You kidding? It's only $100,000. Anybody with a decent job ($60,000+) who keeps their spending urges under reasonable control (and doesn't have a large family, of course) can afford that.
We are discussing someone spending (potentially) almost two years of income buying video game consoles on ebay. This really sounds to you like someone who knows who to keep "their spending urges under reasonable control"?
I don't have statistics to quote, unfortunately. But what you say is accurate. When a college student wants to set up a web server on his home cumputer that has one page which says "Hi! This is my webpage!", he almost always uses apache. No one is paying for IIS to do this. Which is why the apache cheerleaders who point to netcraft and try to use a raw count of how many domains/ servers (forget which it is) are hosted by apache vs. IIS are being very deceptive. When this is used to make exaggerated claims about how apache is so much more succesfful than IIS, it also completely ignores the fact that IIS is more widely used for corporate intranets (again, I don't have statistics available, so feel free to disregard this if you want rather than flaming me for not having any), but that's not so relevant to the discussion at hand.
I've heard this before and it is ridiculous. The throwaway pop music of the fifties (for example) was as bad as the throwaway pop music of today. The problem is that we don't remember the bad stuff from the past because it gets forgotten, whereas the bad music of today is right there in front of you.
In addition, I get annoyed by people who compare the music of "the 70s" (for example) to the music of "today" and are upset that the best stuff they could come up with from an entire decade is better than the best stuff they can come up with from the last six months. Honestly, I don't know how this could ever seem like a fair comparison.
They could almost afford to give you $19.99/mo now if they stop sending me unbelievable quantities of junkmail every week (sometimes for cable tv, sometimes for internet) and passed those savings on to you.
I like how in a discussion of a treaty being created by an internation body, the United States is referred to simply as "the country". It's sort of like how I moved away years ago but still call new york "the city".
If you start with Windows Explorer and key in a URL in the address bar, you'll be on the net without switching the applications
How does this prove or refute the original claim that explorer.exe and iexplore.exe are the same application? If I'm looking at a web page and I click on a link to word document or a pdf, then word or acrobat gets hosted in the browser window to display it without me doing anything to switch applications. Does this mean that word and acrobat are the same application as explorer and iexplore as well?
I could direct the same criticism back at you since the writeup clearly says "At least one of the holes is fixed in XP Service Pack 2". I am running xp sp2, and whenever these kinds of holes are revealed, I always try them with IE on my system, and they never affect me.
That's fair. I took the statement about being under federal authority to mean what happens in practice, but rereading the whole post in context, I see that you meant what authority it is supposed to have, not what authority it actually exerts.
However, your list of federal powers isn't quite complete. I say that only because your sentence about "Everything else including libraries" not being within federal jurisdiction would seem to indicate that your list is supposed to be complete, but there are legitimate powers of the federal government that you didn't list. Some fall in the the infrastructure caltegory which you already included (e.g., establishing a post office, although that one frankly seems a little outdated now anyway), so that's fine, but others don't (establishing treaties with foreign nations and regulating interstate commerce being two big ones, even if the latter is now used as an excuse for the federal government taking over things that it shouldn't control).
Also, I'm not sure why you would expect to "catch hell for this" around here, where most people who care at all probably agree with you.
This would be more compelling if there were a link anywhere in the post to which you are responding, or if I had actually posted any stories at all. I admit that the link in my sig has recently died, but that doesn't seem related to what you're blathering on about which is some claim about the material I posted containing dead links.
As soon as you drive it underground, the people that REALLY want it will find a way to distribute it.
Have you payed any attention to what topic we're discussing? It's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. How can this be driven "underground"? Where do you think it is now? This is something that's already illegal and vigorously prosecuted.
What does that have to do with anything? His friends installed the spyware. It didn't come with the computer. The "factory" isn't responsible for things you install on your computer yourself like a car company would be for whell that came with the car.
Certainly not. If there's one thing I've learned from reading slashdot, it's that the US legal system is highly informed on technical issues and will always make the best decision. If the US government doesn't like something, it must be immoral.
Btw, you do you use this same line of argument on stories about the DMCA, or about software patents, or about the RIAA suing people, etc., etc.? Because it seems that for some reason the only time I hear from the "the US government said it, thus it must be correct" crowd is when it regards the claim of Microsoft being a monopoly, which many of us know to be at least as bogus as the rest of those things.
Who else in the world GIVES A DAMN if the "Linix colonel" or whatever was written from scratch by one guy or not?
Did you read the original Ken Brown article? The government may give a damn if they are running their servers on stolen intellectual property (I don't think they are, but I'm saying if they were, they would care). The government also cares if it is giving funding to a project that celebrates IP theft, when it could be funding another project that doesn't (he advocates government funding of BSD-style projects instead of gpl projects, but never actually explains why he thinks the BSD license makes a project less prone to having pilfered proprietary code checked into it than the GPL does). Corporations care if they are considering deploy linux. They don't want to be told "this is some code we found floating around the internet. We're going to deploy on 50,000 of our desktops." They want to know what is and where it came from, and whether it is safe to use from a legal point of view.
No, I got that point; I just chose not to respond to it since I didn't have anything to add to that idea. But since you brought it up again: don't you think you play into the hands of those who characterize linux/ unix types as dirty hippies when you refer to people as "suits" and "phbs"?
Wow. I assumed you must be trolling until I looked at your comment history and realized that you don't seem to be a troll. Just wow. How can anyone be so hypocritical as to get mad about people who try to scare people out of using linux/ unix by claiming that those who work on/ like it are "dirty hippies", and in the same sentence also claim that anyone who works on or likes windows is a "suit" or a "phb"?
Why doesn't KB just cut his losses and slink away before he's made a greater fool of
Because there is a world outside of slashdot. Yes, everyone here is going to snicker and roll their eyes about how this guy is obviously an idiot since he questions linus, the gpl, linux, etc., but there are people in the rest of the world who actually will consider what he has to say. Maybe he doesn't care if the crowd here thinks he's a fool? Maybe that's not who he is writing for?
It IS cool, but it severely impedes the chances that anyone will ever recognize your product, or even download it, because if I had a conversation with a friend about this, I'd never be able to go google for it without specifically asking how to spell it.
But most geeks don't find out about these projects from conversations. They find out about them by reading about them online somewhere, in email, etc. They don't need to ask for the spelling because they have it right there and can copy it to google or wherever. It's not impaired advertising, it's advertising that has adapted to its market. If something isn't going to be advertised on tv and radio, but will instead be discovered through a text medium (web, email, chat), then it is not mainly concerned with the things you discuss. Frankly, this name does happen to be pretty stupid, though.
As for why Gnome should have a hard G (I didn't actually know this; anyone I've known who used gnome didn't pronounce the G), the answer is presumably because it is a play on Gnu, which has the G pronounced the same way.
Hey! I just tried it out and you're right. ^ does go the start of a line. I never knew that. But why would anyone actually use that? It seems a lot less efficient than 0 to me, since it requires a shift key. Maybe it just feels slower because 0 is such a habit and I never use ^. Is there any difference between the two? Does ^ actually have any advantage (also, I'm using vim, so please tell me if 0 isn't part of standard vi)?
couldn't the same thing be said about politics, or any strongly-held belief?
Yes, that was the point. He's taking what the religious nuts say about (for example) homosexuality and turning it back at them, showing that the comments they direct at others could just as easily be applied to them.
Based on your use of bold, you seem to be saying it's ironic that he couldn't spell illiterate, but equally ironic is that his screed against the "technically illeterate" is contained in an improperly closed italics tag.
Slashdot Mirror
We are discussing someone spending (potentially) almost two years of income buying video game consoles on ebay. This really sounds to you like someone who knows who to keep "their spending urges under reasonable control"?
I don't have statistics to quote, unfortunately. But what you say is accurate. When a college student wants to set up a web server on his home cumputer that has one page which says "Hi! This is my webpage!", he almost always uses apache. No one is paying for IIS to do this. Which is why the apache cheerleaders who point to netcraft and try to use a raw count of how many domains/ servers (forget which it is) are hosted by apache vs. IIS are being very deceptive. When this is used to make exaggerated claims about how apache is so much more succesfful than IIS, it also completely ignores the fact that IIS is more widely used for corporate intranets (again, I don't have statistics available, so feel free to disregard this if you want rather than flaming me for not having any), but that's not so relevant to the discussion at hand.
I've heard this before and it is ridiculous. The throwaway pop music of the fifties (for example) was as bad as the throwaway pop music of today. The problem is that we don't remember the bad stuff from the past because it gets forgotten, whereas the bad music of today is right there in front of you.
In addition, I get annoyed by people who compare the music of "the 70s" (for example) to the music of "today" and are upset that the best stuff they could come up with from an entire decade is better than the best stuff they can come up with from the last six months. Honestly, I don't know how this could ever seem like a fair comparison.
They could almost afford to give you $19.99/mo now if they stop sending me unbelievable quantities of junkmail every week (sometimes for cable tv, sometimes for internet) and passed those savings on to you.
Actually, in Russian 'railgun' says YOU.
I think the hope is that eventually it won't be necessary for anyone, human or computer, to do this.
I like how in a discussion of a treaty being created by an internation body, the United States is referred to simply as "the country". It's sort of like how I moved away years ago but still call new york "the city".
How does this prove or refute the original claim that explorer.exe and iexplore.exe are the same application? If I'm looking at a web page and I click on a link to word document or a pdf, then word or acrobat gets hosted in the browser window to display it without me doing anything to switch applications. Does this mean that word and acrobat are the same application as explorer and iexplore as well?
I could direct the same criticism back at you since the writeup clearly says "At least one of the holes is fixed in XP Service Pack 2". I am running xp sp2, and whenever these kinds of holes are revealed, I always try them with IE on my system, and they never affect me.
That's fair. I took the statement about being under federal authority to mean what happens in practice, but rereading the whole post in context, I see that you meant what authority it is supposed to have, not what authority it actually exerts.
However, your list of federal powers isn't quite complete. I say that only because your sentence about "Everything else including libraries" not being within federal jurisdiction would seem to indicate that your list is supposed to be complete, but there are legitimate powers of the federal government that you didn't list. Some fall in the the infrastructure caltegory which you already included (e.g., establishing a post office, although that one frankly seems a little outdated now anyway), so that's fine, but others don't (establishing treaties with foreign nations and regulating interstate commerce being two big ones, even if the latter is now used as an excuse for the federal government taking over things that it shouldn't control).
Also, I'm not sure why you would expect to "catch hell for this" around here, where most people who care at all probably agree with you.
Really? Because I found this library that certainly claims to be under the authority of the Federal governemnt. They seem to be a rather large library, too.
Despite the name similarity, I think outlook is pretty much a completely different program from outlook express
This would be more compelling if there were a link anywhere in the post to which you are responding, or if I had actually posted any stories at all. I admit that the link in my sig has recently died, but that doesn't seem related to what you're blathering on about which is some claim about the material I posted containing dead links.
Have you payed any attention to what topic we're discussing? It's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. How can this be driven "underground"? Where do you think it is now? This is something that's already illegal and vigorously prosecuted.
Doesn't windows come with outlook express, which also functions as a free newsreader?
What does that have to do with anything? His friends installed the spyware. It didn't come with the computer. The "factory" isn't responsible for things you install on your computer yourself like a car company would be for whell that came with the car.
Certainly not. If there's one thing I've learned from reading slashdot, it's that the US legal system is highly informed on technical issues and will always make the best decision. If the US government doesn't like something, it must be immoral.
Btw, you do you use this same line of argument on stories about the DMCA, or about software patents, or about the RIAA suing people, etc., etc.? Because it seems that for some reason the only time I hear from the "the US government said it, thus it must be correct" crowd is when it regards the claim of Microsoft being a monopoly, which many of us know to be at least as bogus as the rest of those things.
Did you read the original Ken Brown article? The government may give a damn if they are running their servers on stolen intellectual property (I don't think they are, but I'm saying if they were, they would care). The government also cares if it is giving funding to a project that celebrates IP theft, when it could be funding another project that doesn't (he advocates government funding of BSD-style projects instead of gpl projects, but never actually explains why he thinks the BSD license makes a project less prone to having pilfered proprietary code checked into it than the GPL does). Corporations care if they are considering deploy linux. They don't want to be told "this is some code we found floating around the internet. We're going to deploy on 50,000 of our desktops." They want to know what is and where it came from, and whether it is safe to use from a legal point of view.
No, I got that point; I just chose not to respond to it since I didn't have anything to add to that idea. But since you brought it up again: don't you think you play into the hands of those who characterize linux/ unix types as dirty hippies when you refer to people as "suits" and "phbs"?
Wow. I assumed you must be trolling until I looked at your comment history and realized that you don't seem to be a troll. Just wow. How can anyone be so hypocritical as to get mad about people who try to scare people out of using linux/ unix by claiming that those who work on/ like it are "dirty hippies", and in the same sentence also claim that anyone who works on or likes windows is a "suit" or a "phb"?
Because there is a world outside of slashdot. Yes, everyone here is going to snicker and roll their eyes about how this guy is obviously an idiot since he questions linus, the gpl, linux, etc., but there are people in the rest of the world who actually will consider what he has to say. Maybe he doesn't care if the crowd here thinks he's a fool? Maybe that's not who he is writing for?
But most geeks don't find out about these projects from conversations. They find out about them by reading about them online somewhere, in email, etc. They don't need to ask for the spelling because they have it right there and can copy it to google or wherever. It's not impaired advertising, it's advertising that has adapted to its market. If something isn't going to be advertised on tv and radio, but will instead be discovered through a text medium (web, email, chat), then it is not mainly concerned with the things you discuss. Frankly, this name does happen to be pretty stupid, though.
As for why Gnome should have a hard G (I didn't actually know this; anyone I've known who used gnome didn't pronounce the G), the answer is presumably because it is a play on Gnu, which has the G pronounced the same way.
Hey! I just tried it out and you're right. ^ does go the start of a line. I never knew that. But why would anyone actually use that? It seems a lot less efficient than 0 to me, since it requires a shift key. Maybe it just feels slower because 0 is such a habit and I never use ^. Is there any difference between the two? Does ^ actually have any advantage (also, I'm using vim, so please tell me if 0 isn't part of standard vi)?
Yes, that was the point. He's taking what the religious nuts say about (for example) homosexuality and turning it back at them, showing that the comments they direct at others could just as easily be applied to them.
Based on your use of bold, you seem to be saying it's ironic that he couldn't spell illiterate, but equally ironic is that his screed against the "technically illeterate" is contained in an improperly closed italics tag.