There is actually at least one running machine there. My dad is one of the key volunteers and led the project to restore the IBM 1620. They have it running in a little room off the main visible storage area.
I always have a question I want to ask when someone has this type of comment:
Where is your child getting the money to buy the videogame?
It is either from the parents or because they have a job and earn the money themselves. If you're just giving your children 50 bucks to go and buy what they want, it is pretty irresponsible to blame the stores for selling them violent games. If the kid is responsible enough to have their own job and money, then it is fair to assume that they are responsible enough to play the games.
While I agree that the NSA may have other motives for releasing SE Linux, I doubt they are doing so to exploit a back door. If you were an international terrorist who was being watched by the USA, why would you ever use a product being built and distributed by that government. Bin Laden and Castro would have to be complete morons to actually trust anything the NSA gave them. Thats comparable to the US giving Sadam a bomb disguied as a Playstation and Sadam actually accepting it. Hello, yes there are conspiracies, but I don't think you quite hit the nail on the head on this one.
Flame? We all know that Nike, Kathy Lee Gifford, GAP, et all only have these factories in these third world countries because the labor is so cheap. Nike isn't doing these people a service by locating thier factories there. All the comments I see on/. about how the RIAA, MPAA, Microsft are evil because they are only conserned with money, but Nike is ok for following the same greedy religion. The third world is in the state it is because of exploitation by the western developed countries (not just the good ol' US of A). If Nike were forced to adhere to US labor laws in other countries, maybe those poor street orphans could actually get off the street and raise the wellfare of their entire community. Of course that would raise the cost of the shoes (or lower Nike's profit margins) and we all know $100 dollar shoes is more important than freedom and justice.
No one is returning Outlook because most people have no idea of the risks involved. When a virus hits like Melissa or the ILoveYou, people aren't informed that it only is spread because of outlook. M$ doesn't inform anyone, so the only people who know that M$ is as much at fault as the idiots who wrote the virus are the people who are smart enough to avoid being infected. The sad thing is that even if they knew the risks involved, they would probably still use outlook because they don't care about internet security.
But what is wrong with trying to settle the manner in a gentlemanly way? Wouldn't the world be better if everyone, before jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon, tried to settle things politely. It seems to me that the way to gain respect for Linux is if we act better than the large faceless corporations, not stoop to their level. The best way to develop good relations with these companies to convince them to open their code is to try and solve these types of problems without threats and such. I fully agree, however, that if they refuse to comply after peaceful talks, then lawsuits, threats, etc. are neccessary.
I don't understand why everyone hate M$ for "stealing" ideas or using thier monopoly in OS to sell their apps. I hate to burst your bubble, but every company does it, or would do it if they could. Do you think Larry Ellison is any better than Gates? Of course he hates Gates, because he views him as the only thing standing in HIS way of global domination. That's the way buisness works... crush your competitors and make more money. Very few companies innovate : M$ stole from Apple who stole from Xerox, Gnome stole from Windows, etc. What is wrong with taking ideas from others and improving them? All the office apps in Linux aren't new... all the one's I've seen are just carbon copies of M$ office. If it is so wrong to steal ideas and M$'s products are so horrible, then how come people are stealing from them? M$ is just the current enemy. If/When they get broken up someone else will just come and take their place. Do you think AOL/Netscape, Corel, Sun, RedHat would behave any better than Bill once they were in charge? I doubt it. That is why i believe open source, linux is so great... there are no profits so people can create excelent tools and no one is trying to take over the world.
You complain that when Microsoft upgrades their software that the files are no longer compatable. I agree, this is a real problem. I work in a computer lab and we have office 95, 97, 98 & 2000 on different machines and it always a pain because of the different files. But, i don't see other office suites doing any better. Corel changes formats in WP. And what happens when everyone uses different suites, each with thier own propeitary formats? No one will be able to open each others' files. The fact that a vast majority of people use the same software is a good thing as it enables the sharing of information. Think what would have happened if there was so standards on the web ( I know most people/browsers don't follow them entirely)... you would have to own every browser just to be able to get/recieve information.
What makes you think that by splitting up M$ that the apps division will release office for linux, or the internet division will do the same with IE? there are many windows developers who aren't microsoft who aren't switching to linux. There still isn't a large enough market to support most conversions. Saying that people will switch to linux once Office, ie, etc. is there, where is your proof? Most people want ( most people = new/unkowledgeable users) their computer as simple and uncomplecated as possible. I know that no matter what i say none of my friends will switch to linux, and office won't change that.
I can see how breaking up Microsoft helps their competetors, but how does it really help consumers? Most people who bitch about M$'s monopoly and how crappy their software is tend to be the ones who find alternatives : Linux, StarOffice, etc. But, the vast majority of people who are using Windows etc. are the people who don't understand much about computers. I work at my school's computer lab, and alot of people have a hard time telling the difference between Mac & Win. How are these people going to cope with several differnt versions of Windows that may not be 100% compatible? or breaking along product lines : what is to sto the app's department from hijacking the source to Windows and realeasing their own copy? Maybe Microsoft needs to be punished, but how much and at what cost?
the real issue isn't if Napster, warez, DeCSS are legal or not. it doesn't really matter. how can anyone, the Recording Industry, the government, etc, stop the spread of content? it would be impossible and also pointless to track down everyone who has illegeal mp3s, emulators, etc and fien them and throw them in jail. that is the real issue - not whether it is legal or not, but what are the music and movie industries going to do about the widespead free trade. they only way they'll stop it would be to stop releasing new cds and movies. once they are released, they are freely and easily available to anyone who wants them. they have to do something creative to make people WANT to pay them for cds/mp3s/dvds or else we'll all just continue to download what we want for free. the corporations have to stop looking at the world the way they want it or believe it to be and look at reality.
I agree. People owning generic domain names should be allowed to auction them off/sell them. Domain names are kinda of like any other possession, you can use them how you see fit. If the New York stock Exchange wants www.stocks.com and you own it you should be allowed to sell it instead of it being just taken away and given to them. The exception is registering company names, etc. that are trademarked, or even easily recognizable. A person should not be able to sell www.McDonalds.com to the McDonalds company becasue it is trademarked. This pretty much amounts to extortion. The name is trademarked and using it any way in normal (eg noninternet) media would be prohibitted and so it should also be on the net. The people who register domains for this purpose are the "squaters" and they should lose thier rights to the domains. The courts agree ( John Tesh just won the rights to johntesh.com like this ) This of course could lead to problems if Bill McDonald owned the domain. He obviously has a legitimate reason for owning the site beyond using it to get money from the McDonalds corporation. In this case he should not have to give up his domain or could sell it to McDonalds for a reasonable ammount of money. All this could be worked out be the current legal system as trademark lawyers don't need expertise on the web; it should be treated like any normal trademark case.
I agree that libraries, as well as schools should not install any internet filters, but not because of the first ammendment. As I understand it, the first ammendment only covers the author's right to say what they want, not the public's right to access it. As long as the libraries, schools, parents, etc. don't try to actually shut down the sites I don't believe they are going against the Bill of Rights.
BUT, there are reasons why filtering software should not be used:
1) No filter is 100% accurate so alot of porn will still be able to be viewed (sites specifically make their sites pass the "tests" so they get by filters ) and legitimate sites will be block ( the classic case I always hear about is that pictures of the statue David could be block because he is nude )
2) There have been no studies showing that there is even a problem with people looking at "inappropriate" material. I think it is stupid to just assume there is a problem, as I work in a college campus computing facility and have never seen people looking at porn or bomb sites, etc. This is like the debate over violent video games - the parents claim that the games cause kids to be violent but there have been no studies (that I know of anyway) that have been done to prove it. It is just parents, media, gov. that BELIEVE there is a problem.
3) Putting filters on the Internet stations at libraries and schools wouldn't even solve the problems anyway. Partly because #1 and also because the kids will just go somewhere else, like their homes where they most likely won't be supervised.
There is no way to ensure that children don't view material that their parent's don't want them to and this isn't because of the internet. When I was younger (~12) me and my friend found his dad's collection of Playboys. Off course we looked at them even though we weren't supposed to. Parents just need to try and teach their children morals and explain to them why such material is inappropriate and trust their kids to do the right thing. There is no way to protect children forever, they will eventually grow up. All we can do is to give them the tools so that they can function in the real world.
I personally support mp3.com. I have been using their Beam-It service for awhile and have found it extremely useful. I have about 80 CDs, all of which I enjoy listening too, and it is great to be able to stream them to any computer ( I have two plus one at work). I feel mp3.com has provided a great service to people like me and should be supported. I think the RIAA is way off base with thier lawsuit. It seems to me mp3.com has taken measures to ensure thier service is used the way it is intended; to let music owners have greater access to their collections ( eg - links expire after only one hour, you need the physical CD in your computer to Beam-It). Yes it is concievable that people could take advantage of this service by sharing accounts etc., but from what I've read they disconnect you if there are multiple streams active in your account. I don't see the RIAA's members losing any more money from mp3.com's site than they already lose to prirating. I still buy the CDs, now I just listen to them online. Sure people can borrow Cds and Beam them, but you could also record them to a tape, and I don't see the RIAA suing tape manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
There is actually at least one running machine there. My dad is one of the key volunteers and led the project to restore the IBM 1620. They have it running in a little room off the main visible storage area.
Actually the museum has several "pre-computing" devices on display included abacuses and slide rules.
I always have a question I want to ask when someone has this type of comment:
Where is your child getting the money to buy the videogame?
It is either from the parents or because they have a job and earn the money themselves. If you're just giving your children 50 bucks to go and buy what they want, it is pretty irresponsible to blame the stores for selling them violent games. If the kid is responsible enough to have their own job and money, then it is fair to assume that they are responsible enough to play the games.
While I agree that the NSA may have other motives for releasing SE Linux, I doubt they are doing so to exploit a back door. If you were an international terrorist who was being watched by the USA, why would you ever use a product being built and distributed by that government. Bin Laden and Castro would have to be complete morons to actually trust anything the NSA gave them. Thats comparable to the US giving Sadam a bomb disguied as a Playstation and Sadam actually accepting it. Hello, yes there are conspiracies, but I don't think you quite hit the nail on the head on this one.
Flame? We all know that Nike, Kathy Lee Gifford, GAP, et all only have these factories in these third world countries because the labor is so cheap. Nike isn't doing these people a service by locating thier factories there. All the comments I see on /. about how the RIAA, MPAA, Microsft are evil because they are only conserned with money, but Nike is ok for following the same greedy religion. The third world is in the state it is because of exploitation by the western developed countries (not just the good ol' US of A). If Nike were forced to adhere to US labor laws in other countries, maybe those poor street orphans could actually get off the street and raise the wellfare of their entire community. Of course that would raise the cost of the shoes (or lower Nike's profit margins) and we all know $100 dollar shoes is more important than freedom and justice.
No one is returning Outlook because most people have no idea of the risks involved. When a virus hits like Melissa or the ILoveYou, people aren't informed that it only is spread because of outlook. M$ doesn't inform anyone, so the only people who know that M$ is as much at fault as the idiots who wrote the virus are the people who are smart enough to avoid being infected. The sad thing is that even if they knew the risks involved, they would probably still use outlook because they don't care about internet security.
But what is wrong with trying to settle the manner in a gentlemanly way? Wouldn't the world be better if everyone, before jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon, tried to settle things politely. It seems to me that the way to gain respect for Linux is if we act better than the large faceless corporations, not stoop to their level. The best way to develop good relations with these companies to convince them to open their code is to try and solve these types of problems without threats and such. I fully agree, however, that if they refuse to comply after peaceful talks, then lawsuits, threats, etc. are neccessary.
I don't understand why everyone hate M$ for "stealing" ideas or using thier monopoly in OS to sell their apps. I hate to burst your bubble, but every company does it, or would do it if they could. Do you think Larry Ellison is any better than Gates? Of course he hates Gates, because he views him as the only thing standing in HIS way of global domination. That's the way buisness works... crush your competitors and make more money. Very few companies innovate : M$ stole from Apple who stole from Xerox, Gnome stole from Windows, etc. What is wrong with taking ideas from others and improving them? All the office apps in Linux aren't new... all the one's I've seen are just carbon copies of M$ office. If it is so wrong to steal ideas and M$'s products are so horrible, then how come people are stealing from them? M$ is just the current enemy. If/When they get broken up someone else will just come and take their place. Do you think AOL/Netscape, Corel, Sun, RedHat would behave any better than Bill once they were in charge? I doubt it. That is why i believe open source, linux is so great... there are no profits so people can create excelent tools and no one is trying to take over the world.
You complain that when Microsoft upgrades their software that the files are no longer compatable. I agree, this is a real problem. I work in a computer lab and we have office 95, 97, 98 & 2000 on different machines and it always a pain because of the different files. But, i don't see other office suites doing any better. Corel changes formats in WP. And what happens when everyone uses different suites, each with thier own propeitary formats? No one will be able to open each others' files. The fact that a vast majority of people use the same software is a good thing as it enables the sharing of information. Think what would have happened if there was so standards on the web ( I know most people/browsers don't follow them entirely)... you would have to own every browser just to be able to get/recieve information.
What makes you think that by splitting up M$ that the apps division will release office for linux, or the internet division will do the same with IE? there are many windows developers who aren't microsoft who aren't switching to linux. There still isn't a large enough market to support most conversions. Saying that people will switch to linux once Office, ie, etc. is there, where is your proof? Most people want ( most people = new/unkowledgeable users) their computer as simple and uncomplecated as possible. I know that no matter what i say none of my friends will switch to linux, and office won't change that.
I can see how breaking up Microsoft helps their competetors, but how does it really help consumers? Most people who bitch about M$'s monopoly and how crappy their software is tend to be the ones who find alternatives : Linux, StarOffice, etc. But, the vast majority of people who are using Windows etc. are the people who don't understand much about computers. I work at my school's computer lab, and alot of people have a hard time telling the difference between Mac & Win. How are these people going to cope with several differnt versions of Windows that may not be 100% compatible? or breaking along product lines : what is to sto the app's department from hijacking the source to Windows and realeasing their own copy? Maybe Microsoft needs to be punished, but how much and at what cost?
the real issue isn't if Napster, warez, DeCSS are legal or not. it doesn't really matter. how can anyone, the Recording Industry, the government, etc, stop the spread of content? it would be impossible and also pointless to track down everyone who has illegeal mp3s, emulators, etc and fien them and throw them in jail. that is the real issue - not whether it is legal or not, but what are the music and movie industries going to do about the widespead free trade. they only way they'll stop it would be to stop releasing new cds and movies. once they are released, they are freely and easily available to anyone who wants them. they have to do something creative to make people WANT to pay them for cds/mp3s/dvds or else we'll all just continue to download what we want for free. the corporations have to stop looking at the world the way they want it or believe it to be and look at reality.
I agree. People owning generic domain names should be allowed to auction them off/sell them. Domain names are kinda of like any other possession, you can use them how you see fit. If the New York stock Exchange wants www.stocks.com and you own it you should be allowed to sell it instead of it being just taken away and given to them.
The exception is registering company names, etc. that are trademarked, or even easily recognizable. A person should not be able to sell www.McDonalds.com to the McDonalds company becasue it is trademarked. This pretty much amounts to extortion. The name is trademarked and using it any way in normal (eg noninternet) media would be prohibitted and so it should also be on the net. The people who register domains for this purpose are the "squaters" and they should lose thier rights to the domains. The courts agree ( John Tesh just won the rights to johntesh.com like this )
This of course could lead to problems if Bill McDonald owned the domain. He obviously has a legitimate reason for owning the site beyond using it to get money from the McDonalds corporation. In this case he should not have to give up his domain or could sell it to McDonalds for a reasonable ammount of money. All this could be worked out be the current legal system as trademark lawyers don't need expertise on the web; it should be treated like any normal trademark case.
I agree that libraries, as well as schools should not install any internet filters, but not because of the first ammendment. As I understand it, the first ammendment only covers the author's right to say what they want, not the public's right to access it. As long as the libraries, schools, parents, etc. don't try to actually shut down the sites I don't believe they are going against the Bill of Rights.
BUT, there are reasons why filtering software should not be used:
1) No filter is 100% accurate so alot of porn will still be able to be viewed (sites specifically make their sites pass the "tests" so they get by filters ) and legitimate sites will be block ( the classic case I always hear about is that pictures of the statue David could be block because he is nude )
2) There have been no studies showing that there is even a problem with people looking at "inappropriate" material. I think it is stupid to just assume there is a problem, as I work in a college campus computing facility and have never seen people looking at porn or bomb sites, etc. This is like the debate over violent video games - the parents claim that the games cause kids to be violent but there have been no studies (that I know of anyway) that have been done to prove it. It is just parents, media, gov. that BELIEVE there is a problem.
3) Putting filters on the Internet stations at libraries and schools wouldn't even solve the problems anyway. Partly because #1 and also because the kids will just go somewhere else, like their homes where they most likely won't be supervised.
There is no way to ensure that children don't view material that their parent's don't want them to and this isn't because of the internet. When I was younger (~12) me and my friend found his dad's collection of Playboys. Off course we looked at them even though we weren't supposed to. Parents just need to try and teach their children morals and explain to them why such material is inappropriate and trust their kids to do the right thing. There is no way to protect children forever, they will eventually grow up. All we can do is to give them the tools so that they can function in the real world.
I personally support mp3.com. I have been using their Beam-It service for awhile and have found it extremely useful. I have about 80 CDs, all of which I enjoy listening too, and it is great to be able to stream them to any computer ( I have two plus one at work). I feel mp3.com has provided a great service to people like me and should be supported. I think the RIAA is way off base with thier lawsuit. It seems to me mp3.com has taken measures to ensure thier service is used the way it is intended; to let music owners have greater access to their collections ( eg - links expire after only one hour, you need the physical CD in your computer to Beam-It). Yes it is concievable that people could take advantage of this service by sharing accounts etc., but from what I've read they disconnect you if there are multiple streams active in your account. I don't see the RIAA's members losing any more money from mp3.com's site than they already lose to prirating. I still buy the CDs, now I just listen to them online. Sure people can borrow Cds and Beam them, but you could also record them to a tape, and I don't see the RIAA suing tape manufacturers.