many more platforms would make a difference? Don't mention PDAs and cell phones unless you also mention that you WILL be porting for that target because of the greatly restricted UI. And unless you plan ahead and do some twiddling a Java app might RUN on all of those but won't adhere to local convention.
About the same for autoconf. A little work will be expended for each supported platform and then it 'just works'. But with autoconf you get an actual native app instead of a stranger on EVERY platform.
Good point. There was a GPLed player but it died out. The source is still available but won't build on a modern platform and only supports version 4.
So yes, it is an example of a closed standard thriving, but apparently the OS/FS folk don't hang out at the lameass sites that depend (not the use of DEPEND) on flash enough to need to scratch that particular itch. Because while I bothered to install it on machines for our library patrons and did my laptop in the process of testing it, this workstation is an AMD64 and can't run it. I have never felt deprived by a lack of Flash support, nay I enjoy the lack of crapola and usually don't bother with Flash.
> I think they're worried about someone forking it.
Oh bull. How many incompatible forks of C++ are there? Not all compilers implement all of the latest ANSI standard but are all working toward compliance as fast as they can lest they lose relevence in the marketplace. Ok, how about Perl? It has been GPL from the start of it's life and there has been exactly ZERO forks. Python? Nope, no evil forks there. How about the granddaddy of them all, C? Yes, but the ANSI standard keeps pulling them all back into line, so it hasn't been a problem. Every time C shows its age the compiler writers start innovating and the good ideas get standaridized.
Sun is still trying to think of a way to make JAVA a cash cow and is afraid that if they Open Source it that when they have the "Ah Ha!" moment that it won'y work because they opened it.
And anyway, the idea of compile once, emulate everywhere is not exactly a great one if you live in the OS/FS world. Won't bother me a bit when Java becomes just another language that GCC compiles to native code and it's bundled libraries are sitting in/usr/lib with the rest. When programmers decide whether to use the bundled crossplatform graphic toolkit or use java bindings to Win32/Qt/Gtk/wxWindows/SDL/etc. When Python programmers are deciding whether to use Tk or Swing. Or in a bumper sticker size phrase, when Java is just another OO language instead of a religion.
> I disagree that "most" closed standards fall out of use. Many survive.
Outside the IT world you have a point. But name ONE major IT standard that is still relevant that is a) closed and b) not a microsoft 'standard'. I exclude MS because they are a convicted monopolist and have certain unfair influences on the marketplace that has permitted them to maintain closed standards for a little longer than everyone else.
Networking standards are the obvious example where closed has been the kiss of death. Closed information services were crushed by the Internet, all non-IP network protocols are now in legact maintaince mode. How many email systems are left other than SMTP/POP/IMAP? Instant messaging is the one holdout because Jabber couldn't get their act together to the point where every ISP became expected to host a Jabber locator server just like they host a mail/dns/news/etc server.
File protocols are rapidly converting to open, with the notable exception of MIcrosoft and their Office formats. A host of closed graphics formats fell to GIF, JPEG and PNG. The myriad audio and video formats have all but collapsed to WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG. Even the MS standards are fairly open (for MS tech) with the exception of rights restricted flavors of WMV. MP3 and MPEG are artifacts of a day when RAND licensing was considered open.
JAVA must open or face a decline. It is the only current language with any real restrictions on implementations. Anyone is free to write a C compiler, and many do in school. Anyone if free to rewrite Perl, but would be daft to try.:) JAVA is the only language with a corporation full of lawyers threatening to sue anyone who releases an implementation they don't like.
Even worse, with the current situation Linux distributors can't include a JVM (Sun's or IBM's) in their collection, even those who are willing to bundle closed apps, so no JAVA app can ever be a core app in the Linux or BSD worlds, and considering the state of affairs in Windows land it isn't likely to happen there either. That Sun can't see that widespread, unfettered distribution of the runtime is a plus for all Java advocates doesn't bode well for a real Open Source release of the JDK.
But anyway, JAVA the language probably has a future but JAVA the emulator/VM really doesn't. Sun can slow the evolution down through skilled lawyering but native compilation similar to what GCC is now doing is the future, one where JAVA is just another language and source gets compiled to native code and depends on the normal system libraries.
The only reason for the emulator was to allow closed source apps to be semi portable, but as closed source becomes less of an issue there will be less and less reason to pay the emulation penalty of the JVM. In the Open Source world portability is achieved with GNU autoconf, not by compiling all code to run on a mythical platform which is then emulated on whatever host it happens to be running on today.
> Anyhow, the reason people are complaining is that the UNIX way of > copying is fucking stupid. Selecting something shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY > clear your clipboard and replace it with what you selected.
No, it is DIFFERENT, not stupid. One advantage is that since you are using the mouse to select anyway, why involve the keyboard? I like CLI as much as the next UNIXhead but if you are using a mouse, why not be able to do the whole job with it?
> Nor should there be two separate clipboards on a system.
No there shouldn't. Blame GTK and Qt for most of that. Find me an xlib app that misbehaves with selection and then bitch. GNOME and KDE are alien environments grafted onto X trying to please the Windows users while not provoking an open rebellion among the UNIX folk. So they support multiple selection methods. Stupid if you ask me, but nobody did. Not as stupid as chasing Microsoft's taillights with mono but in the top 10.
> as evidenced by the millions of Windows and Mac users who don't have > them and the relative obscurity of third party applications which > replicate the functionality in Windows.
Not saying our way is superior in all ways, but that it IS our way and if you want to live in our world you should learn our customs. Kinda like moving to France and then bitching about em blathering on in French all the time instead of learning to speak proper English.
And I'm not supprised that few use the middle click paste trick on Windows since it would be a pain in the butt to get that working and keep it working across service packs. And anyway, when in Rome..... Although if forced to use Windows for any length of time I would HAVE to find a patch to kill click to focus and give me the focus follows mouse behaviour that God intended us to have.
> Incidentally, I have used Windows machines for 16 years
You have my condolences. Sorry to hear you spend all your time downloading and installing fixes instead of having a life, but glad to know there is at least one responsible Windows user out there.:)
> They just have to release the register information so we can write > our own drivers.
But remember the poster above your's point that the 'value' lies mostly in the drivers. Give us the specs on the cards and we stop using their drivers. The relative value of the cards is then determined by the quality of OUR drivers and neither could bring themselves to see that. Especially since most are currently happy enough to grumble and then use their closed driver.
If even 25% of the Linux userbase adopted the position that the Radeon 9200 is the fastest current production card for Linux and bought the hell out of em they would both get the point. ATI because they receive little money from that item, because third parties make almost all of them and NVIDIA for the obvious reason that they didn't sell a chipset.
Really, the sun doesn't rise and set over Redmond Wash. UNIX/X has been using the middle button to paste for a decade or so. If you want to use UNIX you shouldn't expect it to be just like Windows. What is it with this low self esteem problem! People don't migrate to the Mac and expect IT to act like Windows but everybody migrates to Linux/X and sits around bitching because it isn't Windows. KDE and GNOME are terrified of doing anything that doesn't look like Windows because it might hurt adoption. Bull!
Linux/UNIX/X/GNU/blah is a different culture, just like Mac. Just because YOU dual boot the same machine to play games doesn't change that reality. And if you really decide you don't like UNIX culture just keep running Windows... or go buy a Mac if you would like something that won't contribute to the Outlook worm problem.
They are talking about "open sourcing" Solaris, not placing it in the public domain. I'd settle for any of the OSI approved Open Source licenses and would love to see OSI sue their ass for trademark dilution if they try to pass off that "Community" license of theirs as OS. Sorry Sun, but if you want the buzz and cachet among the investors that speaking the words "Open Source" brings you are going to have to actually DO IT.
JAVA the emulator/virtual machine is a dead idea, designed to allow closed binaries to sort of run on multiple platforms. JAVA the programming language may still have a future through native compilers like GCC's recent addition of a frontend for Java.
You see, in the Open Source world (the one with a future, unlike proprietary wares) we solved the portability problem long ago. It is called GNU autoconf. Now if I could only figure the son of a bitch out.:)
> It's main bit of usefullness will be to get Scaled Composites investors > for a real, useful, spacecraft.
Which is useful indeed. To put it in language understandable to the slashdot crowd, what it demonstrates is the potential of the effort in exactly the way that ESR postulates that a successful Open Source project generally requires one or a small group of developers to produce enough of a new project to demonstrate to potential contributers that the project has potential to succeed.
A winning XPrize craft isn't useful for any other purpose than to demonstrate to investors that a) you are serious b) you have already put in the effort to develop the skills needed to attempt actual spaceflight. Because the only major thing seperating an X-prize craft from an actual spaceship is budget. The idea was to set the bar low enough that a small group could attain it but high enough that only a serious effort, one able to springboard from XPrize to real commercial spaceflight, would succeed.
> This one feature was useful enough for me to keep two different codes > for my one cable box on one remote.
Many of the universals are made by one company. Get online and dig around for the advanced programming codes and you can probably merge the volume codes from one set to the set that works everything else and have a seamless experience with only one cable button. And if you are lucky enough to have one with the JP1 header (or solder pads for a plug) you are set for some serious modding.
Unless you are a motherboard maker you won't be using this source dump. All of the hardware level details will remain hidden away in vendor's source trees so an end user will never be able to link a complete copy.
It might prove useful now and again to conpare documented behavior to actual, but that is about the extent of it.
Slashdot Mirror
> So RedHat and Suse 'don't really count' as Linux?
Not for purposes of problems with distribution of problem packages. They are big enough to just pick up the phone and talk to the right person to make things work. But you won't find either JRE in Debian's unfree section for example, and they will distribute just about anything there. How about ya just to hit distrowatch and count the ones distributing a JRE or JDK. If they could many would. The fact that outside of RHEL and Suse, two per seat licensed distros, the number approximates zero says something.
I'll give ya RHEL, but just for you rinformation they segregate the non-free stuff to a seperate CD. Amd they include the IBM flavor instead of Sun's.
But RedHat and Suse doesn't really count since they are partnered with damned near everyone in the industry.
> You can distribute the runtime for nothing.
No you can't. You may only distribute the runtime as a part of a larger software package that REQUIRES the JRE. What you can't do is distribute it with a Linux or BSD distribution. Which is why I don't have one installed right now, haven't felt any need to go through the bother just to see Java ads in my browser.
If anyone can explain Sun's logic behind restricting the widest possible distribution of the JRE I'd certainly love to hear it.
> The obvious response is "well, duh, if they are secret you wouldn't
> know about them, would you?"
Well a Fed had better not be dumb enough to try that trick on us. Because I'd be asshat enough to reply something along the lines of:
"Well we developed our policy on PATRIOT based on the published law so if you have any addendums you can bring them up at the next scheduled meeting of the Beauregard Parish Library Board of Control and they can reevaluate our policy. This is a government instituition operating under the control of the Soverign State of Louisiana's chain of command and is not directly subject to Federal control. We are required to submit to warrants lawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, but since you lack one of those and are now becoming irrational and disruptive I must insist that you leave this facility. Should you fail to do so I shall call the Sheriff's Office and ask for their assistance in removing you and authenticating your credentials."
The last bit is because the odds of a real FBI agent being dumb enough to try "well it is a secret law" crap is pretty low, but a CIA or NSA agent posing as FBI might, but certainly wouldn't want a Sheriff checking his fake papers.
> In other words, why worry about a warrant at all? Just trust the feds,
> they're your friends. And they never lie.
Please. Did you even read the post? Or perhaps I just wasn't being clear enough. If a Fed is going to bother driving at least fifty miles to show up at our door, we figure that it is reasonable they will either have a warrent already or will be able to get one so fast as not to matter so we have decided that we won't be an asshole about it and go ahead and start data collection. But had you actually READ my post, you would know our policy is NOT to release without one. The reason for this is that I live in Louisiana and we have had a law on the books for decades requiring a warrant for the release of patron records from a public library.
We might be backwards ass country folk with a screwed up legal system based on French instead of English laws, but we do get a few things right down here in the swamps.
> I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate
> doing ridiculous things,
Yes it is sometimes a fuzzy line between free speach and sedition/inciting to riot/etc. But the line does have to be drawn.
> I mean, being a member of a white supremacist group and owning a
> machine gun doesn't mean you're a murdering psycho and can be thrown
> away for it,
Not at all. But first let us lose the machine gun since you need to pass an FBI background check before being issued a permit for one of those. Ok, a white supremisist is perfectly within his rights to proclaim the superiority of the White Race, even for revoking the 14th Amendment, hell they can even advocate repeal of the 13th. They can rant all they want about the evils of affirmative action or forced bussing, the supposed inferiority of the 'mud races'. They can strut around in jackboots and Nazi regalia for all anyone cares like the skinheads do. Then can even get away with veiled hints of the 'revolution to come'. What I think we can all agree they can't do is get up in front of the group and yell "Lets go lynch us a nigger or two." The actual line is in a fuzzy area somewhere between those last two statements.
This asshat demonstrates a compound that renders crops susceptable to herbicides, and in the same display with said compound has statements that threaten to use these chemicals in a "war" against modern agriculture. This is means, motive and a threat in one neat package wrapped up with a bow. If that isn't a clear and present danger would someone please give me the new "progressive" redefination of the term? Or can I just assume it has been rewritten to be "Bush and Ashcroft are the #1 and #2 threat to the World."
> Under the Patriot Act (and don't kid yourself into thinking parts of it
> are not classified) if I tried that now I personally would be charged
> with obstruction of justice.
I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about. I work in a public library and went through all this tinfoil hat stuff already when all the Nadorites went into a frenzy. (Think I'm being extreme? Well I was AT the Texas Library Assoc Convention a few months ago and watched Mr. Nader get more standing ovations than Kerry will likely get at the Democratic Convention next month.)
> I am literally not allowed to request a warrant if the Patriot Act is
> brought up.
Wrong. Our orders are that if a Fed asks for ANYTHING we respond that we aren't authorized to do ANYTHING and to pick up the phone for our boss. She will get in touch with the city attorney (our legal representation of record) and they will handle it from there. But while that happens we should begin collecting the information, but stall on any turnover until we hear from her.
And yes they do nead a warrant to actually take anything, but it is generally considered that a Fed on site will have little problem with that detail and to assume they either already have one or soon will so go ahead and start collecting the requested info. No sense being a total asshole about it.
> Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request happened.
Yes, this part IS true. Not sure how I personally come down on this one, but it does make a certain sense. But the more I ponder it the potential for misuse is just fscking huge so I guess I'd prefer to see that section of PATRIOT sunset.
> If bio-tech is SO VERY SAFE, then lets just require the company to post
> a bond of say one trillion dollars should unforeseen damages occur from
> the release of genetically modified organisms.
You make a very good point, and in a sane world would make perfect sense. However we live in an insane one currently. What would happen is that with a trillion dollars up for grabs every single ambulance chasing politically motivated lawyer on the planet would start launching wave after wave of lawsuit hoping to hit the biggest bonanza in the history of scum sucking lawyers. The tobacco settlement would be peanuts compared to bagging a TRILLION dollars and somewhere random chance, aided by an activist judge, would assemble 12 mental defectives into a jury willing to crack open the piggy bank on the flimsiest of evidence, and it wouldn't matter if it took ten thousand pulls of the lever waiting on a jackpot that huge.
Insurance companies don't survive without having enough brain cells rubbing together to calculate the near 100% probability of such an outcome, so the premium would be priced accordingly.
> What pisses me the fuck off here, what really drives the rage with
> which I've been posting lately, is that you folks have co-opted a
> political movement and philosophy that was once associated with
> patience, humility, and honor, constructed a bizarre mythology of code
> words in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist, that has
> wrapped a lust for power and wealth in the American flag.
Sigh. Guess you don't get out much.... or even watch TV. Socialists have a long history of wearing out one label and 'reinventing' themselves under a new one. Back around the turn of the 20'th Century 'Socialist' was a perfectly respectable political label. But as it actually went into practice and rapidly descended into the horrors of Stalinism in Russia and then National Socialism in Germany it fell out of favor for reasons which should be obvious to all. (If it isn't obvious to you, get off slashdot and pick up a history book!)
Thus the modern 'Liberal' was born. Swiping the name made respectable by the Classical Liberals of the 18 and 19th Century was a genius stroke of marketing. But by the 1970s and 1980s it had become obvious that people had caught on to the fact that the modern "Liberals" where the same old income redistributionists and group rights race baiters under a new name and if an opponent hurled the label "Liberal" and made it stick a pol was toast.
The Democratic party didn't start to face that reality for another decade when the "New Democrats" were born and Bill Clinton ascended to the White House. Then promptly set out to govern as caricitures of Liberalism, leading the voters to respond by creating Speaker Gingrich and Pres. Clinton stuffing a sock in Hillary's mouth and tacking towards the center a bit. But the "New Democrats" had an element in their movement who actually wanted to change the soap, not just design a new box with "New & Improved" on the label.
We now know which side won that battle for the Democratic Party. So now we have the Howard "I have a scream" Dean phenom and the "Progressive" movement, which is the same Socalists/Liberal ideas fired by anger now that the Democrats are nominally out of power for the first time in recent memory. Disagree with my assessment? Well then name some major policy differences between the three labels?
I'm not yanking code words out of my ass and seeing Commies under every rug, I'm reading their fucking webpages you silly twit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a few of the fringe nutjob's webpages to confirm for yourself that 'critical theory' prattle almost always appears on pages by obvious crackpot Marxists. After all, they needed a new name for Marxism since even the Russians don't want anything to do with it anymore.
Which brings us to this specific asshat. He is making very public statements threatening to release chemicals to DESTROY CROPS! Should we really wait until he actually does it? Or knowing the gutless nature of most academic green terrorists, gets one of his young and stupid students to do it for him.
As others have alreadt pointed out, the police got suspecious when they were in his house investigating a death. So they had every reason in the world to be there, and since the spouse is always the first suspect, he had to get investigated until they were SURE the death was from natural causes. They were doing their job, by the book.
Next we get this paragraph in the story:
"Kurtz created a display of small soy, corn and canola plants growing under large incubating lamps. The exhibit said some of the plants had been treated with a compound that made them vulnerable to herbicide. A nearby computer screen explained that, if successful, the compound would be the newest weapon in the war on advanced agricultural technology."
Sounds like typical "Earth First!" ecoterrorism brewing to me. Combine this with a peek at this asshat's website and a mention of "critical theory" on the toplevel, which anyone who follows politics knows is code for "Marxist" in much the same way that "liberal" has been replaced with "progressive" in modern usage as the old terms become associated with failed policies, ruined economies and mass graves. So is this guy a terrorist? Perhaps not himself.... yet. Does he consort with them? Probably. Does he support their aims? By his own admission, an unqualified yes.
> All of them have slight incompatibilities which require (often minor)
> changes, and the C standard library is several orders of magnitude
> less complex than the J2SE class libraries.
Dealing with such issues is what GNU autoconf was designed for. Along with platform issues such as endianness, 32/64 bit, where to install components, etc. Someday Java is going to have to climb out of it's emulated playpen and face some of those questions as well, especially the 64 bit question. And I really doubt the J2SE libs are more complex than glibc and the other standard GNU libs. Remember that glibc isn't your father's libc anymore. It handles threads, i18n and Unicode these days just like the Java libs. If you say J2SE is more complex than the ANSI specified C libs, you would probably be correct.
> Many is the time I have got out code from a few years ago and found it
./configure; make ; make install
> would not compile even with the same brand of compiler.
And your Java 1.0 code builds perfectly on 1.4? Languages evolve and grow, lest they die. This requires some effort to update old codebases and is a PITA, but required.
> Well there goes the main benefit of Java: you ship compiled binary
> code and let your users and customers decide where it should be
> deployed.
As a FS/OSS advocate I don't really care about binary only distribution. And I do believe in choice, which is why the customer should be able to deploy ANYWHERE, not just in places you supply an installer for. You Java zealots like to forget that detail don't ya. No prebuilt installer and most of your target audience can't deploy it.
less INSTALL
[optional local tweaking]
Not quite as user friendly as InstallShield but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn how to use.
> including those which don't have '/usr/lib'
No, but they have a local version where standard shared libraries are kept.
> Ah yes, the paragons of patent-unencumbered file formats, JPEG and GIF.
Each was open for a decade before patent trolls tried to cash in. And I haven't given up on JPEG, there is good reason to hope that particular troll will fail.
> Thank God for the elimination of a myriad of different AV formats.
> Now you'll excuse me while I go sort out my
> WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG-collection, get out my
> WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG-player and start listening to some
> WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGGs.
A) If you will take a look at the history, yes this is a reduction.
B) the process is still ongoing
C) Most modern players will play all but OGG without any worry. OGG is the new kid on the block.
D) All of the remaining formats have strengths that have kept them around.
WAV is the only one of the bunch taht easily stores raw uncompressed samples. Also, by being a wrapper format, it can contain other formats such as MP3.
MP3 is going to be with us because so much content is in the format already and so many players handle it. Same for MPEG for video.
AVI is not only another container format, it is the only widely deployed format that is suitable for holding a version for editing. No, quicktime doesn't count because it is only usable on niche hardware despite players being available on Windows.
WMV really only exists to hold proprietary content encoded with closed codecs and of course Not Invented Here syndrome at MS. But the wrapper format is fairly well understood and MS doesn't seem to launch squadrons of patent lawyers at folk who write implementations.
OGG is of course the Open world's great white hope. They are making slow but steady progress and just might conquer the world. They would have a better shot if OGG (the wrapper format) supported uncompressed samples and easy editing.
Um, which platform do you use - it wouldn't be Linux x86
...
No, x86_64, where some twiddling is still sometimes required.
> All the Java I've written seems to run fine without modification under
> MacOSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris
And you have just described the universe where Java apps run. How many more platforms would make a difference? Don't mention PDAs and cell phones unless you also mention that you WILL be porting for that target because of the greatly restricted UI. And unless you plan ahead and do some twiddling a Java app might RUN on all of those but won't adhere to local convention.
About the same for autoconf. A little work will be expended for each supported platform and then it 'just works'. But with autoconf you get an actual native app instead of a stranger on EVERY platform.
Good point. There was a GPLed player but it died out. The source is still available but won't build on a modern platform and only supports version 4.
So yes, it is an example of a closed standard thriving, but apparently the OS/FS folk don't hang out at the lameass sites that depend (not the use of DEPEND) on flash enough to need to scratch that particular itch. Because while I bothered to install it on machines for our library patrons and did my laptop in the process of testing it, this workstation is an AMD64 and can't run it. I have never felt deprived by a lack of Flash support, nay I enjoy the lack of crapola and usually don't bother with Flash.
> I think they're worried about someone forking it.
/usr/lib with the rest. When programmers decide whether to use the bundled crossplatform graphic toolkit or use java bindings to Win32/Qt/Gtk/wxWindows/SDL/etc. When Python programmers are deciding whether to use Tk or Swing. Or in a bumper sticker size phrase, when Java is just another OO language instead of a religion.
Oh bull. How many incompatible forks of C++ are there? Not all compilers implement all of the latest ANSI standard but are all working toward compliance as fast as they can lest they lose relevence in the marketplace. Ok, how about Perl? It has been GPL from the start of it's life and there has been exactly ZERO forks. Python? Nope, no evil forks there. How about the granddaddy of them all, C? Yes, but the ANSI standard keeps pulling them all back into line, so it hasn't been a problem. Every time C shows its age the compiler writers start innovating and the good ideas get standaridized.
Sun is still trying to think of a way to make JAVA a cash cow and is afraid that if they Open Source it that when they have the "Ah Ha!" moment that it won'y work because they opened it.
And anyway, the idea of compile once, emulate everywhere is not exactly a great one if you live in the OS/FS world. Won't bother me a bit when Java becomes just another language that GCC compiles to native code and it's bundled libraries are sitting in
> I disagree that "most" closed standards fall out of use. Many survive.
:) JAVA is the only language with a corporation full of lawyers threatening to sue anyone who releases an implementation they don't like.
Outside the IT world you have a point. But name ONE major IT standard that is still relevant that is a) closed and b) not a microsoft 'standard'. I exclude MS because they are a convicted monopolist and have certain unfair influences on the marketplace that has permitted them to maintain closed standards for a little longer than everyone else.
Networking standards are the obvious example where closed has been the kiss of death. Closed information services were crushed by the Internet, all non-IP network protocols are now in legact maintaince mode. How many email systems are left other than SMTP/POP/IMAP? Instant messaging is the one holdout because Jabber couldn't get their act together to the point where every ISP became expected to host a Jabber locator server just like they host a mail/dns/news/etc server.
File protocols are rapidly converting to open, with the notable exception of MIcrosoft and their Office formats. A host of closed graphics formats fell to GIF, JPEG and PNG. The myriad audio and video formats have all but collapsed to WAV/MP3/MPEG/AVI/WMV/OGG. Even the MS standards are fairly open (for MS tech) with the exception of rights restricted flavors of WMV. MP3 and MPEG are artifacts of a day when RAND licensing was considered open.
JAVA must open or face a decline. It is the only current language with any real restrictions on implementations. Anyone is free to write a C compiler, and many do in school. Anyone if free to rewrite Perl, but would be daft to try.
Even worse, with the current situation Linux distributors can't include a JVM (Sun's or IBM's) in their collection, even those who are willing to bundle closed apps, so no JAVA app can ever be a core app in the Linux or BSD worlds, and considering the state of affairs in Windows land it isn't likely to happen there either. That Sun can't see that widespread, unfettered distribution of the runtime is a plus for all Java advocates doesn't bode well for a real Open Source release of the JDK.
But anyway, JAVA the language probably has a future but JAVA the emulator/VM really doesn't. Sun can slow the evolution down through skilled lawyering but native compilation similar to what GCC is now doing is the future, one where JAVA is just another language and source gets compiled to native code and depends on the normal system libraries.
The only reason for the emulator was to allow closed source apps to be semi portable, but as closed source becomes less of an issue there will be less and less reason to pay the emulation penalty of the JVM. In the Open Source world portability is achieved with GNU autoconf, not by compiling all code to run on a mythical platform which is then emulated on whatever host it happens to be running on today.
> Anyhow, the reason people are complaining is that the UNIX way of
:)
> copying is fucking stupid. Selecting something shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY
> clear your clipboard and replace it with what you selected.
No, it is DIFFERENT, not stupid. One advantage is that since you are using the mouse to select anyway, why involve the keyboard? I like CLI as much as the next UNIXhead but if you are using a mouse, why not be able to do the whole job with it?
> Nor should there be two separate clipboards on a system.
No there shouldn't. Blame GTK and Qt for most of that. Find me an xlib app that misbehaves with selection and then bitch. GNOME and KDE are alien environments grafted onto X trying to please the Windows users while not provoking an open rebellion among the UNIX folk. So they support multiple selection methods. Stupid if you ask me, but nobody did. Not as stupid as chasing Microsoft's taillights with mono but in the top 10.
> as evidenced by the millions of Windows and Mac users who don't have
> them and the relative obscurity of third party applications which
> replicate the functionality in Windows.
Not saying our way is superior in all ways, but that it IS our way and if you want to live in our world you should learn our customs. Kinda like moving to France and then bitching about em blathering on in French all the time instead of learning to speak proper English.
And I'm not supprised that few use the middle click paste trick on Windows since it would be a pain in the butt to get that working and keep it working across service packs. And anyway, when in Rome..... Although if forced to use Windows for any length of time I would HAVE to find a patch to kill click to focus and give me the focus follows mouse behaviour that God intended us to have.
> Incidentally, I have used Windows machines for 16 years
You have my condolences. Sorry to hear you spend all your time downloading and installing fixes instead of having a life, but glad to know there is at least one responsible Windows user out there.
> They just have to release the register information so we can write
> our own drivers.
But remember the poster above your's point that the 'value' lies mostly in the drivers. Give us the specs on the cards and we stop using their drivers. The relative value of the cards is then determined by the quality of OUR drivers and neither could bring themselves to see that. Especially since most are currently happy enough to grumble and then use their closed driver.
If even 25% of the Linux userbase adopted the position that the Radeon 9200 is the fastest current production card for Linux and bought the hell out of em they would both get the point. ATI because they receive little money from that item, because third parties make almost all of them and NVIDIA for the obvious reason that they didn't sell a chipset.
Really, the sun doesn't rise and set over Redmond Wash. UNIX/X has been using the middle button to paste for a decade or so. If you want to use UNIX you shouldn't expect it to be just like Windows. What is it with this low self esteem problem! People don't migrate to the Mac and expect IT to act like Windows but everybody migrates to Linux/X and sits around bitching because it isn't Windows. KDE and GNOME are terrified of doing anything that doesn't look like Windows because it might hurt adoption. Bull!
Linux/UNIX/X/GNU/blah is a different culture, just like Mac. Just because YOU dual boot the same machine to play games doesn't change that reality. And if you really decide you don't like UNIX culture just keep running Windows... or go buy a Mac if you would like something that won't contribute to the Outlook worm problem.
They are talking about "open sourcing" Solaris, not placing it in the public domain. I'd settle for any of the OSI approved Open Source licenses and would love to see OSI sue their ass for trademark dilution if they try to pass off that "Community" license of theirs as OS. Sorry Sun, but if you want the buzz and cachet among the investors that speaking the words "Open Source" brings you are going to have to actually DO IT.
> The "write once, run anywhere" mantra
:)
You mean compile once, emulate everywhere?
JAVA the emulator/virtual machine is a dead idea, designed to allow closed binaries to sort of run on multiple platforms. JAVA the programming language may still have a future through native compilers like GCC's recent addition of a frontend for Java.
You see, in the Open Source world (the one with a future, unlike proprietary wares) we solved the portability problem long ago. It is called GNU autoconf. Now if I could only figure the son of a bitch out.
> It's main bit of usefullness will be to get Scaled Composites investors
> for a real, useful, spacecraft.
Which is useful indeed. To put it in language understandable to the slashdot crowd, what it demonstrates is the potential of the effort in exactly the way that ESR postulates that a successful Open Source project generally requires one or a small group of developers to produce enough of a new project to demonstrate to potential contributers that the project has potential to succeed.
A winning XPrize craft isn't useful for any other purpose than to demonstrate to investors that a) you are serious b) you have already put in the effort to develop the skills needed to attempt actual spaceflight.
Because the only major thing seperating an X-prize craft from an actual spaceship is budget. The idea was to set the bar low enough that a small group could attain it but high enough that only a serious effort, one able to springboard from XPrize to real commercial spaceflight, would succeed.
> This one feature was useful enough for me to keep two different codes
> for my one cable box on one remote.
Many of the universals are made by one company. Get online and dig around for the advanced programming codes and you can probably merge the volume codes from one set to the set that works everything else and have a seamless experience with only one cable button. And if you are lucky enough to have one with the JP1 header (or solder pads for a plug) you are set for some serious modding.
Unless you are a motherboard maker you won't be using this source dump. All of the hardware level details will remain hidden away in vendor's source trees so an end user will never be able to link a complete copy.
It might prove useful now and again to conpare documented behavior to actual, but that is about the extent of it.