So what's the difference between cracking something and making it useless - and unplugging it, or bashing it with a sledgehammer?
What I want to know is if these irresponsible brats would have physically broken that same computer if presented with the opportunity and the same anonymity they have when they're online. Do you think they would? I don't. There's a certain level of non-reality that goes with dealing with something that's not physical. It's the same reason we'll blow up our friends in Quake, but we wouldn't dream of doing that in real life (at least, I hope not).
In some ways, I think that our virtualizing so many things about us (and becoming accustomed to it and dependent on it) has begat criminals who otherwise wouldn't be criminals. That makes this place a little more dangerous to live in, doesn't it?
Hee hee. Funny... Anyone else around here old enough to remember Impossible Mission?
After this robot, they need to make cylandrical ones that spit electricity and really big, black metal balls that just hover all day. Oh, yeah, and when are they going to make this one do somersaults?
Did you notice that the whatchyamacallits only communicate "the will" of the Force? In that way, the Force is still as mystical, but there's a reason that people use it to varying degrees.
Has anyone here been to ihatestarwars.com? It's a good read - but I think the guy takes things a bit far - and I laughed my butt off the first time I visited it.
Seems like it would be a boring one. I mean, how many times can you build a rocket and salvage parts of old beat-up stuff on the moon and still keep people interested? It'd be like making a TV series about October Sky, for crying out loud. How many times do I want to see some hick kid blast off a raw-kit?
I think he should take his dog up to the moon, because everyone knows that the moon's made of cheese. And then, maybe he'll be kind enough to leave a couple of strips of metal for a beat up old bobby/kiosk.
However, the development of useful content on the server side requires each we publisher to incur an additional expense. As such, there must already be a critical mass of supported clients available for it to be cost effective for them to rewrite existing applications.
Would it be terribly difficult to write something that translates HTML into BXXP (or vice versa) for those not wishing to incur the overhead of doing something twice?
As far as I understand it, this isn't about linking, it's about aiding and abetting a crime. If that's the case, I would think that a text-only "link" is just as illegal, if it were put up for that intent.
So far, it seems that Google hasn't fallen into a commercialist trap - they've generally kept everything clean and unbiased, and they turn up darn good results. (Heck, I got a Google t-shirt for Father's Day, and I'll proudly wear it.)
The only thing that bothers me is: what's to keep them from catering to specific commercial interests? How long is it before it becomes YASE (Yet Another Search Engine) that favors some commercial hits above any others? I sure hope there are some people up top at Google who push fairness. Of course, when those people go away, what's left to do that work? Have they forced themselves into a process that will do it for them?
Something Mr. Wladawsky-Berger said caught my eye:
Linux compatibility with AIX (IBM's version of Unix) is coming out late this year. You can take a Linux application and recompile for AIX with just about no changes.
Does this mean that they're making a Linux distribution (or hacking the kernel or gcc libs or something), or does it mean thay're changing AIX?
I think one of the smartest things that IBM could do would be to release everything they make for Linux under the GPL, and I think they will.
Think about it. Why is IBM doing Linux? Mindshare, pure and simple. It could cost them in the short run to create things without licensing fees (of course, they do get free developers from the hobbyists who want to join in), but, in the long run, they get the mindshare of everyone whose lives they made just a little bit better that didn't have to pay them for it. Having thousands of OS supporters and developers thinking "IBM is really cool" is an intangible benefit, but it could be worth a whole lot in the future.
I'm not sure if it's a corporate tactic, plain common sense, or pure kindness, but I think I can live with it.
If you want to be disappointed because a game is too linear, then Amerzone is definitely for you. Unfortunately, I bought the game before I read the reviews. Most of them had gripes about it because (they said), unlike Myst and Riven, it was way too linear.
Riven was a big improvement over Myst in two ways - it wasn't as linear, and it has less unimportant puzzles. (Some people say it was too hard, but hey, I won without hints, so anyone ought to be able to...) Anyway, my point is that, just because a game is one of these types, it doesn't mean it's linear.
I just had a thought - did you ever play Zork? I think games like this are just evolved versions of that, and this 3D stuff looks like the next step in their natural evolution, which is great. Of course, I think I'll make sure I read plenty of reviews before I go spend money I could buy hardware with for it.
Re:Where's the value in a linux distro?
on
Linux Mergers?
·
· Score: 1
Am I wrong here?
That depends on how much the big names are actually just puppets, I suppose. Touting a name like Alan Cox is cool until people find out they don't use his ideas - and listen to marketing babble instead - and just turn out something that sucks. id's reputation took a hit when they tried to puppetize (is that a word?) Carmack.
I think another key ingredient to your well-thought-out list might be attitude.
Or does everybody still play reasonably nicely as they have in the past?
I think that as long as one distribution doesn't own too much of the market share, they'll have to play nice - it'll be in their best interest. If one gets popular, it'll stop being in their best interest to do so, and they'll stop. Bleak, huh?
I don't think a company that sells a Linux distribution (or the services for it) is really inherently more moral than anyone else just because it deals in Linux.
I think we should expect a little more backbone from one of our most prestigious educational institutions.
Historically, backbone is not something that has had a big presence in our educational institutions. Think about the 60's - most of the big ones basically bent over backwards trying to accomodate some of the radical students, right up to patting them on the back for taking hostages at gunpoint...
Young predicts that Linux will ultimately power many of the hand-held devices, Internet "appliances," smart toasters and other goods that have computer chips embedded within them.
When I last counted, there were at least 15 posts about "viruses" versus "virii." This has probably been hashed out more times than just about anything - barring whether or not Micros~1 sucks.
Maybe you folks at Slashdot could fix up those titles just to save yourselves some hard drive space? This is seriously pathetic...
...is that a few companies are looking to Microsoft for an example of how not to behave, and, as a consequence, play more fairly. I read an interesting story on it on msnbc.com the other day, and it seemed like the people at Cisco have it just about right.
What? You avoid using inflammatory language? You don't assume that everything you do is right no matter what it is? You avoid business decisions that may be looked upon unfavorably by the DOJ? What? You actually talk to them on a regular basis? Oh, puh-lease. You people are just way too reasonable...
The way I see around it would be to couple it with a real 8 GB hard drive (or 8.x, really) and give it its own battery power. If the card sensed that the power on the motherboard went out, it could write all the RAM to the hard drive and then shut off. It wouldn't take that long with a fast enough hard drive.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's the difference between cracking something and making it useless - and unplugging it, or bashing it with a sledgehammer?
What I want to know is if these irresponsible brats would have physically broken that same computer if presented with the opportunity and the same anonymity they have when they're online. Do you think they would? I don't. There's a certain level of non-reality that goes with dealing with something that's not physical. It's the same reason we'll blow up our friends in Quake, but we wouldn't dream of doing that in real life (at least, I hope not).
In some ways, I think that our virtualizing so many things about us (and becoming accustomed to it and dependent on it) has begat criminals who otherwise wouldn't be criminals. That makes this place a little more dangerous to live in, doesn't it?
Hee hee. Funny... Anyone else around here old enough to remember Impossible Mission?
After this robot, they need to make cylandrical ones that spit electricity and really big, black metal balls that just hover all day. Oh, yeah, and when are they going to make this one do somersaults?
Did you notice that the whatchyamacallits only communicate "the will" of the Force? In that way, the Force is still as mystical, but there's a reason that people use it to varying degrees.
I still think it was a bad move, though.
Has anyone here been to ihatestarwars.com? It's a good read - but I think the guy takes things a bit far - and I laughed my butt off the first time I visited it.
It later was a TV series.
Seems like it would be a boring one. I mean, how many times can you build a rocket and salvage parts of old beat-up stuff on the moon and still keep people interested? It'd be like making a TV series about October Sky, for crying out loud. How many times do I want to see some hick kid blast off a raw-kit?
I think he should take his dog up to the moon, because everyone knows that the moon's made of cheese. And then, maybe he'll be kind enough to leave a couple of strips of metal for a beat up old bobby/kiosk.
Right, Grommit?
However, the development of useful content on the server side requires each we publisher to incur an additional expense. As such, there must already be a critical mass of supported clients available for it to be cost effective for them to rewrite existing applications.
Would it be terribly difficult to write something that translates HTML into BXXP (or vice versa) for those not wishing to incur the overhead of doing something twice?
As far as I understand it, this isn't about linking, it's about aiding and abetting a crime. If that's the case, I would think that a text-only "link" is just as illegal, if it were put up for that intent.
That seems like the way it's going, friend. Just look at the software industry.
Fair Use?? That tramples on our right as a corporation to make lots of money (which isn't a right at all)!
So far, it seems that Google hasn't fallen into a commercialist trap - they've generally kept everything clean and unbiased, and they turn up darn good results. (Heck, I got a Google t-shirt for Father's Day, and I'll proudly wear it.)
The only thing that bothers me is: what's to keep them from catering to specific commercial interests? How long is it before it becomes YASE (Yet Another Search Engine) that favors some commercial hits above any others? I sure hope there are some people up top at Google who push fairness. Of course, when those people go away, what's left to do that work? Have they forced themselves into a process that will do it for them?
Something Mr. Wladawsky-Berger said caught my eye:
Linux compatibility with AIX (IBM's version of Unix) is coming out late this year. You can take a Linux application and recompile for AIX with just about no changes.
Does this mean that they're making a Linux distribution (or hacking the kernel or gcc libs or something), or does it mean thay're changing AIX?
Does somebody know? It sounds really cool.
I think one of the smartest things that IBM could do would be to release everything they make for Linux under the GPL, and I think they will.
Think about it. Why is IBM doing Linux? Mindshare, pure and simple. It could cost them in the short run to create things without licensing fees (of course, they do get free developers from the hobbyists who want to join in), but, in the long run, they get the mindshare of everyone whose lives they made just a little bit better that didn't have to pay them for it. Having thousands of OS supporters and developers thinking "IBM is really cool" is an intangible benefit, but it could be worth a whole lot in the future.
I'm not sure if it's a corporate tactic, plain common sense, or pure kindness, but I think I can live with it.
If you want to be disappointed because a game is too linear, then Amerzone is definitely for you. Unfortunately, I bought the game before I read the reviews. Most of them had gripes about it because (they said), unlike Myst and Riven, it was way too linear.
Riven was a big improvement over Myst in two ways - it wasn't as linear, and it has less unimportant puzzles. (Some people say it was too hard, but hey, I won without hints, so anyone ought to be able to...) Anyway, my point is that, just because a game is one of these types, it doesn't mean it's linear.
I just had a thought - did you ever play Zork? I think games like this are just evolved versions of that, and this 3D stuff looks like the next step in their natural evolution, which is great. Of course, I think I'll make sure I read plenty of reviews before I go spend money I could buy hardware with for it.
Am I wrong here?
That depends on how much the big names are actually just puppets, I suppose. Touting a name like Alan Cox is cool until people find out they don't use his ideas - and listen to marketing babble instead - and just turn out something that sucks. id's reputation took a hit when they tried to puppetize (is that a word?) Carmack.
I think another key ingredient to your well-thought-out list might be attitude.
Just hope they don't do that with Mandrake.
Or does everybody still play reasonably nicely as they have in the past?
I think that as long as one distribution doesn't own too much of the market share, they'll have to play nice - it'll be in their best interest. If one gets popular, it'll stop being in their best interest to do so, and they'll stop. Bleak, huh?
I don't think a company that sells a Linux distribution (or the services for it) is really inherently more moral than anyone else just because it deals in Linux.
I think we should expect a little more backbone from one of our most prestigious educational institutions.
Historically, backbone is not something that has had a big presence in our educational institutions. Think about the 60's - most of the big ones basically bent over backwards trying to accomodate some of the radical students, right up to patting them on the back for taking hostages at gunpoint...
Young predicts that Linux will ultimately power many of the hand-held devices, Internet "appliances," smart toasters and other goods that have computer chips embedded within them.
Why is it always toasters?
I bought an ATI Xpert 2000 a few months ago, and the driver CD was sealed with this notice: "By opening this seal, you agree to the license enclosed."
I tried to hold it up to the light, but I couldn't see through it...
When I last counted, there were at least 15 posts about "viruses" versus "virii." This has probably been hashed out more times than just about anything - barring whether or not Micros~1 sucks.
Maybe you folks at Slashdot could fix up those titles just to save yourselves some hard drive space? This is seriously pathetic...
...is that a few companies are looking to Microsoft for an example of how not to behave, and, as a consequence, play more fairly. I read an interesting story on it on msnbc.com the other day, and it seemed like the people at Cisco have it just about right.
What? You avoid using inflammatory language? You don't assume that everything you do is right no matter what it is? You avoid business decisions that may be looked upon unfavorably by the DOJ? What? You actually talk to them on a regular basis? Oh, puh-lease. You people are just way too reasonable...
The way I see around it would be to couple it with a real 8 GB hard drive (or 8.x, really) and give it its own battery power. If the card sensed that the power on the motherboard went out, it could write all the RAM to the hard drive and then shut off. It wouldn't take that long with a fast enough hard drive.
I just did. Anyone else?
Okaaaay. Care to give us any reason why?
Got one: because change is BAD. Repeat after me: I am complacent. Things are fine the way they are. All is well. I make lots of money.
I am complacent...