Independence day allows us to look back on the sacrifices our forefathers made to keep America free. I don't appreciate seeing it trivialized to further some partisan hippy cause. "Free software" types are clearly, in many cases, not on the side of Freedom (except when it comes to smoking pot). We need only look at their response to the Microsoft "anti-trust" case, or the victim-control mentality they exhibit so often on sites like this one. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm even less of a fan of government intrusion. I recommend everybody read Atlas Shrugged to see how Gates should have handled things, if he wasn't such a pansy.
Bottomline: don't trivialize independence day. Take the opportunity to start working for real change: less government intrusion, less taxes, fewer regulations, more freedom. Those are your birthrights, secured with the blood of our ancestors. Don't let them down by falling for this hippy crap instead.
A sad commentary on our society
on
Project Eden
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Why? What is the point?
Real rainforests are being decimated at an alarming rate, all in the name of corporate profits.
This 'Eden Project', designed to appeal to arm chair 'environmentalist' yuppies, can only harm the environment. The amount of resources it took to construct must be staggering. The cash (£86 billion, IIRC) should have been put towards conservation efforts. The steel never should have been mined. The petrochemicals for the should have been left in the ground. God knows how much habitat was destroyed to build this monstrosity.
If you want to see a rainforest, go to the real thing. Not if you're just a tourist, though; in that case you have no business disturbing nature. If however, you are an eco-warrior, by all means go to the rainforest and help derail logging efforts.
What is sad, is that within the next century, cheap imitations like this may be all we have left of nature. One hopes the government will soon develop bioweapons that let us wipe out the burgeoning population of ignorant, third-world slash-and-burn farmers, before it's too late.
Jason X represents all that is good in the art? I agree that horror has it's place in the art, but Jason X is hardly Night of the Living Dead. It's just as much 'studio trash' as Spiderman.
Not at all. If you think that, you're missing the point.
As for falling for the hype, did you even see the movie?
Of course not. I know from the fact it is based on a children's comic book that it is unwatchable.
You can't change an organizations policy by boycotting them,
You have no idea how wrong you are. Think of Martin Luther King and the Birmingham bus boycott. That paved the way for Civl Rights and Affirmative Action as we know it today.
As for 'triumphant, original films', I saw Amelie at my local independent theatre the other day, before you question my 'cred'.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, but Amelie is the French equivalent of 'Spiderman'.
You're saying Jason X has more value than spider-man?
Have you actually watched Jason X? It is a wonderful little film, directed by talented new director James Isaac. It brilliantly deconstructs horror conventions, while reaffirming our faith in human nature. Don't judge it by the earlier installments in the series.
Have you ever read spider-man comics? Do you even read comics?
Of course not. I'm not a kiddy.
Spider-man was always the most human of heroes despite his powers.
Super hero comics are for the emotionally retarded and psychologically off-balance.
I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic. A movie based on a comic book has the biggest 3-day gross ever? And a children's book takes second place? Meanwhile, triumphant original films that remind us of what all that is good in the art (Frailty, Baran, Jason X) are all but ignored.
I am disappointed in the American viewing public, and Slashdot in particular, for falling for studio marketing hype. The only reason any of you went to see this movie is because you heard you were supposed to. Despite the awful casting and poor special effects, you had to feed your disposable income to the corporate beast. You do realize you're financing the MPAA and RIAA, don't you? Now they have 114 million more dollars to suppress your rights. Was it really worth it? Huh?
Nor is there any protection against murder in the Constitution. So? The consitution deals with the government's organization and the limits of its power. I think the 4th Amendment pretty well limits the government, with regard to commiting unlawful killing.
Uh huh. So, if it turns a profit, butt out, right? If it is none of the governments damn business, butt out.
Where in the Constitution does it grant them the right to outlaw child labor It doesn't. Child labor laws are clearly unconstitutional. They also fall under the 150 years of bad law I mentioned.
or lying about your product That's a matter of fraud, which is in the realm of criminal law.
or refusing to do business with any damned ___
Again, unconstitutional. What is euphemistically called "Civil Rights" law is totally un-American.
... oh, you only meant punished [for being successful] How insightful of you. I write "not be punished for being successful", you see "not be punished". I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
You just tell us what the Constitution means, and we'll all see the light, and then everything will be all better. The meaning of the Constitution is quite plain. Not that its lucidity prevents willful misreadings by the supreme court. Perhaps you should try reading the Consitution sometime. Your puzzled statement about the lack of "protection against murder" in the Constitution tells me you don't even know its purpose or history.
Editor: someone who edits especially as an occupation
Edit:
1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation
b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging
c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose
2 : to direct the publication of
I don't see anything about editors opinionizing. It is a newspaper convention to offer opinion, often written by the editor. But this opinion is (ideally, anyway) always clearly marked as such. Not slipped in among news stories.
Now is especially the time to defend a US citizen's basic freedoms, of which purchasing in a free market (controlled neither by the government nor by an oppressive marketer) is one.
I'm sorry--I don't recall any protections against "oppressive marketers" in the Constitution. I do recall a bill of rights, which includes an amendment reading "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Among those rights retained by the people, is the right to start a business, buy and sell as you please, and not be punished by the government for being successful. A century and a half bad laws, and two centuries of supreme court corruption, do not change the meaning of the constitution.
Michael, please refrain from pushing your political views on others through your position as a slashdot editor.
"claiming that being a large, sluggish monopoly is somehow advantageous in responding to disasters, although Verizon hasn't managed to restore phone and data service in large areas of Manhattan yet. "
On the one hand, you claim that changes in the rules would be bad. As evidence of this, you use an example of what Verizon is able (not able, rather) to do under the current oppressive regulations.
Verizon never asked to eliminate its competitors. It merely asked to be allowed to compete on a level playing field. The laws that say Verizon must sell capacity to its rivals are outrageouly biased. What, just because Verizon is winning the competition, the government gets to tell it who to do business with? Slashdot has a pretty large monopoly as far as "geek" weblogs go. How would you like it if the government told Slashdot it had to run pro-Microsoft stories?
Price caps are outrageously misguided to begin with. The California power crisis was a direct result of that type of economic micromanagement by the government. Or, how about rent controls in New York. That's a great idea, no? Oh, unless you want to rent an apartment any time soon; or you're a land lord who would like to be able to make market value off his holdings.
If Verizon wants to turn into a "sluggish monopoly", why not let it? Its more nimble competitors should then be able to run rings around it, no? Unless Verizon keeps doing its job as a premier telecommunications provider.
Michael, please take the misinformed commentary elsewhere.
"CaveMan Times talked with the Foresight Institute's OOG about the potential of fire, which has benefited greatly from open source research methods, and fire weapons in particular falling into the wrong hands. Recent recognition of potential abuses will likely lead to incrased secrecy in fire research."
The article is one of the most well-reasoned examinations of the issue of nanotech and the dangers in the future of technology I've ever read
Are we reading the same article? The one Bill Joy admits was inspired by the Unabomber manifesto?
As it stands today, humanity will only be around for a limited time. In the best case, we'll be around until the sun expands and swallows the Earth. More likely, a stray asteroid will finish us off first. Even if we decide to abandon technology, humanity will cease to exist one day.
So, do we want to make the most of the time we have, or not? We won't do ourselves any favors by becoming Luddites. We can only maximize human potential by the continuing to advance science and technology. That's the only chance we have for long-term survival as a species; and it will make the lives of individuals a fuck of a lot more pleasant along the way.
Why is it that so many have this concept of us versus them when it comes to the military? Is it that people do not understand the military because they have no experience with the service? Do they have no experience with the service because they are too lazy to volunteer their time, effort and LIVES to protect our country and its Constitution?
I know I sleep easier knowing the US military is protecting the country by leveling aspirin factories in Sudan.
I respect anyone who risks his life in defense of the country. But the only Americans killed in defense of country in the last 100 years died fighting against the Japanenese in WWII. Additionally, most people don't join the army to defend the country. They join to get their college tuition paid or because they don't know what they want to do with their lives.
As for the "us vs them" mentality, you should note that what was being discussed was a theoretical situation in which the military is turned against the people. That's not even to mention all the unconstitutional roles the military is being used for these days. But I don't blame the average soldier for that. I blame politicians and high-ranking military bureuacrats.
When I was a kid, I remember reading V-mail that my grandparents sent to each other in WWII, and looking at the food stamps that allowed them certain rations of food. Tires for your car were unavailable as were nylons, eggs, fresh milk, fresh fruit, and tobacco among other "essentials". Think about that, because thats what seems to affect people like you. Discomfort.
My GOD! No tobacco!
a) America shouldn't have been involved in the European theater of WWII to begin with.
b) If you're going to give an example of "strife like we had in previous wars", at least give a good example. Like what the people in Dresden experienced when we carpet bombed them, perhaps.
And if you persist in your delusion, consider this: Honestly most gun owners in this country really do not know how to handle a gun and survive, despite what they may think.
Point being? Even if it's true that "most" gun owners wouldn't effectively use their weapons in a military situation, some do. So you contradict yourself with your next statement.
In all reality, all other things being equal if you put up a redneck brigade of 2000, against a good team of five trained marksmen, it would be the five marksmen who would walk out alive.
Ummmmm, sure. If the five "trained marksmen" happen to be equipped with belt-fed machine guns and 50000 rounds. Besides which, in any group of 2000 "rednecks", you'll have dozens of "trained marksmen".
Please, grow up.
Please, FUCK YOU! Anyone who uses the phrase "grow up" in any type of argument immediately and irrevocably loses my respect.
Slashdot's pathological hatred of patents is silly and immature. Patents are absolutely necessary to allow businesses to recoup their research investments.
What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The question we should be asking is, do we want to hold back web standards by two decades to satisfy our irrational aversion to patents? I don't think we should. The consequences on the growth of the web will be disastrous if we don't take sensible steps like allowing patented technology into web standards.
The BBC article was kinda light on details . . . care to give more in-depth info about the Enigma Machine?
Certainly.
The Engima story is quite interesting and complex; volumes can and have been written about it and it's beyond the scope of a Slashdot post to relay the full history. But I've provided some links if you're curious.
It should be noted that Bletchley Park's work in deciphering the Enigma codes - used by the Germans to direct operations including U-boat attacks on Allied convoys - proved vital to the outcome of the WWII.
Bletchley Park, code-named Station X, employed teams of mathematicians, linguists and chess champions during the war.
By the end of 1945, 10,000 people worked there.
With the help of decoding machines, the army of experts were able to crack the German code Enigma, which Berlin believed to be unbreakable.
The work carried out at the top-secret centre is believed to have shortened the war by several years and was kept secret until 1967.
The stolen device, an Abwehr Enigma G312, is a rare four-rotor version, one of only three still known to be in existence.
Shareholders have no loyalty to the brand OR to it's customers. With them in charge, sound business is out the window.
Remember the film Goodfellas? Remember how the restaurant owner goes to Pauly for protection? In this little example, the restaurant is the business and Pauly is the investment bankers.
After Pauly gets a share in the restaurant, what's he do? Goods come in the front door and are sold out the back for less than they cost (sound familiar? Can we say 'dot-com'), because for Pauly, it's all profit. Then, when they've drained it as far as they can, they burn it down and collect the insurance. For dot-coms, the last step is to declare bankruptcy and sell user info.
PayPal is used to pay for over 1/4 - 1/3 of Ebay transactions.
Exactly! And how many TB of personal info do you think they've amassed?
They've got strong brand loyalty, and as long as services like Ebay continue to exist they will do just fine.
Take a look at Amazon.com. Early entry into the e-commerce market, strong brand loyalty, huge marketshare in what they do; and yet, they continue to lose money. Amazon may survive, because they raised insane amounts of cash in the early days of the dot-com hysteria. I don't see how PayPal's IPO could be anywhere near as successful. It will only manage to postpone the inevitable.
And yes, I do believe PayPal is an "evil corporation". At least as evil as McDonald's; perhaps slightly less evil than Nike and Microsoft. Evil, nonetheless. I don't need "evidence". The fact is, they're going to have an IPO. The Initial Public Offering is a process whereby capitalist bankers create paper wealth for themselves and their cronies whilst exploiting the workers. Can't get much more evil than that.
What do you want to bet, six months after the IPO PayPal will be selling the personal info of its users? Either under pressure from its stockholders, or to pay creditors when it goes bankrupt; I would not be at all surprised if that happens.
I don't even know why I'm responding to your bigoted crap, but I feel forced to point out that the al Quaeda training manual instructs terrorists to shave their beards. Hence, beards aren't a good marker for future terrorists. Arab names, however, are.
Funny, I would think that misusing the word "sociopath" would be far more serious than misusing the word "ironic".
What makes you say I'm "misusing the word 'sociopath'"? Care to give your credentials? Are you a psychiatrist? Do you personally know Eric Yang.
I didn't think so. I'm formally trained in niether psychology nor psychiatry, nor have I met Eric Yang; but I am a member of MENSA and a student of human behavior. I think I know a sociopath when I see one.
'I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?'
[First, please don't use the word "ironic" until you learn its meaning. That goes for all of you out there. This has been a major pet peeve of me since the early 90s when all those black and flannel-clad, angsty gen-Xers were big on the word "ironic" without actually knowing the definition of the word.]
Oh, they didn't pay you for your "testing" of their OS? Did they ever say they would pay you? Did they imply they'd pay you? Did they insinuate in any way that they'd pay you? Then why would you expect to be paid? This attitude is disconcertingly common in Free Software types. The 'look at me, I'll fix this problem for you, nevermind the fact you didn't ask me to, and you're a bastard if you don't pay me for it' attitude reeks of social maladjustment.
I don't see how the fact that you've pestered Apple for money makes it any more "ironic" that they'd try to shut you down when you rip off their interface. Apple went easy on IP-theft once, ONCE, which was enough to give Windows, the cut-rate Mac imitator, take over the desktop market.
I think Apple has learned its lesson. Just because your project is "free" doesn't make it any less of a threat to Apple's resurgence. Apple is hanging by threads as it is. Rats biting at the heels of elephants should not be surprised when they are trampled upon.
The bottomline? Apple invested heavily to develop the Aqua look and feel to set the new standard for desktop computing; Eric Yang attempts to profit (if only in terms of community recognition) from Apple's work. Who can be surprised when Apple takes offense?
. . . running Win2k and IIs on my dorm computer. Am I at risk?
To put it mildly, YES! While it's true that Microsoft products are no less secure than those of other vendors, Microsoft's position as market leader makes them a prime target for hackers, virus writers, and other internet terrorists. You really have no business running a web server until you learn something about security. You can start by reading up on Nimdahere.
The market is always right. If AMD has to close plants and lay-off employees, that means there aren't enough people buying AMD right now. This is what's so great about capitalism. Otherwise, these employees would be sitting around reading slashdot on company time and the plants would be sitting idle. This way, AMD keeps profits up and can survive to compete another day.
I don't see that there is much to worry about here. I'd be more concerned if AMD wasn't laying-off people. As it is, I think people have enough computer power for the time being. How many MHz does the average person/business really need?
There are always going to be adolescents out there who will buy the latest/greatest hardware just for the sake of it(and god bless 'em--they get fleeced and absorb research costs while we level-headed folks get affordable technology); but real people have enough computers right now.
Søren: "That info tells how you read the proprietary struct off the disks, and was reverse engineered and documented by me after a lot of effort."
Okay, so Søren reverse engineers the proprietary data structures developed at great cost by corporations, and then bitches when his work is ripped off by one of his fellow Open Source travelers. Give me a break!
Besides, didn't the DMCA outlaw reverse-engineering? This is kind of like the story where the guy reports to the cops that someone stole his dope.
Slashdot Mirror
Independence day allows us to look back on the sacrifices our forefathers made to keep America free. I don't appreciate seeing it trivialized to further some partisan hippy cause. "Free software" types are clearly, in many cases, not on the side of Freedom (except when it comes to smoking pot). We need only look at their response to the Microsoft "anti-trust" case, or the victim-control mentality they exhibit so often on sites like this one. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm even less of a fan of government intrusion. I recommend everybody read Atlas Shrugged to see how Gates should have handled things, if he wasn't such a pansy.
Bottomline: don't trivialize independence day.
Take the opportunity to start working for real change: less government intrusion, less taxes, fewer regulations, more freedom. Those are your birthrights, secured with the blood of our ancestors. Don't let them down by falling for this hippy crap instead.
Why? What is the point?
Real rainforests are being decimated at an alarming rate, all in the name of corporate profits.
This 'Eden Project', designed to appeal to arm chair 'environmentalist' yuppies, can only harm the environment. The amount of resources it took to construct must be staggering. The cash (£86 billion, IIRC) should have been put towards conservation efforts. The steel never should have been mined. The petrochemicals for the should have been left in the ground. God knows how much habitat was destroyed to build this monstrosity.
If you want to see a rainforest, go to the real thing. Not if you're just a tourist, though; in that case you have no business disturbing nature. If however, you are an eco-warrior, by all means go to the rainforest and help derail logging efforts.
What is sad, is that within the next century, cheap imitations like this may be all we have left of nature. One hopes the government will soon develop bioweapons that let us wipe out the burgeoning population of ignorant, third-world slash-and-burn farmers, before it's too late.
Jason X represents all that is good in the art? I agree that horror has it's place in the art, but Jason X is hardly Night of the Living Dead. It's just as much 'studio trash' as Spiderman.
Not at all. If you think that, you're missing the point.
As for falling for the hype, did you even see the movie?
Of course not. I know from the fact it is based on a children's comic book that it is unwatchable.
You can't change an organizations policy by boycotting them,
You have no idea how wrong you are. Think of Martin Luther King and the Birmingham bus boycott. That paved the way for Civl Rights and Affirmative Action as we know it today.
As for 'triumphant, original films', I saw Amelie at my local independent theatre the other day, before you question my 'cred'.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, but Amelie is the French equivalent of 'Spiderman'.
You're saying Jason X has more value than spider-man?
Have you actually watched Jason X? It is a wonderful little film, directed by talented new director James Isaac. It brilliantly deconstructs horror conventions, while reaffirming our faith in human nature. Don't judge it by the earlier installments in the series.
Have you ever read spider-man comics? Do you even read comics?
Of course not. I'm not a kiddy.
Spider-man was always the most human of heroes despite his powers.
Super hero comics are for the emotionally retarded and psychologically off-balance.
I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic. A movie based on a comic book has the biggest 3-day gross ever? And a children's book takes second place? Meanwhile, triumphant original films that remind us of what all that is good in the art (Frailty, Baran, Jason X) are all but ignored.
I am disappointed in the American viewing public, and Slashdot in particular, for falling for studio marketing hype. The only reason any of you went to see this movie is because you heard you were supposed to. Despite the awful casting and poor special effects, you had to feed your disposable income to the corporate beast. You do realize you're financing the MPAA and RIAA, don't you? Now they have 114 million more dollars to suppress your rights. Was it really worth it? Huh?
The consitution deals with the government's organization and the limits of its power. I think the 4th Amendment pretty well limits the government, with regard to commiting unlawful killing.
Uh huh. So, if it turns a profit, butt out, right?
If it is none of the governments damn business, butt out.
Where in the Constitution does it grant them the right to outlaw child labor
It doesn't. Child labor laws are clearly unconstitutional. They also fall under the 150 years of bad law I mentioned.
or lying about your product
That's a matter of fraud, which is in the realm of criminal law.
or refusing to do business with any damned ___
Again, unconstitutional. What is euphemistically called "Civil Rights" law is totally un-American.
... oh, you only meant punished [for being successful]
How insightful of you. I write "not be punished for being successful", you see "not be punished". I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
You just tell us what the Constitution means, and we'll all see the light, and then everything will be all better.
The meaning of the Constitution is quite plain. Not that its lucidity prevents willful misreadings by the supreme court. Perhaps you should try reading the Consitution sometime. Your puzzled statement about the lack of "protection against murder" in the Constitution tells me you don't even know its purpose or history.
(All definitions from Merriam-Webster)
Editor: someone who edits especially as an occupation
Edit:
1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation
b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging
c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose
2 : to direct the publication of
I don't see anything about editors opinionizing. It is a newspaper convention to offer opinion, often written by the editor. But this opinion is (ideally, anyway) always clearly marked as such. Not slipped in among news stories.
Now is especially the time to defend a US citizen's basic freedoms, of which purchasing in a free market (controlled neither by the government nor by an oppressive marketer) is one.
I'm sorry--I don't recall any protections against "oppressive marketers" in the Constitution. I do recall a bill of rights, which includes an amendment reading "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Among those rights retained by the people, is the right to start a business, buy and sell as you please, and not be punished by the government for being successful. A century and a half bad laws, and two centuries of supreme court corruption, do not change the meaning of the constitution.
On the one hand, you claim that changes in the rules would be bad. As evidence of this, you use an example of what Verizon is able (not able, rather) to do under the current oppressive regulations.
Verizon never asked to eliminate its competitors. It merely asked to be allowed to compete on a level playing field. The laws that say Verizon must sell capacity to its rivals are outrageouly biased. What, just because Verizon is winning the competition, the government gets to tell it who to do business with? Slashdot has a pretty large monopoly as far as "geek" weblogs go. How would you like it if the government told Slashdot it had to run pro-Microsoft stories?
Price caps are outrageously misguided to begin with. The California power crisis was a direct result of that type of economic micromanagement by the government. Or, how about rent controls in New York. That's a great idea, no? Oh, unless you want to rent an apartment any time soon; or you're a land lord who would like to be able to make market value off his holdings.
If Verizon wants to turn into a "sluggish monopoly", why not let it? Its more nimble competitors should then be able to run rings around it, no? Unless Verizon keeps doing its job as a premier telecommunications provider.
Michael, please take the misinformed commentary elsewhere.
Are we reading the same article? The one Bill Joy admits was inspired by the Unabomber manifesto?
As it stands today, humanity will only be around for a limited time. In the best case, we'll be around until the sun expands and swallows the Earth. More likely, a stray asteroid will finish us off first. Even if we decide to abandon technology, humanity will cease to exist one day.
So, do we want to make the most of the time we have, or not? We won't do ourselves any favors by becoming Luddites. We can only maximize human potential by the continuing to advance science and technology. That's the only chance we have for long-term survival as a species; and it will make the lives of individuals a fuck of a lot more pleasant along the way.
I know I sleep easier knowing the US military is protecting the country by leveling aspirin factories in Sudan.
I respect anyone who risks his life in defense of the country. But the only Americans killed in defense of country in the last 100 years died fighting against the Japanenese in WWII. Additionally, most people don't join the army to defend the country. They join to get their college tuition paid or because they don't know what they want to do with their lives.
As for the "us vs them" mentality, you should note that what was being discussed was a theoretical situation in which the military is turned against the people. That's not even to mention all the unconstitutional roles the military is being used for these days. But I don't blame the average soldier for that. I blame politicians and high-ranking military bureuacrats.
My GOD! No tobacco!
a) America shouldn't have been involved in the European theater of WWII to begin with.
b) If you're going to give an example of "strife like we had in previous wars", at least give a good example. Like what the people in Dresden experienced when we carpet bombed them, perhaps.
Point being? Even if it's true that "most" gun owners wouldn't effectively use their weapons in a military situation, some do. So you contradict yourself with your next statement.
Ummmmm, sure. If the five "trained marksmen" happen to be equipped with belt-fed machine guns and 50000 rounds. Besides which, in any group of 2000 "rednecks", you'll have dozens of "trained marksmen".
Please, grow up.
Please, FUCK YOU! Anyone who uses the phrase "grow up" in any type of argument immediately and irrevocably loses my respect.
Maybe by 3.0, they'll have caught up to KDE.
What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The question we should be asking is, do we want to hold back web standards by two decades to satisfy our irrational aversion to patents? I don't think we should. The consequences on the growth of the web will be disastrous if we don't take sensible steps like allowing patented technology into web standards.
Certainly.
The Engima story is quite interesting and complex; volumes can and have been written about it and it's beyond the scope of a Slashdot post to relay the full history. But I've provided some links if you're curious.
It should be noted that Bletchley Park's work in deciphering the Enigma codes - used by the Germans to direct operations including U-boat attacks on Allied convoys - proved vital to the outcome of the WWII.
Bletchley Park, code-named Station X, employed teams of mathematicians, linguists and chess champions during the war.
By the end of 1945, 10,000 people worked there.
With the help of decoding machines, the army of experts were able to crack the German code Enigma, which Berlin believed to be unbreakable.
The work carried out at the top-secret centre is believed to have shortened the war by several years and was kept secret until 1967.
The stolen device, an Abwehr Enigma G312, is a rare four-rotor version, one of only three still known to be in existence.
Remember the film Goodfellas? Remember how the restaurant owner goes to Pauly for protection? In this little example, the restaurant is the business and Pauly is the investment bankers.
After Pauly gets a share in the restaurant, what's he do? Goods come in the front door and are sold out the back for less than they cost (sound familiar? Can we say 'dot-com'), because for Pauly, it's all profit. Then, when they've drained it as far as they can, they burn it down and collect the insurance. For dot-coms, the last step is to declare bankruptcy and sell user info.
Exactly! And how many TB of personal info do you think they've amassed?
Take a look at Amazon.com. Early entry into the e-commerce market, strong brand loyalty, huge marketshare in what they do; and yet, they continue to lose money. Amazon may survive, because they raised insane amounts of cash in the early days of the dot-com hysteria. I don't see how PayPal's IPO could be anywhere near as successful. It will only manage to postpone the inevitable.
And yes, I do believe PayPal is an "evil corporation". At least as evil as McDonald's; perhaps slightly less evil than Nike and Microsoft. Evil, nonetheless. I don't need "evidence". The fact is, they're going to have an IPO. The Initial Public Offering is a process whereby capitalist bankers create paper wealth for themselves and their cronies whilst exploiting the workers. Can't get much more evil than that.
What do you want to bet, six months after the IPO PayPal will be selling the personal info of its users? Either under pressure from its stockholders, or to pay creditors when it goes bankrupt; I would not be at all surprised if that happens.
I don't even know why I'm responding to your bigoted crap, but I feel forced to point out that the al Quaeda training manual instructs terrorists to shave their beards. Hence, beards aren't a good marker for future terrorists. Arab names, however, are.
What makes you say I'm "misusing the word 'sociopath'"? Care to give your credentials? Are you a psychiatrist? Do you personally know Eric Yang.
I didn't think so. I'm formally trained in niether psychology nor psychiatry, nor have I met Eric Yang; but I am a member of MENSA and a student of human behavior. I think I know a sociopath when I see one.
[First, please don't use the word "ironic" until you learn its meaning. That goes for all of you out there. This has been a major pet peeve of me since the early 90s when all those black and flannel-clad, angsty gen-Xers were big on the word "ironic" without actually knowing the definition of the word.]
Oh, they didn't pay you for your "testing" of their OS? Did they ever say they would pay you? Did they imply they'd pay you? Did they insinuate in any way that they'd pay you? Then why would you expect to be paid? This attitude is disconcertingly common in Free Software types. The 'look at me, I'll fix this problem for you, nevermind the fact you didn't ask me to, and you're a bastard if you don't pay me for it' attitude reeks of social maladjustment.
I don't see how the fact that you've pestered Apple for money makes it any more "ironic" that they'd try to shut you down when you rip off their interface. Apple went easy on IP-theft once, ONCE, which was enough to give Windows, the cut-rate Mac imitator, take over the desktop market.
I think Apple has learned its lesson. Just because your project is "free" doesn't make it any less of a threat to Apple's resurgence. Apple is hanging by threads as it is. Rats biting at the heels of elephants should not be surprised when they are trampled upon.
The bottomline? Apple invested heavily to develop the Aqua look and feel to set the new standard for desktop computing; Eric Yang attempts to profit (if only in terms of community recognition) from Apple's work. Who can be surprised when Apple takes offense?
To put it mildly, YES! While it's true that Microsoft products are no less secure than those of other vendors, Microsoft's position as market leader makes them a prime target for hackers, virus writers, and other internet terrorists. You really have no business running a web server until you learn something about security. You can start by reading up on Nimdahere.
I don't see that there is much to worry about here. I'd be more concerned if AMD wasn't laying-off people. As it is, I think people have enough computer power for the time being. How many MHz does the average person/business really need?
There are always going to be adolescents out there who will buy the latest/greatest hardware just for the sake of it(and god bless 'em--they get fleeced and absorb research costs while we level-headed folks get affordable technology); but real people have enough computers right now.
Need I say more?
Okay, so Søren reverse engineers the proprietary data structures developed at great cost by corporations, and then bitches when his work is ripped off by one of his fellow Open Source travelers. Give me a break!
Besides, didn't the DMCA outlaw reverse-engineering? This is kind of like the story where the guy reports to the cops that someone stole his dope.