If you would pay for it if you couldn't get it for free it's wrong.
If you wouldn't use it, unless it's free, it's ok (illegal tho).
I took a Lexus from the dealership last night. I couldn't really afford to buy it, but I'd like to see what it's like to drive one. I'll probably return it after a couple of weeks, so there's nothing wrong with that.
I wouldn't pay to watch HBO, but I have a converter box that gives it to me for free, so that's okay, too.
This is moral?
I didn't like your previous post, so I'm going to track you down and put a bullet through your head. I don't see it as murder if the person I kill annoyed me, so I'm sure you won't mind either.
An awful lot of atrocities have been committed because certain people thought they were "ok" to do.
If there had been more gun control in the first place, semi-automatic weapons wouldn't be produced.
...in the US.
While I realize that the guns these kids used are illegal anyway, if they hadn't been able to get those guns, they would have easily been able to find another legal alternative.
If they hadn't been able to get illegal sawed-off shotguns, they could've gotten legal shotguns and sawed off the barrels. So you're saying that hunters shouldn't even be allowed shotguns? It's bowhunting or nothing?
Let's clarify that a semi-automatic weapon is not an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon fires continuously until the trigger is released; A semi-automatic weapon fires once every time the trigger is pulled. Yes, hunters use semi-automatic rifles; and, yes, that handgun in the nightstand is probably a semi-automatic.
I cut my teeth on IRIX with SGI's chkconfig and was severely disappointed that my first Linux installation (Slakware) didn't have such a thing. I was overjoyed to see this util when I installed RedHat.
Installing new services is trivial with SYSV inits and chkconfig: add 2 lines to the init script, pop it into/etc/rc.d/init.d and do a "chkconfig --add"
Consider print-on-demand the mp3 of the publishing industry. Whereas mp3 has a built-in distribution medium, the internet, hardcopy books cannot magically propogate from bookstore to bookstore, and you generally can't thumb through a book online.
I think Logitech does a better job with ergonomics (if you're right-handed, that is). After using my new MouseMan Wheel for a day, all other mice felt like those iMac pills. And speaking of iMacs, MS is apparently going to market to the "Look, it's colored!" crowd. That's what passes for "radical" design these days.
That said, it's nice to see a significant improvement in optical mouse technology. Now that MS has opened the door, I imagine other companies, like Logitech, will flood the market with clones.
You gotta be in the community to properly reap the rewards of the free music.
That's like saying you have to be in the GNU community to reap the rewards of free software. Where would GNU and Linux be today if you had to buddy-up to some guy who once met RMS to get your copy of emacs on CD?
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
US legislators need to learn two things:
Making something illegal does not prevent people from doing it. This only stops law-abiding citizens from doing it.
The US is not an island upon which the world's intelligentsia has been shipwrecked. Foreigners ain't dumb.
It's a very Microsoftesque mentality of closed source, closed standards. "If no one else knows how we do it, then no one else can duplicate it." In the end, this sort of policy only hurts oneself.
Hopefully, projects like this will help enlighten the boys in Washington. But I'm not holding my breath.
Whoa! Hold on... You're saying that if I pay someone for a candy bar, that I am "forcing" them to give me the candy bar???
And you're saying that if my candy store charges African Americans 2000% more than everyone else, I'm not forcing them to buy candy elsewhere (or do without)?
When faced with two options, are you not "forced" to make a choice?
The RMS definition of "freedom" means being able to do stuff without any attempt to stop you with the force of law or the barrel of a gun. Most people would agree that "freedom" means being able to advocate whatever you want so long as you do not impose your will with a lawyer or a gun.
I don't imagine you or RMS would say I should have the freedom to secretly video tape women in their own bathrooms, but I would certainly not be forcing them, by any definition, to do anything. If you start saying, "Well, she has the freedom to not be taped while showering," then you're encroaching on my freedom to tape her.
Obviously, there are limits to the freedom most people would propose we all have. Privacy is one such limit that many slashdotters hold dear. The GPL places limits on your freedom as a programmer as well.
You can't say RMS is a hypocrite because he he says he supports "freedom" but violates YOUR definition of "freedom" and "force".
You're reading too much into my comments. I don't think he's violating his definition or my definition of freedom, and nothing can "violate" my definition of force. I simply think he's being a poor spokesperson. It would behoove RMS, the first time an interviewer says "Linux," to reply that he prefers the term GNU/Linux--and here are a few reasons why I think this is important, thank you very much, etc, etc.
If you want a concession from me, then fine. RMS is not by law or physical force making anyone say "GNU/Linux." He is, however, forcing people to do so by the first definition of the verb "force" in the dictionary closest to my computer.
I don't think we actually disagree. I believe it's just a matter of one person saying, "You'll burn in hell if you don't believe in God," and another replying, "Not if there is no God."
I never said RMS was depriving anyone of their rights. I only argued that he was, indeed, compelling people to use his term, and this is a misguided way for someone to act who is a freedom advocate.
If you refuse to participate in an interview until a reporter says "Gardening for Geeks" instead of "Dynamite for Dudes," then, if the reporter complies, you are forcing him/her to do so. By withholding a commodity (money, sex, opinions...) to induce a certain response, you have forced compliance.
If you're looking for a more value-neutral word, let's just call it persuasion.
As far as RMS's tactics are concerned, a musician can rightfully change his name to an unpronouncable symbol if he likes, and every DJ in the world can call him The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, but when I go to the music store I'll still ask for the new Prince album.
And when I mention the GNU System on a Linux kernel, I'll still call it Linux.
From the American Heritage Dictionary on my desk-- forcev. 1. To compel to perform an action
And RMS isn't forcing reporters to call it GNU/Linux? He's not beating anyone with a truncheon or passing stupid laws, but he's certainly compelling people to use his term. Like you said yourself, it's fine and dandy to say "Please use the term GNU/Linux," but to say "Use the term GNU/Linux or I won't talk to you" is no way to advocate freedom.
And before you complain that I'm arguing semantics, keep in mind that the whole issue is about semantics.
And it's apparently worth 90 bucks, since masq--er, ICS--is one of the few new features not available for download.
The funny thing is, every mention of Internet Connection Sharing I've seen only says it can be used with a dialup. It'll probably cost another $89 for the upgrade that works with cable, *DSL, or any other dual NIC config (ie, real ip masquerading).
There are, however, only so many hours in the day. I'd prefer not to spend my free time reading about Amigas, because I have no interest in them. I might as well read a crochet magazine.
Other than on a purely literary and common sense basis do I know the difference between a good Amiga--or crochet--post and crap.
I does make a "sort of" sense, and I'm not sure it isn't actually the best way to handle mass moderation. But since I don't have time to read about Amigas and Palm Pilots, I'll likely be checking the "No Jury Duty" box.
"So really this conference is about the GNU System, but they're calling it Linux, and whats happened is, because those people put everything else together with Linux, didn't realize what they were doing was taking the GNU system, nobody knows that now."
"We've produced the GNU system. Even though people call it Linux, they still have the benefit of freedom when they use this system."
Sounds like GNU + Linux to me. After all, the LinuxWorld Expo wasn't about GNU + HURD.
If these shutdowns are a 4/1 joke....
on
Slashdot:Mark 2
·
· Score: 1
I've got as much of a sense of humor as the next guy, but, come on! Some people don't take matters like freedom of speech as a joking matter.
I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't find a pie in the face funny, either. Practical jokes are rarely funny to their victims.
But, you're right; we should make a list of all the things that shouldn't be joked about: the Holocaust, France, dead babies, freedom of speech, Jesus, Chernobyl, embarassing personal problems, etc. None of these things could ever be considered funny, not by folks with as much sense of humor as the next guy.
because of the publicity regarding the UID's, anyone smart enough to engineer this type of thing would be smart enough to be able to cover their tracks.
That's true, assuming that the writer a) knew about the GUID's and b) was actually competent enough to spoof it. Since Melissa was created before the GUID's became common knowledge, he probably didn't know about the ID. As far as competence is concerned, you don't need to know anything about MAC addresses to write virii, especialy in VBA.
But, you're right. Whether the guy wrote it or not is irrelevant. A MAC-based ID is not a unique identifier, and to treat it as such is more irresponsible than authoring the virus in the first place.
A god whose actions are indistinguishable from physical laws or scientifically proven phenomena is indistinguishable from science itself. The Christian God, by definition, performs actions above and beyond--often in contradiction to--physical laws.
But the scene has nothing to do with God. It's about faith.
The person with faith in the scientific assertion that the pendulum will never return to a point beyond its starting position can stand in the face of the onrushing pendulum. The person with faith in a God who performs miracles can stand in the face of the onrushing pendulum and take a step forward. In both cases, from the perspective of personal faith, the outcome is irrelevant. Either one's belief is strong enough to act on or it isn't.
I suppose you've never compared a point-and-shoot picture to a wide-open SLR shot. A busy background can totally screw up an otherwise good picture.
And, yes, when I look at something close, I notice how out-of-focus the far away objects are. Eyes don't have infinite depth-of-field. You cannot focus on objects 1 foot away and 100 feet away simultaneously. Whether it's a camera or an eye, a lense is a lense.
However, had the X-Window system not existed, or had it been proprietary, the GNU project would have developed a replacement for that too, just as they developed a replacement for the C library, and m4 macro processor, and many other things.
Following that logic, why is it so unreasonable to then assume that, had the GNU tools not already existed, substitutes would've been developed for use with the Linux kernel?
Slashdot Mirror
If you would pay for it if you couldn't get it for free it's wrong.
If you wouldn't use it, unless it's free, it's ok (illegal tho).
I took a Lexus from the dealership last night. I couldn't really afford to buy it, but I'd like to see what it's like to drive one. I'll probably return it after a couple of weeks, so there's nothing wrong with that.
I wouldn't pay to watch HBO, but I have a converter box that gives it to me for free, so that's okay, too.
This is moral?
I didn't like your previous post, so I'm going to track you down and put a bullet through your head. I don't see it as murder if the person I kill annoyed me, so I'm sure you won't mind either.
An awful lot of atrocities have been committed because certain people thought they were "ok" to do.
If there had been more gun control in the first place, semi-automatic weapons wouldn't be produced.
...in the US.
While I realize that the guns these kids used are illegal anyway, if they hadn't been able to get those guns, they would have easily been able to find another legal alternative.
If they hadn't been able to get illegal sawed-off shotguns, they could've gotten legal shotguns and sawed off the barrels. So you're saying that hunters shouldn't even be allowed shotguns? It's bowhunting or nothing?
Let's clarify that a semi-automatic weapon is not an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon fires continuously until the trigger is released; A semi-automatic weapon fires once every time the trigger is pulled. Yes, hunters use semi-automatic rifles; and, yes, that handgun in the nightstand is probably a semi-automatic.
I've never seen RedHat put anything in /usr/local. Some third-party rpm's may do it, but that's not RedHat's fault.
I cut my teeth on IRIX with SGI's chkconfig and was severely disappointed that my first Linux installation (Slakware) didn't have such a thing. I was overjoyed to see this util when I installed RedHat.
/etc/rc.d/init.d and do a "chkconfig --add"
Installing new services is trivial with SYSV inits and chkconfig: add 2 lines to the init script, pop it into
SYSV makes sense. BSD is, er, evil.
Exactly.
Consider print-on-demand the mp3 of the publishing industry. Whereas mp3 has a built-in distribution medium, the internet, hardcopy books cannot magically propogate from bookstore to bookstore, and you generally can't thumb through a book online.
I think Logitech does a better job with ergonomics (if you're right-handed, that is). After using my new MouseMan Wheel for a day, all other mice felt like those iMac pills. And speaking of iMacs, MS is apparently going to market to the "Look, it's colored!" crowd. That's what passes for "radical" design these days.
That said, it's nice to see a significant improvement in optical mouse technology. Now that MS has opened the door, I imagine other companies, like Logitech, will flood the market with clones.
You gotta be in the community to properly reap the rewards of the free music.
That's like saying you have to be in the GNU community to reap the rewards of free software. Where would GNU and Linux be today if you had to buddy-up to some guy who once met RMS to get your copy of emacs on CD?
US legislators need to learn two things:
It's a very Microsoftesque mentality of closed source, closed standards. "If no one else knows how we do it, then no one else can duplicate it." In the end, this sort of policy only hurts oneself.
Hopefully, projects like this will help enlighten the boys in Washington. But I'm not holding my breath.
Whoa! Hold on... You're saying that if I pay someone for a candy bar, that I am "forcing" them to give me the candy bar???
And you're saying that if my candy store charges African Americans 2000% more than everyone else, I'm not forcing them to buy candy elsewhere (or do without)?
When faced with two options, are you not "forced" to make a choice?
The RMS definition of "freedom" means being able to do stuff without any attempt to stop you with the force of law or the barrel of a gun. Most people would agree that "freedom" means being able to advocate whatever you want so long as you do not impose your will with a lawyer or a gun.
I don't imagine you or RMS would say I should have the freedom to secretly video tape women in their own bathrooms, but I would certainly not be forcing them, by any definition, to do anything. If you start saying, "Well, she has the freedom to not be taped while showering," then you're encroaching on my freedom to tape her.
Obviously, there are limits to the freedom most people would propose we all have. Privacy is one such limit that many slashdotters hold dear. The GPL places limits on your freedom as a programmer as well.
You can't say RMS is a hypocrite because he he says he supports "freedom" but violates YOUR definition of "freedom" and "force".
You're reading too much into my comments. I don't think he's violating his definition or my definition of freedom, and nothing can "violate" my definition of force. I simply think he's being a poor spokesperson. It would behoove RMS, the first time an interviewer says "Linux," to reply that he prefers the term GNU/Linux--and here are a few reasons why I think this is important, thank you very much, etc, etc.
If you want a concession from me, then fine. RMS is not by law or physical force making anyone say "GNU/Linux." He is, however, forcing people to do so by the first definition of the verb "force" in the dictionary closest to my computer.
I don't think we actually disagree. I believe it's just a matter of one person saying, "You'll burn in hell if you don't believe in God," and another replying, "Not if there is no God."
I lived in Southern California for five years. The reason LA has the smog is due to the valley walls, which trap in the smog.
China attempted to solve a similar smog problem by having hundreds of thousands of workers with shovels remove a mountain. Whee.
I never said RMS was depriving anyone of their rights. I only argued that he was, indeed, compelling people to use his term, and this is a misguided way for someone to act who is a freedom advocate.
If you refuse to participate in an interview until a reporter says "Gardening for Geeks" instead of "Dynamite for Dudes," then, if the reporter complies, you are forcing him/her to do so. By withholding a commodity (money, sex, opinions...) to induce a certain response, you have forced compliance.
If you're looking for a more value-neutral word, let's just call it persuasion.
As far as RMS's tactics are concerned, a musician can rightfully change his name to an unpronouncable symbol if he likes, and every DJ in the world can call him The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, but when I go to the music store I'll still ask for the new Prince album.
And when I mention the GNU System on a Linux kernel, I'll still call it Linux.
From the American Heritage Dictionary on my desk--
force v. 1. To compel to perform an action
And RMS isn't forcing reporters to call it GNU/Linux? He's not beating anyone with a truncheon or passing stupid laws, but he's certainly compelling people to use his term. Like you said yourself, it's fine and dandy to say "Please use the term GNU/Linux," but to say "Use the term GNU/Linux or I won't talk to you" is no way to advocate freedom.
And before you complain that I'm arguing semantics, keep in mind that the whole issue is about semantics.
And it's apparently worth 90 bucks, since masq--er, ICS--is one of the few new features not available for download.
The funny thing is, every mention of Internet Connection Sharing I've seen only says it can be used with a dialup. It'll probably cost another $89 for the upgrade that works with cable, *DSL, or any other dual NIC config (ie, real ip masquerading).
There are, however, only so many hours in the day. I'd prefer not to spend my free time reading about Amigas, because I have no interest in them. I might as well read a crochet magazine.
Other than on a purely literary and common sense basis do I know the difference between a good Amiga--or crochet--post and crap.
I does make a "sort of" sense, and I'm not sure it isn't actually the best way to handle mass moderation. But since I don't have time to read about Amigas and Palm Pilots, I'll likely be checking the "No Jury Duty" box.
All my dictionaries say gnu is noo or nyoo. Guh-new just sounds like you're trying to be funny, like saying guh-nat, guh-nome, kuh-noe, kuh-not.
"So really this conference is about the GNU System, but they're calling it Linux, and whats happened is, because those people put everything else together with Linux, didn't realize what
they were doing was taking the GNU system, nobody knows that now."
"We've produced the GNU system. Even though people call it Linux, they still have the benefit of freedom when they use this system."
Sounds like GNU + Linux to me. After all, the LinuxWorld Expo wasn't about GNU + HURD.
I've got as much of a sense of humor as the next guy, but, come on! Some people don't take matters like freedom of speech as a joking matter.
I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't find a pie in the face funny, either. Practical jokes are rarely funny to their victims.
But, you're right; we should make a list of all the things that shouldn't be joked about: the Holocaust, France, dead babies, freedom of speech, Jesus, Chernobyl, embarassing personal problems, etc. None of these things could ever be considered funny, not by folks with as much sense of humor as the next guy.
because of the publicity regarding the UID's, anyone smart enough to engineer this type of thing would be smart enough to be able to cover their tracks.
That's true, assuming that the writer a) knew about the GUID's and b) was actually competent enough to spoof it. Since Melissa was created before the GUID's became common knowledge, he probably didn't know about the ID. As far as competence is concerned, you don't need to know anything about MAC addresses to write virii, especialy in VBA.
But, you're right. Whether the guy wrote it or not is irrelevant. A MAC-based ID is not a unique identifier, and to treat it as such is more irresponsible than authoring the virus in the first place.
-tak
A god whose actions are indistinguishable from physical laws or scientifically proven phenomena is indistinguishable from science itself. The Christian God, by definition, performs actions above and beyond--often in contradiction to--physical laws.
But the scene has nothing to do with God. It's about faith.
The person with faith in the scientific assertion that the pendulum will never return to a point beyond its starting position can stand in the face of the onrushing pendulum. The person with faith in a God who performs miracles can stand in the face of the onrushing pendulum and take a step forward. In both cases, from the perspective of personal faith, the outcome is irrelevant. Either one's belief is strong enough to act on or it isn't.
-tak
I suppose you've never compared a point-and-shoot picture to a wide-open SLR shot. A busy background can totally screw up an otherwise good picture.
And, yes, when I look at something close, I notice how out-of-focus the far away objects are. Eyes don't have infinite depth-of-field. You cannot focus on objects 1 foot away and 100 feet away simultaneously. Whether it's a camera or an eye, a lense is a lense.
-tak
Lengths of wire rule.
-tak
Following that logic, why is it so unreasonable to then assume that, had the GNU tools not already existed, substitutes would've been developed for use with the Linux kernel?
-tak
The kernel is a tiny percent of code without which my computer would never do more than POST.
-tak
Actually--if I may be a bit of a smartass--pretty much all of the information at
-tak
As far as novel adaptations, Contact was one of the better big-budget films of late. That only serves to show how bad all the others were.
I was sorely disappointed that they left out the pendulum scene. That, above all else, was a defining moment of the book.
-tak