Again, I disagree. I can say a score of music. "B-flat quarter note followed by..." I can say a bunch of machine language. "three-eff. e-five. nine-eight." I can say the source code from a program. I can read off a bunch of calculus equations. Simply doing so does not magically turn the underlying medium into "speech." All you're doing is proving that you can use speech to describe things that are not.
Now, I'm not saying that source code is or isn't speech, but simply reading a bunch of it off on some ridiculous webcast isn't proof one way or another, and anyone who uses a webcast like this in any court of law as evidence one way or another is going to get laughed out of the room.
I'm also not saying that the webcast is a completely stupid idea. Like I said in another post, there's a certain geeky flair to it that makes the whole thing sort of fun. But if the people putting it together think they're going to prove that code is speech by doing so, they're delusional.
Well, I have to disagree. If anyone thinks that they'll be able to use this as part of some legal argument, I suspect they're out of their minds. I admit that there's a bit of geeky funness to the whole thing, but what is this supposed to prove about DeCSS? Or free speech issues? So they're trying to point out that source code is free speech. And they'll broadcast it using a speech synthesizer. Big whoop. I could set up a speech synthesizer and broadcast Stephenson's _Cryptonomicon_ if I wanted, that doesn't make it public domain. I could set up a speech synthesizer to rattle off the machine code for Windows, that doesn't make it free software. And just because I set up a speech synthesizer to plod through the Linux source code doesn't somehow make it "free speech," no matter how much someone's trying to convince us it's "art."
I generally think of performance art as involving humans somehow. If there was a team of *people* reading off the source code day after day after day, then I might agree with you, but it's a speech synthesizer. That's just lame. I could run this at home if I wanted and save the bandwidth.
Now, you could certainly argue that in today's "postmodern" (whatever the hell that means) world, we must expand our definitions of art and performances, and take an "artist's" word for it when they claim that the landscape around them is their work of art, or that speech-synthesizing kernels is a "performance" of some sort, but I just don't buy it in this case.
have you ever read a book? This is how things are done.
Not really in The Two Towers, though. Remember the whole bit where "Frodo+Sam" takes up the second half of the book, and "EveryoneElse" takes up the first? Tolkien split it up very decisively; I wondered if they were going to do that for the film, too.
Not that I personally minded the switching around...
Rock it. Good point. Though I imagine that the support contract was only going to be valid for a certain timeperiod, after which you'd have to renew if you wanted continued support, which might include upgrades.
I still think it's a big plus to be able to get the upgrades regardless of support, though.
I didn't say that your time was worthless; I said that at least that's all that it's costing you. Would you rather have time plus shelling out hundreds of bucks for a new version, or just the time?
Show me where I said "time is worthless" or "Unix admins cost nothing."
Well, their webpages have to be served on something. Just because it happens to be served on Windows doesn't mean that they couldn't possibly be nonbiased about the whole thing. (I'm not making any claims as to their actual level of bias - just that basing your opinions on what servers they're running is a bit silly in this case.)
The 2.0 kernel tree is still being maintained. The datestamp for the initial release on kernel.org says "Jun 9 1996." Perhaps Redhat isn't supporting some of their old products, but the software that's running on it probably is.
Also, I think it's somewhat less of a problem in the Linux world. After all, nobody's charging you for the upgrades. It's still a pain to have to make sure everything works, etc, but at least you can do it for nothing but time.
To own property you have to do a bunch of government paperwork to update the county land rolls, tax rolls, etc.
Ah, yeah . . . When you said "pay with cash" I guess my brain immediately leapt to the conclusion that there wasn't any paperwork to be done, either. Hm.
OK, so its not convenient and illegal, but hasn't true safety and privacy always been that way?
Is assuming an alternate identity illegal? I was under the impression that, so long as you're not doing anything illegal, you can use whatever name you feel like. Obviously there'll be some problems using things like credit cards, getting accounts at banks, and all that stuff, but if you're just paying cash for some land, it may not be that big of a deal.
Then again, I could be wrong. "I heard it from this guy, see?":P
I suppose if you're willing to squint at the sentence that way... Then again, this isn't the International Obfuscated Subject Line Contest here. If what you suggested was really the author's intent, it should really have some quotes around "Attack Free Government."
However, my impression was that a bunch of publishers were going after government websites that were free. Hm.
Yeah, hyphenation is good.:) Another version I hadn't thought of: Perhaps "free" was intended to be the verb. As in, a bunch of publishers had an attack which was able to free a bunch of government sites. That's exciting, no? Of course, then you've got disagreement in plurality (the official term for it evades me), so it would either have to be "Publishers' Attack Frees Government Sites" or "Publishers' Attacks Free Government Sites," so there are corrections to be made regardless.:)
No, "attack" is used as a verb, not an object in that phrase. Here are two versions that could be correct:
Publishers Attack Free Government Sites There are many publishers who are attacking free government sites.
Publishers' Attack on Free Government Sites This article is detailing an attack by many publishers on free government sites.
The form, as written, merely states that many publishers own something called "Attack Free Government Sites." I suppose that means that publishers own government websites which sponsor nonviolence?
Would anyone care to fix the apostrophe-related typo in the title?
Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 1
(heading further and further into offtopicland...)
Mention Outlook (which I do use), and get thrown around for not using pine, or elm.
While I will admit that there are some Microsoft products which are actually good, I'm afraid that Outlook is simply not one of them. The company I used to work for switched over to Exchange Server and refused to turn on anything but MAPI, so we were all stuck using Outlook, and oh, how I came to loathe it. For email, anyway. *shudder* And you'll get tossed out for not using mutt, not elm or pine.:)
Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
By the way, I thought we hate the movie industry here, and now we laud them for use of open-source?
Heaven forbid some of us have more complicated opinions than "x sucks" or "y is awesome." And heaven forbid different people who read Slashdot have differing opinions.
Re:Well, that's all good 'n' all
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What do you mean, "where does this get us?" Which "us?" You make it sound as if we're all employees at BigLinuxCompany and we're debating business plans or something. It doesn't get me anywhere in particular, it might not get you anywhere in particular, but evidentally the people who are using it found it useful enough to continue development. Plus it's just cool that a Gimp derivative is getting a bit of attention.
The Reg article links to the (supposedly) original German email, and the english version is a "loose translation." Given the Register's usual spin, I imagine "loose" might be a very important word in that sentence. Someone who reads German could comment with more authority than I . . .
Slashdot Mirror
I'll probably have to say something else to avoid the lameness filter, but right on.
Now, I'm not saying that source code is or isn't speech, but simply reading a bunch of it off on some ridiculous webcast isn't proof one way or another, and anyone who uses a webcast like this in any court of law as evidence one way or another is going to get laughed out of the room.
I'm also not saying that the webcast is a completely stupid idea. Like I said in another post, there's a certain geeky flair to it that makes the whole thing sort of fun. But if the people putting it together think they're going to prove that code is speech by doing so, they're delusional.
Well, I have to disagree. If anyone thinks that they'll be able to use this as part of some legal argument, I suspect they're out of their minds. I admit that there's a bit of geeky funness to the whole thing, but what is this supposed to prove about DeCSS? Or free speech issues? So they're trying to point out that source code is free speech. And they'll broadcast it using a speech synthesizer. Big whoop. I could set up a speech synthesizer and broadcast Stephenson's _Cryptonomicon_ if I wanted, that doesn't make it public domain. I could set up a speech synthesizer to rattle off the machine code for Windows, that doesn't make it free software. And just because I set up a speech synthesizer to plod through the Linux source code doesn't somehow make it "free speech," no matter how much someone's trying to convince us it's "art."
Now, you could certainly argue that in today's "postmodern" (whatever the hell that means) world, we must expand our definitions of art and performances, and take an "artist's" word for it when they claim that the landscape around them is their work of art, or that speech-synthesizing kernels is a "performance" of some sort, but I just don't buy it in this case.
Not that I personally minded the switching around...
http://bash.org/?4281
I still think it's a big plus to be able to get the upgrades regardless of support, though.
Okay, you go to ftp.microsoft.com and download the ISOs for WinXP.
Show me where I said "time is worthless" or "Unix admins cost nothing."
Well, their webpages have to be served on something. Just because it happens to be served on Windows doesn't mean that they couldn't possibly be nonbiased about the whole thing. (I'm not making any claims as to their actual level of bias - just that basing your opinions on what servers they're running is a bit silly in this case.)
Also, I think it's somewhat less of a problem in the Linux world. After all, nobody's charging you for the upgrades. It's still a pain to have to make sure everything works, etc, but at least you can do it for nothing but time.
Then again, I could be wrong. "I heard it from this guy, see?" :P
However, my impression was that a bunch of publishers were going after government websites that were free. Hm.
Gawd, that's brilliant. Thanks for the laugh. :)
Yeah, hyphenation is good. :) Another version I hadn't thought of: Perhaps "free" was intended to be the verb. As in, a bunch of publishers had an attack which was able to free a bunch of government sites. That's exciting, no? Of course, then you've got disagreement in plurality (the official term for it evades me), so it would either have to be "Publishers' Attack Frees Government Sites" or "Publishers' Attacks Free Government Sites," so there are corrections to be made regardless. :)
- Publishers Attack Free Government Sites
- Publishers' Attack on Free Government Sites
The form, as written, merely states that many publishers own something called "Attack Free Government Sites." I suppose that means that publishers own government websites which sponsor nonviolence?There are many publishers who are attacking free government sites.
This article is detailing an attack by many publishers on free government sites.
At any rate, it needs some fixing up.
Would anyone care to fix the apostrophe-related typo in the title?
What do you mean, "where does this get us?" Which "us?" You make it sound as if we're all employees at BigLinuxCompany and we're debating business plans or something. It doesn't get me anywhere in particular, it might not get you anywhere in particular, but evidentally the people who are using it found it useful enough to continue development. Plus it's just cool that a Gimp derivative is getting a bit of attention.
. . . once a new version of MPlayer comes out, we can do that on Linux, too. AAlib output + Sorenson input = fun!
The Reg article links to the (supposedly) original German email, and the english version is a "loose translation." Given the Register's usual spin, I imagine "loose" might be a very important word in that sentence. Someone who reads German could comment with more authority than I . . .
Perhaps SGI workstations running FSN? :) FSV for other unixes...
We're using part of the 172.16.0.0/12 where I am currently . . .