You can send e-mail in mime and uuencode as a hack to solve a problem of getting files from one user to annother. It's a hack solution for a rare (but obnoxous) problem. [Oh ok I'll e-mail you an mp3 of the audio recorded at the last meeting]
The idea of normal e-mail is to send text. Not HTML and certenly not MsWord.
Windows helps premote this problem (not Microsoft.. just an example of "one world one os" being bad.. Microsofts todays example Linux may be tomarows bad guy in this respect.. maybe some day Apple). Basicly a user sees a file format is native to his operating system he mistakenly believes it's "normal" and sends this file in e-mail. If he has less than a 50-50 chance of getting someone who can accually use that file then he'll get a clue and stop. But if he has a greater than 60% chance of getting a user who supports it then he'll just assume the others are losers.
For the most part it's annoying. It's not e-mail and it dosn't do the job.
Now with e-mail viruses I'd hope that even Windows users would say NO! to Windows files simply becouse this shouldn't be commen practace in the first place. True Windows makes it EASY but that is still with the idea of two executives using commen (or compatable) software with an agreed on format with an agreed on goal (such as e-mailing the database of a daily budget or an audio file of an interview in a format both sides support [such as mp3]) If both users use Windows and Microsoft office then hay thats great go for it. But if one side uses Linux with KDE Office and the other Mac with AppleWorks then it's a matter of finding a commen format between AppleWorks and KDE Office.
Anyway.. sending MsWord files as a way to send text is a bad thing. But when there is a greater than 60% chance that the guy on the other end can read MsWord files it dosn't occure that sending e-mail in acuall text will work 100% of the time.
Shouldn't it then contain a correct release date? It seems the date on the document is there to leave you to believe that is the public release date not the creation date.
I also suspect the accual creation date of the document is a bit older if it was created internally as this dosn't fit within the develupment cycle.
No such documents like this should have been created around that time frame as Win2K was being readyed for release.
Don't be amazed.. history has a tendency to repeate itself... I expect history to repeate it self and this is why I'm not supprised when people expect it won't.
So basicly the GPL should be even stronger than any shrinkwrap liccens.
Shrinkwrap takes away the right to use software and grants it back IF you agree to certen terms.
GPL allows you to use the software no matter what. It takes away no rights normaly automatic for commertal software that is downloaded or paid for.
Becouse GPL takes nothing away it should be stronger.
On a side note. This may be why the GPL has gone unchallanged for so long. Revoking the GPL may win you nothing as this reverts the software to the status of "expressed writen permition" the GPL basicly just waves that. Eliminate the GPL and then your rights to distribute the software evaperate.
If the GPL is totally voided you could replace the GPL with the new GPL. The voided liccens means Microsoft has zero rights to your software. Even if you lose all rights to Goof 0.3 Microsoft can't clame Goof as it's own.
Now the good news... Microsoft dosn't challange th GPL. Contracts are holy law over there so they don't violate the GPL. When they do (by mistake) they take action. Yeah even the bad guys have scruples... Not exactly the ones we want them to have but at least it's something.
Real Player was presented as a secure way to deliver music but someone hacked it. Yes Real Networks sued but that changes nothing. The method is now public. It should be a minnor effort for a cracker to do it again.
Enter Napster. Belive it or not.. attempt number 2. Before it even got off the ground someone figured out how the stream worked and made a clone. The process isn't that hard. Just set up a BSD box and have it record everything that passes between the Windows box and the network. (Yeah I know Linux can do the job but I've become accustum to BSD boxes as firewalls.. they do the job so well.. and this is just a small modification to a firewall).
With some hacking you can not only replicate the client but the server as well. All just by observing the data stream.
And now you have a Napster nockoff...
What next... Well the music industry seems to think they can do it. Let me point out that Real Networks and Napster did this with a larg base of knowladge behind them. They knew the history of streaming media. CU-SeeMe... Ztalk and all the wonderful Unix radio and voice IP clients. Most open sourced. They didn't work in the dark... And they couldn't come up with anything...
Now the music industry thinks they can pull this off. Not knowing a thing about all the protocals that came before. Not knowing a thing about what it took to crack thies protocals. Entirely in the dark. Compleatly ignorent. They might pull it off. But I sereously doupt it...
Cracking this.. I doupt it would even be a challange for a cryptophile...
They are clearly not the only good technology publisher. I like Sams, McGraw Hill and Prentice Hall. Sams would go to people who made electronics and get technical information from them and use that to compile repair manuals for TVs, Radios, and other electronics. You could get repair manuals for the Commodore 128, The IBM PC and many other companys. Now a days companys have become paranoid. Oh my ghod someone might use that information and make a compeating TV set.
Anyway O'Reilly is very populare and even used by Microsoft employees. They document such things as Microsoft Windows, BSD (Hah sorry Zico they DO have a BSD book) and the palm pilot.
Zico is basicly full of it... allways is... He has some agenda. No he isn't some Microsoft plant or from the Krull invasion force. He has some stake in this. It's probably some stake in Microsoft but that might not be the case. Maybe it's just that you could code crud on a stick and sell it for Windows but couldn't give it away on Linux.
Anyway O'Reilly is known for having Lary Wall on the payroll. Not for writing Linux books. They see themselfs as compeating with "Dumbies" books so when the populare title shifts out of tech books into self help books you find "In a nutshell" not far behind. Along with Dumbies and Nutshell I also recomend Sams "Teach Yourself" books...
Zico should have gotten "Teach yourself Labotomy in a week" instead of "Labotomy for Dumbies".
The sister motive is kinda a forgone conclusion. This however dosn't mean there is any intrest in hurting indi film makers. Thats an unexpected side effect. Indi film makers aren't corprate enough to afford to rent a theater (thats IF they'll rent it out). True we are not talking kids running around with cam corders. More like adults with hacked equipment like film recording equipment or a digital camra plugged into a lap top. Still this is a far cry from organising a screenning. It's not just a matter of getting a place to view the film (and renting a theater is not the best solution for this) but getting the people to preview the film. Or you could slap it up on the Internet and let people preview it. It would be untrue to say an Indi film could not do this. However it's no simple task and a lot of run around just to satisfy an anil mandate. I personally think there is some other reason for being against Internet films. This may injure films on the internet in the short term. But it could kill the Oscars. All it takes is one net film to win an award from someone else.
Good writers do not "check out" other writers. Writers read as fans not as writers. They may take away ideas and make improvments but from the start to the finish they read as fans. If one writer hears of his work being compaired to someone else he thinks "Well thats cool" but otherwise thinks nothing of it.. People will never buy a Pratchett book becouse his style is similer to Douglas Adams or visa versa. No one is going to NOT buy a book over the same reasons. They'll buy a book becouse THAT BOOK is good or THAT WRITER is good not a similer writer of a similer style.
So Adams never picked up a Pratchett book. Not entirely supprising. If Adams makes a movie that was not allready based on a book and didn't feel up to writing the book I doupt he'd have any objection to having Pratchett do the book and if Pratchett turns it down it will only be due to an objection to writing a book version of a movie and nothing else.
In many many ways this is an intresting subplot. McDonalds isn't above suing advocacy groups.
The presedent set here and based on a lawsute (settled in the UK so there probably isn't a US presedent) by McDonald PETA could be sued.
The big issue of PETA was the.org domain confusing people into thinking PETA.org was a non-proffit. Of course PETA.COM accually IS a non-proffit but then on same merit they confuse people into thinking they are a comertal enity not an advocacy group but posably a fair and impartal enity.
On a side rant... Veganism may be a noble cause (one I DO NOT support but for the function of my rant thats/ni-tha-point/ [FeliSpeak Translation: Not the point])
PETA is an organisation for preventing crulty to animals. Veganisms brouder definition of/Crulty to animals/ is ni-the-point of PETA. Veganism is a advocacy for a brouder sense of consern than is part of our current ethics. PETA is advocacy for our existing standard of ethics reguarding the treatment of animals.
The two advocacys are comparable but not compatable. PETA should (to be true to it's objectives and goals) advocate humain handling procedures for "for slauter" animals. Veganism can not make this advocacy instead it must advocate the elimination of "for slauter" animals. [Elimination meaning the class not the animals who by deffinition are eliminated so long as they continue in this class of animal]
About myself. I am for the damedest trying to use nutral language. I accually disaprove of the veganism cause being imposed on the masses. I have no problems with the message as "We believe this" and it's existence as a choice and life style. Even it's presistence in some religions to me is ok. But as a mandate apon myself I feel put apon.
I am all for the fair treatment of animals and PETA is a good cause... Veganism is also a fair ideology... Maybe 10 to 20 years from now children will look back and ask "Why did we eat meat"... and maybe 10 to 20 years from now children will ask "Why was an anti crulty organisation trying to starve people?". It's a matter of prospective.
In the end PETA chouses this existence and this message. It chouses the vegan standard. If they believe it helps them then fine. But it dosn't gain my simpathy when someone throws up a spoof website they disaprove of...
And no matter what they are... When they sue over a spoofer domain...
Has McDonalds ever sued a spoof? Probably not.... and thats a good thing.... If not it speaks a bit of people who do... For even a thin skinned organisation like McDonalds can take being spoofed... If not... if McDonalds has or isn't above suing a spoof.... then PETA set a standard they may themselfs suffer for...
With Linux everything you need is free. Anything missing? Add your own code or talk with whomever is resposable for the libary.
And thats the other advantage. Direct access to the develupers.
Linux is know for stability under fire... Develupers don't need THAT they need minimal stability. Windows dose not deliver. Windows 3.11 had memory leaks and it's a good bet many apps writen for 3.11 had memory leaks as well. A programmer can not be expected to fix bugs when he can't be sure the bugs belong to his app and not the operating system.
Wheee... Yet annother conspericy
on
Open Grill
·
· Score: 2
Ok heres my conspericy for this week. (No new Slashdot radio?)
Well I'm going to be simple on this one.... In fact I stold it from Geeks 1
Rob and Jeff are just robots programmed to take over the earth. Built by RMS and programmed by a crack team of programmers organised by Linus. Yes thats right Linux is accually designed to run Rob and Jeff and we all are tricked into writing and improving the code. When you send hardware to Rob and Jeff for demo (or when they buy it) they just add it to themselfs.
Oh wait buit my conspericy dosn't stop with open source... ohhh no.... You see Bill Gates is also trying to take over the world and so the open source communist conspericy must crush the Microsoft conspericy and visa versa. Now Bill Gates isn't an overlord type he is just folowing the plans layed out by IBM. But somehow things have gotten out of hand as IBM is no longer apart of that conspericy and Microsoft has no contact with it's former overloards. IBM was just a puppet. The Microsoft conspericy dates back even before IBM with the news media tyrents trying to take over. That failled. Now Microsoft is attempting to compleate it's world domination by buying into the news media and discover the rest of the original plan (they have compleated the part they know... and are looking for the rest of the plan) The media has long abandoned that plan and are considering joinning RMS and team in taking over the world. Ahh but the unknown original overlords are not with the news media anymore, not with open source and not with Microsoft. In fact we don't know where they might be..... That... is why open source hasn't launched it's final assult. RMS needs to know if there is any counterstrike waiting for him.
In the mean time... some hacker is adding code.....
There was a time when the system of choice for music artists was the Atari ST. It's easy to pack and it survives the trip. The alternitive was the Mac. Easy to pack dosn't allways survive the trip and MIDI is an addon.
Atari STs continued to be in use in the music industry as late as a few years ago. Music artists can not afford to upgrade computers when they become obsolete or are dicontinued.
The Palm has the geek toy and manager toy market. This makes it pritty much immune to market realitys technical realitys and "innovation". It survives... even if it becomes junk.. it survives...
This would be ideal for musicians starting off. Your instrements.. etc... digital syth. and a palm. If you ever get a recording contract you can switch to something better.
A portable sytn and a palm would also be ideal for tweeking out new tunes. I'm picturing myself with a palm. My Linux box my sytn and a MIDI keyboard I've been eyeing (no syth all keyboard... an input only device) and some other devices. Ug... and me being tone deff... Ohhh I could SOO pissoff the nabors...
Ok try this as a mesure and I think you start to see the picure....
If your using commertally liccensed code would it be ok....
The GPL gives pritty much identical limits on using GPL code in a commertal product that commertal code gives for using in ANY product.
Now as far as "including libarys" you shouldn't. The libarys should be downloaded and installed seprately there should be no need to include them in your pacage.
But placing GPL code in your code then you have an issue. It's as much theft to put GPL code in a closed source product as it is to use code you paid a liccens fee for in a free product.
Basicly a programmer should not be asked to pay for his own code and any programmer who codes for a living should be paid for the use of his code. It should never be in a free product and it should never be in someone elses commertal product.
The GPL basicly says "Don't steal from me" the same basic idea holds for all commertal liccenses. The key diffrence is the GPL programmer isn't making a living off his code.... But then.. with todays inovative busness modles... maybe.. just maybe... he is making money... By banner ads on the download page... or the product as a demo of the coders skill saying "This is my skill... hire me for your specalised e-commerce needs". Whatever is being done... Code made free should stay free and code that is not free is not free... Changing this is theft
I would think the diffrent liccenses don't work together.
Unless the liccenses were designed to co-exist you have a legal nightmare. Chances are quite good the liccens coctail is simply illegal and you have open source legalistic piracy on your hands.
Now there is reason and there is paranoia. Today is aliens. A long time ago it was monsters (vampires etc) in the future it'll be the "unknown effects" of radio signals.
If you are sereously having a problem the cause is overpowering signal... (BTW the nuro-electric brain is not anywhere near as suseptable to interfearence as electronics...) What is GSM power? If someone is providing power vea radio waves this may be your problem. To provide enough power to do anything you'd have to give a strong sigal... Thats house current flowing throught everything electronic... That'll fry a microchip really easly..
Again.. you sound paranoid... Your debate tactics belong to the flat earth socity... A lot of people have seen UFOs... and a lot of people have seen vampires... I see a monster every morning when I wake up and look in the mirror.. a horrid looking one...
Before people act to rash to this guy (or take him to sereously) [Mod 5? and assult replys.. gezz] This isn't really a new problem.
In the days of radio someone built a radio station that could broudcast around the United States. Wonderful hmmm? It worked... but everyone living in the area had to suffer. The signal was messing with everything electronic. Thats when the United States FCC stepped in and said "no signal stronger than X" and thats the law today. Problem solved.
I suspect your nation may simply be allowing everyone to transmit extreamly strong signals. We are very clear on what radio waves and microwaves can do. Thats how we get radar and microwave ovens. How we also get radios powered by the radio signal and some of the LAN technologys that came up in the 1980s. It's also why people talk of EMP (if drops a nuke the resulting EMP will distrupt anything electronic for miles.. whipe HDs etc).
Holland is starting to get some note over in the United States for a LACK of burocratic mentality. I don't know if this is reality or pure myth however so I won't talk about it:) Even if it is a myth this at least shows the type of thing that generated it.
This isn't a lasting problem. Just get the fedral communications burrocrats to do something reasonable with the signal strigth.
Problem solved.... (Strong EM signal will damage microchips. But thats some pritty nasty stuff... not something most people would deal with)
Many benifits... fast booting and improved functionility and just plain getting away from legacy design (After all Linux is Unix based not CP/M based... )
One other is upgrading the BIOS. The reason we HAVE flash BIOS is so we can upgrade it ourselfs. Upgrade to what? New features are likely to tie more and more into Windows. Why bother. But with this new features will be for Linux not Windows.
Finnaly when Linux PCs are built you are still paying someone for a BIOS. In many cases they are still making BIOS with MsDos in mind. Now instead Linux PC makers can preinstall something made with Linux in mind...
I'm still hoping someone makes a software shutdown powersuply for the desktop PC... The PS button only applys power... when off this turns the computer on... when on this sends a signal to the computer to turn off... the software then runs shutdown and then sends a signal to the powersuply telling it to accually turn off... (I believe this allready happend so on laptops.. but this function is't passed to desktops becouse it isn't considered useful... however this is how the 3B2 works.. no real off switch just an on switch that tells the OS to shutdown)
The number one problem with lawsutes such as this is ignoring the level of lagitamacy...
Now if a drunk in a bar clames to be a ninja can you sue him for fraud? On the other hand if the same guy made the same clame in a TV ad he could be sued. The reason? A drunk in a bar has no lagitamacy where as a TV ad needs to maintain a level of lagitamacy.
Now.... Someone says all kinds of crapola about someone on Usenet. A news reporter reports it. Who dose the person sue? Oh he sues the original usenet poster of course. The news reporter has a responsability to be clear and to check things out but a given usenet poster has no such restriction leaving it to the reader to varify any clames.
For this reason defemation should have no meaning on usenet but deathly restrictive on the news.
Now Slashdot clames to point to the news. So if Slashdot points to an artical that is wrong Slashdot is not at fault the artical source is.
But today tablods who have no credability and rummor sites who have minimal credability are being held to news media standards who have extream credablity. In the mean time the news is being held to a much lower standard.
Short of violating Adobes patents and copyrights a rummor media outlet should be allowed to publish reviews of betas..
In fact I think reviews of betas are a GOOD thing.... back in 1993/4/5 Lotus wouldn't publish Lotus 123 for OS/2 warp waiting for Windows 95 to be relase becouse they used the same interface.
That was bad enough as Lotus 123 was THE busness app that everyone wanted (the 1980s "MsOffice") but other software companys folowed Lotus's lead. Lotus was protecting is apperence. They didn't want anyone else making a app that was similer to 123 in apperence...
This robbed Warp of it's early release. Like Linux hurt Win2K by being out in the early 1990s and ready LONG before Win2k Warp could have hurt 95 by being ready a few years ahead.
Worse.. it HURT Warp... It ment Warp was out long enough for the full extent of Warp's defects to be known at the time of Win95's release. This lead to a PR campaign clamming 95 as being bug free. By the time Warp's bugs were fixed the PR damage had been done and 95 had the markeshare. It was only then that it became known just how defective 95 really was... those bugs would still be in place 2 years later to be fixed at the end of 1997 and released in 1998 (to be overshowed by Win98).
Had Lotus 123 gotten a Beta review Lotus would have realised they could lose the Os/2 platform to a 123 clone based on the beta... They wouldn't have pulled that stunt...
I expect many software companys learnned from how Microsoft repaid Lotus for it's loyality to Windows (Microsoft Exel) and how IBM treated Lotus for it's disloyalty to OS/2 (IBM saved Lotus by buying it out). I mean.. I expect no one repeated this stunt becouse of what happend to Lotus.
Even if no one PLANS to repeate Lotuses mistake they still fear beta reviews.
They also learnned from Atari and Nintendo... Atari sold the same game console from the 1970's into the 1980's. Atari made upgrades but never discontinued the original VCS/2600 (Originally VCS later renamed 2600). This eventually killed Atari. But Nintendo discontinued old machines and made the bulk of it's money from the game cartrages.
The continual upgrade only representing PART of Nintendos plan set the standard for the computer industry. Software companys frequently upgrade apps by adding features. This isn't wise. It premotes feature frenzy. But Photoshop has been around for years and Adobe may not be able to add any new features. This leaves Photoshop 6 with being a code cleanup. Faster maybe, Easyer maybe. Better.. but not in the ways people expect. The market now expects features. Adobe could give them that with Photoshop in the past becouse there was allways new features people needed. We have come a long way sence painting pacages for the c64 bundled with a light pen or a touch tablet. Now we can edit photos in ways that preveously required a photo lab (don't get paranoid photolabs consisted of peoples bathrooms in some cases.. the avrage person could still do this for less than a new computer system.. so we arn't talking about a new age of forgery).
Also the need for graphic images has expanded. Not just for print but for the Internet. A greater numer of people need computer generated graphics.
So this justifyed adding features. But now what. What features can you add to a pacage that dose everything? This isn't the end of photoshop by a long shot but Adobe has so focused on new releases and upgrades they compleatly ignore the growing piracy problem.
It may be to late to contain. If Adobe dosn't convence the public that Photoshop 6 is more than just "faster cleanner code" they may lose sales to pireted copys of Photoshop 5.
Even if Photoshop 6 IS just faster cleaner code I would think it's worth the upgrade. Better software over features... allways gets my attention:) But the avrage user dosn't think like me. They are programmed to want features and screw quality.
If I am right that 6 IS just faster cleaner code then I suggest Adobe PR that as THE feature. The ultimate feature. The greatest feature ever. Make no mistake... not only will the open source community back you on this... So will some strong open source rivals.. such as Sun... who like open source rely on better stronger code over feature frenzy.
The idea behind IP protection is so a single author holds the rights to his music, storys, etc.
Say I write a story. That is mine under copyright. If I give it away thats my right. If I publish it on Usenet that is my right. If I sell it to BlahBlah books that is my right. Having sold it BlahBlah books now owns my rights they arn't mine anymore. But I have the money in trade for that deal. Plus money from sales. A good deal.
Say I sell my music to BlahBlah records. Same issue. same story..
But.. fans of my writing do not turn to BlahBlah or usenet or where-ever.. they turn to ME... Fans of my music turn to ME... But thats becouse as part of the agreement my name is on the music/story/etc so my fans know where to go if I am good. (They also know who to avoid if I stink) While book publishers won't "own" a writer the music industry wants to do just that. "The artist formerly known as Prince"... The Prince name was not owned by the artist but by his recording company. By contract if he leaves them he leaves the name behind. I never liked "Prince" but what he did when he felt he needed to leave that recording studio was pritty cool in my opinion.
Steven King can pick and chouse his publishers. He can stay with one that treats him well or he can move on to someone who treats him better.. or move to one that treats him like a bitch but pays really really big bucks... Totally his choice...
But the power of the IP is eroding.
Can the avrage Jo do a realistic prior art search? No... But a larg company can BS it's way through one... Thats why Amazon has one click patents and Jo shmo dosn't own the Tri-metric reverse phase encryption he dreammed up one night and why we have nither one click or Tri-metric encryption.
IP has it's uses... but for the most part it's being abused...
But IP law has a future.... I like the current application of IP law by commic strip websites... Want to copy my strip? Shure... include my URL... want to use my carricters? Shure include my URL... Want to sell a book? Ok we talk contract and such... Want to print t-shirts? Mugs? etc? Get my permition... Want to give away my work? Shure include my url... Napster? Shure... include my URL.... Blast a strip all over the moon? Hack yeah.. include my URL.... See a theam here?
You like my music? Go buy my CD.. you don't want to buy my CD? Well then I guess you'll have to settle for whats on Napster... you'll miss out on 90% of my stuff and you'll miss out on the cool stuff... My comments to my fans... the lerics.. the fold out poster in the box... Oh yeah and for those people who Napster my music.... INCLUDE MY URL....
Intel asked that Harvard put covers on the iMacs.. That was reasonable enough. But the covers made the iMacs overheat.. The iMacs case is mostly airvents... hard to cover without blocking that...
Harvard should have taken the covers back to Intel and told them what was wrong. They didn't. Intel didn't ask them to turn iMacs off.. They told them to cover same. It was purely a university choice to turn the iMacs off...
I'm shure Intel when faced with it would have backed down and said ok leave the iMacs alone.
This is the truely scary part.. Not so much what Intel asked but that the University took action in the name of Intel..
I think this should be noted... Schools are waisting money on stuff not needed.. local governments trying to ballence budgets won't allocate needed funds... lots of evil money issues that a sponsership quickfix can help handle. But at what cost?
Universitys are teaching ethical behavure (a function I an allready conserned about) now that ethical behavure is up for sale.. what shall we teach the new workforce... (Coffie/Cola) Work ethics.. yes this is good.. but then we can forget to teach about sleep depervation. No Coke-a-cola wouldn't ask that but the Universitys would do it anyway...
It's not just that companys are paying money and asking something in return. Thats bad enough... But Intel, Coke, and so forth would avoid asking anything that could turn into bad press... But education institutions want to look good to the sponsers.. They don't consider the bad press they could generate for same...
So Harvard turns iMacs off for Intel... Ispocan University removes all refrence to sleep depervation for a coffie sponser... And Hoho Collage forgets you can get sports injurts even with protective gear for a company that sells same.
It's not what they asked for.. It's what they do on there own that scares me....
Whats scary isn't that they were once trusted... It's that they still are.... And that makes it posable for any group to insert a socal mandate... I'm sure cola and coffie companys would sponser hard work ethics... (work hardder.. buy more caffine) Microsoft anti-piracy (Oh yeah don't copy ANY software... it's illegal) and sports companys safty (gotta sell that protective gear) It can all look innocent at first but it gets nasty quick...
>OK so there are fools out there who believe that if people are not out there working to improve the state of industry then they're wasting their time. but a lot of arts graduates take up a useful role in society someone has to make the TV programs you watch, someone has to look afetr the homeless (Unless you think it should all be down to policemen with clubs)
Teaching arts is a GOOD thing.. teaching non-productive classes is a good thing... Teaching "think this way" classes is a bad thing... People should help the homeless out of a sence of ethics within themselfs.. NOT out of a sence of ethics programmed into them at collage...
Am I to believe a person who got C in "Ethical behavure 101" are more ethical than people who never took the class? [No such class exists as far as I know.. similer yes but not that exact one]
The problem with ethics and morals is it's all subjective. To you and me it's ethical to help out those in need. But there is the darwinist ethics who believe it's ethical and moral to run people over. Some people have turnned self intrested selfishness into a socal mandate... I'd rather there be a class on how to research and learn about socal injustous than a class teaching it. I don't want any one pair of hands stearing a moral colective... it allways leads to abuse...
The problem is that Linux isn't (currently) easy to learn and even if it ever became so the mem is burnt in.. Just as people think Linux is hard to use and hard to admin (Linux was NEVER hard to use... this implys difficulting on Linux experts... and that isn't the case... the difficulty is clearly on the new users who have yet to learn Linuxes obscure and cryptic commands).
Mac is very powerful but just as Linux is forever tagged with the "Hard" lable Mac is forever tagged with the "simple" lable... Still it's pointed out time and time again the reason people pick Windows over Linux is Windows is "user friendly" it's not but it is easy to learn and thats a big step forward for newbes comparied to Linux... But NOT comparied to Mac.. who really is user friendly..
So Linux scoops up the geeks, the techs and the power users and Mac scoops up the newbes and the techno paranoid...
It's got it's place in things....
And unlike Windows... Mac and Linux work together perfictly... Mac has made the extra effort to work with Unix for a long time.. Older Macs have become Internet terminals in otherwise Unix networks. Linux also makes an extra effort to work with Mac.. supporting AppleTalk protocalls at the kernel level.
On a network I doupt you could easly recognise where the Macs end and the Linux boxes start... Or pick the odd box in a stack of systems...
For me an ideal office network is Macs and Linux boxes... between the two all needs are meet
Slashdot Mirror
You can send e-mail in mime and uuencode as a hack to solve a problem of getting files from one user to annother.
It's a hack solution for a rare (but obnoxous) problem.
[Oh ok I'll e-mail you an mp3 of the audio recorded at the last meeting]
The idea of normal e-mail is to send text. Not HTML and certenly not MsWord.
Windows helps premote this problem (not Microsoft.. just an example of "one world one os" being bad.. Microsofts todays example Linux may be tomarows bad guy in this respect.. maybe some day Apple).
Basicly a user sees a file format is native to his operating system he mistakenly believes it's "normal" and sends this file in e-mail.
If he has less than a 50-50 chance of getting someone who can accually use that file then he'll get a clue and stop. But if he has a greater than 60% chance of getting a user who supports it then he'll just assume the others are losers.
For the most part it's annoying. It's not e-mail and it dosn't do the job.
Now with e-mail viruses I'd hope that even Windows users would say NO! to Windows files simply becouse this shouldn't be commen practace in the first place. True Windows makes it EASY but that is still with the idea of two executives using commen (or compatable) software with an agreed on format with an agreed on goal (such as e-mailing the database of a daily budget or an audio file of an interview in a format both sides support [such as mp3])
If both users use Windows and Microsoft office then hay thats great go for it. But if one side uses Linux with KDE Office and the other Mac with AppleWorks then it's a matter of finding a commen format between AppleWorks and KDE Office.
Anyway.. sending MsWord files as a way to send text is a bad thing. But when there is a greater than 60% chance that the guy on the other end can read MsWord files it dosn't occure that sending e-mail in acuall text will work 100% of the time.
PS. yes I throw away ALL MsWord files unread
Shouldn't it then contain a correct release date?
It seems the date on the document is there to leave you to believe that is the public release date not the creation date.
I also suspect the accual creation date of the document is a bit older if it was created internally as this dosn't fit within the develupment cycle.
No such documents like this should have been created around that time frame as Win2K was being readyed for release.
Don't be amazed.. history has a tendency to repeate itself...
I expect history to repeate it self and this is why I'm not supprised when people expect it won't.
So basicly the GPL should be even stronger than any shrinkwrap liccens.
Shrinkwrap takes away the right to use software and grants it back IF you agree to certen terms.
GPL allows you to use the software no matter what. It takes away no rights normaly automatic for commertal software that is downloaded or paid for.
Becouse GPL takes nothing away it should be stronger.
On a side note. This may be why the GPL has gone unchallanged for so long. Revoking the GPL may win you nothing as this reverts the software to the status of "expressed writen permition" the GPL basicly just waves that. Eliminate the GPL and then your rights to distribute the software evaperate.
If the GPL is totally voided you could replace the GPL with the new GPL. The voided liccens means Microsoft has zero rights to your software.
Even if you lose all rights to Goof 0.3 Microsoft can't clame Goof as it's own.
Now the good news... Microsoft dosn't challange th GPL. Contracts are holy law over there so they don't violate the GPL. When they do (by mistake) they take action.
Yeah even the bad guys have scruples... Not exactly the ones we want them to have but at least it's something.
The only legal MP3s I could find I found on Napster. .wav format not mp3
And my CDripper outputs to
Real Player was presented as a secure way to deliver music but someone hacked it.
Yes Real Networks sued but that changes nothing. The method is now public. It should be a minnor effort for a cracker to do it again.
Enter Napster. Belive it or not.. attempt number 2. Before it even got off the ground someone figured out how the stream worked and made a clone.
The process isn't that hard. Just set up a BSD box and have it record everything that passes between the Windows box and the network.
(Yeah I know Linux can do the job but I've become accustum to BSD boxes as firewalls.. they do the job so well.. and this is just a small modification to a firewall).
With some hacking you can not only replicate the client but the server as well.
All just by observing the data stream.
And now you have a Napster nockoff...
What next...
Well the music industry seems to think they can do it.
Let me point out that Real Networks and Napster did this with a larg base of knowladge behind them. They knew the history of streaming media. CU-SeeMe... Ztalk and all the wonderful Unix radio and voice IP clients. Most open sourced.
They didn't work in the dark...
And they couldn't come up with anything...
Now the music industry thinks they can pull this off. Not knowing a thing about all the protocals that came before. Not knowing a thing about what it took to crack thies protocals.
Entirely in the dark. Compleatly ignorent.
They might pull it off.
But I sereously doupt it...
Cracking this.. I doupt it would even be a challange for a cryptophile...
They are clearly not the only good technology publisher.
I like Sams, McGraw Hill and Prentice Hall.
Sams would go to people who made electronics and get technical information from them and use that to compile repair manuals for TVs, Radios, and other electronics.
You could get repair manuals for the Commodore 128, The IBM PC and many other companys.
Now a days companys have become paranoid. Oh my ghod someone might use that information and make a compeating TV set.
Anyway O'Reilly is very populare and even used by Microsoft employees.
They document such things as Microsoft Windows, BSD (Hah sorry Zico they DO have a BSD book) and the palm pilot.
Zico is basicly full of it... allways is... He has some agenda. No he isn't some Microsoft plant or from the Krull invasion force.
He has some stake in this. It's probably some stake in Microsoft but that might not be the case. Maybe it's just that you could code crud on a stick and sell it for Windows but couldn't give it away on Linux.
Anyway O'Reilly is known for having Lary Wall on the payroll. Not for writing Linux books.
They see themselfs as compeating with "Dumbies" books so when the populare title shifts out of tech books into self help books you find "In a nutshell" not far behind.
Along with Dumbies and Nutshell I also recomend Sams "Teach Yourself" books...
Zico should have gotten "Teach yourself Labotomy in a week" instead of "Labotomy for Dumbies".
The sister motive is kinda a forgone conclusion.
This however dosn't mean there is any intrest in hurting indi film makers. Thats an unexpected side effect.
Indi film makers aren't corprate enough to afford to rent a theater (thats IF they'll rent it out).
True we are not talking kids running around with cam corders. More like adults with hacked equipment like film recording equipment or a digital camra plugged into a lap top.
Still this is a far cry from organising a screenning. It's not just a matter of getting a place to view the film (and renting a theater is not the best solution for this) but getting the people to preview the film.
Or you could slap it up on the Internet and let people preview it.
It would be untrue to say an Indi film could not do this. However it's no simple task and a lot of run around just to satisfy an anil mandate.
I personally think there is some other reason for being against Internet films.
This may injure films on the internet in the short term. But it could kill the Oscars. All it takes is one net film to win an award from someone else.
Good writers do not "check out" other writers.
Writers read as fans not as writers. They may take away ideas and make improvments but from the start to the finish they read as fans.
If one writer hears of his work being compaired to someone else he thinks "Well thats cool" but otherwise thinks nothing of it..
People will never buy a Pratchett book becouse his style is similer to Douglas Adams or visa versa. No one is going to NOT buy a book over the same reasons.
They'll buy a book becouse THAT BOOK is good or THAT WRITER is good not a similer writer of a similer style.
So Adams never picked up a Pratchett book. Not entirely supprising.
If Adams makes a movie that was not allready based on a book and didn't feel up to writing the book I doupt he'd have any objection to having Pratchett do the book and if Pratchett turns it down it will only be due to an objection to writing a book version of a movie and nothing else.
In many many ways this is an intresting subplot.
.org domain confusing people into thinking PETA.org was a non-proffit. Of course PETA.COM accually IS a non-proffit but then on same merit they confuse people into thinking they are a comertal enity not an advocacy group but posably a fair and impartal enity.
/ni-tha-point/ [FeliSpeak Translation: Not the point])
/Crulty to animals/ is ni-the-point of PETA.
McDonalds isn't above suing advocacy groups.
The presedent set here and based on a lawsute (settled in the UK so there probably isn't a US presedent) by McDonald PETA could be sued.
The big issue of PETA was the
On a side rant...
Veganism may be a noble cause (one I DO NOT support but for the function of my rant thats
PETA is an organisation for preventing crulty to animals. Veganisms brouder definition of
Veganism is a advocacy for a brouder sense of consern than is part of our current ethics.
PETA is advocacy for our existing standard of ethics reguarding the treatment of animals.
The two advocacys are comparable but not compatable.
PETA should (to be true to it's objectives and goals) advocate humain handling procedures for "for slauter" animals.
Veganism can not make this advocacy instead it must advocate the elimination of "for slauter" animals. [Elimination meaning the class not the animals who by deffinition are eliminated so long as they continue in this class of animal]
About myself. I am for the damedest trying to use nutral language. I accually disaprove of the veganism cause being imposed on the masses.
I have no problems with the message as "We believe this" and it's existence as a choice and life style. Even it's presistence in some religions to me is ok. But as a mandate apon myself I feel put apon.
I am all for the fair treatment of animals and PETA is a good cause...
Veganism is also a fair ideology...
Maybe 10 to 20 years from now children will look back and ask "Why did we eat meat"...
and maybe 10 to 20 years from now children will ask "Why was an anti crulty organisation trying to starve people?". It's a matter of prospective.
In the end PETA chouses this existence and this message. It chouses the vegan standard.
If they believe it helps them then fine. But it dosn't gain my simpathy when someone throws up a spoof website they disaprove of...
And no matter what they are... When they sue over a spoofer domain...
Has McDonalds ever sued a spoof?
Probably not.... and thats a good thing....
If not it speaks a bit of people who do...
For even a thin skinned organisation like McDonalds can take being spoofed...
If not... if McDonalds has or isn't above suing a spoof.... then PETA set a standard they may themselfs suffer for...
People who do that are really asking for it when they write open source software.
Ok let's face it.. this happends. It happends A LOT.
But when your porability or code is broken making your code available is really asking for it.
This happends with closed source as well...
But unlike open source... You paid for it and now it's your problem...
Look at the comments in the Linux Game Tomb....
A lot of bad code but guess what.. the authors really catch it.
"Look at me I'm an idiot"
I guess the total sum of idiot programmers for Linuix prove how easy it is to code for Unix.
With Linux everything you need is free.
Anything missing? Add your own code or talk with whomever is resposable for the libary.
And thats the other advantage. Direct access to the develupers.
Linux is know for stability under fire...
Develupers don't need THAT they need minimal stability.
Windows dose not deliver.
Windows 3.11 had memory leaks and it's a good bet many apps writen for 3.11 had memory leaks as well.
A programmer can not be expected to fix bugs when he can't be sure the bugs belong to his app and not the operating system.
Ok heres my conspericy for this week.
(No new Slashdot radio?)
Well I'm going to be simple on this one....
In fact I stold it from Geeks 1
Rob and Jeff are just robots programmed to take over the earth.
Built by RMS and programmed by a crack team of programmers organised by Linus.
Yes thats right Linux is accually designed to run Rob and Jeff and we all are tricked into writing and improving the code.
When you send hardware to Rob and Jeff for demo (or when they buy it) they just add it to themselfs.
Oh wait buit my conspericy dosn't stop with open source... ohhh no....
You see Bill Gates is also trying to take over the world and so the open source communist conspericy must crush the Microsoft conspericy and visa versa.
Now Bill Gates isn't an overlord type he is just folowing the plans layed out by IBM. But somehow things have gotten out of hand as IBM is no longer apart of that conspericy and Microsoft has no contact with it's former overloards. IBM was just a puppet.
The Microsoft conspericy dates back even before IBM with the news media tyrents trying to take over. That failled.
Now Microsoft is attempting to compleate it's world domination by buying into the news media and discover the rest of the original plan (they have compleated the part they know... and are looking for the rest of the plan)
The media has long abandoned that plan and are considering joinning RMS and team in taking over the world.
Ahh but the unknown original overlords are not with the news media anymore, not with open source and not with Microsoft.
In fact we don't know where they might be.....
That... is why open source hasn't launched it's final assult. RMS needs to know if there is any counterstrike waiting for him.
In the mean time... some hacker is adding code.....
OnTakeOver
{
while(brainwash == yes)
{
NullifyBrainwash;
NewBranwash = "Burn Linux, Burn Microsoft, Folow the Krull";
}
}
There was a time when the system of choice for music artists was the Atari ST.
It's easy to pack and it survives the trip.
The alternitive was the Mac. Easy to pack dosn't allways survive the trip and MIDI is an addon.
Atari STs continued to be in use in the music industry as late as a few years ago. Music artists can not afford to upgrade computers when they become obsolete or are dicontinued.
The Palm has the geek toy and manager toy market. This makes it pritty much immune to market realitys technical realitys and "innovation". It survives... even if it becomes junk.. it survives...
This would be ideal for musicians starting off. Your instrements.. etc... digital syth. and a palm.
If you ever get a recording contract you can switch to something better.
A portable sytn and a palm would also be ideal for tweeking out new tunes.
I'm picturing myself with a palm. My Linux box my sytn and a MIDI keyboard I've been eyeing (no syth all keyboard... an input only device) and some other devices.
Ug... and me being tone deff... Ohhh I could SOO pissoff the nabors...
Ok try this as a mesure and I think you start to see the picure....
If your using commertally liccensed code would it be ok....
The GPL gives pritty much identical limits on using GPL code in a commertal product that commertal code gives for using in ANY product.
Now as far as "including libarys" you shouldn't. The libarys should be downloaded and installed seprately there should be no need to include them in your pacage.
But placing GPL code in your code then you have an issue.
It's as much theft to put GPL code in a closed source product as it is to use code you paid a liccens fee for in a free product.
Basicly a programmer should not be asked to pay for his own code and any programmer who codes for a living should be paid for the use of his code. It should never be in a free product and it should never be in someone elses commertal product.
The GPL basicly says "Don't steal from me" the same basic idea holds for all commertal liccenses.
The key diffrence is the GPL programmer isn't making a living off his code....
But then.. with todays inovative busness modles... maybe.. just maybe... he is making money...
By banner ads on the download page... or the product as a demo of the coders skill saying "This is my skill... hire me for your specalised e-commerce needs".
Whatever is being done...
Code made free should stay free and code that is not free is not free...
Changing this is theft
I would think the diffrent liccenses don't work together.
Unless the liccenses were designed to co-exist you have a legal nightmare.
Chances are quite good the liccens coctail is simply illegal and you have open source legalistic piracy on your hands.
Now there is reason and there is paranoia.
Today is aliens. A long time ago it was monsters (vampires etc) in the future it'll be the "unknown effects" of radio signals.
If you are sereously having a problem the cause is overpowering signal...
(BTW the nuro-electric brain is not anywhere near as suseptable to interfearence as electronics...)
What is GSM power? If someone is providing power vea radio waves this may be your problem. To provide enough power to do anything you'd have to give a strong sigal... Thats house current flowing throught everything electronic... That'll fry a microchip really easly..
Again.. you sound paranoid... Your debate tactics belong to the flat earth socity...
A lot of people have seen UFOs... and a lot of people have seen vampires...
I see a monster every morning when I wake up and look in the mirror.. a horrid looking one...
Before people act to rash to this guy (or take him to sereously) [Mod 5? and assult replys.. gezz]
:)
This isn't really a new problem.
In the days of radio someone built a radio station that could broudcast around the United States. Wonderful hmmm?
It worked... but everyone living in the area had to suffer. The signal was messing with everything electronic.
Thats when the United States FCC stepped in and said "no signal stronger than X" and thats the law today. Problem solved.
I suspect your nation may simply be allowing everyone to transmit extreamly strong signals.
We are very clear on what radio waves and microwaves can do. Thats how we get radar and microwave ovens. How we also get radios powered by the radio signal and some of the LAN technologys that came up in the 1980s.
It's also why people talk of EMP (if drops a nuke the resulting EMP will distrupt anything electronic for miles.. whipe HDs etc).
Holland is starting to get some note over in the United States for a LACK of burocratic mentality. I don't know if this is reality or pure myth however so I won't talk about it
Even if it is a myth this at least shows the type of thing that generated it.
This isn't a lasting problem. Just get the fedral communications burrocrats to do something reasonable with the signal strigth.
Problem solved....
(Strong EM signal will damage microchips. But thats some pritty nasty stuff... not something most people would deal with)
Many benifits... fast booting and improved functionility and just plain getting away from legacy design (After all Linux is Unix based not CP/M based... )
One other is upgrading the BIOS.
The reason we HAVE flash BIOS is so we can upgrade it ourselfs. Upgrade to what?
New features are likely to tie more and more into Windows. Why bother.
But with this new features will be for Linux not Windows.
Finnaly when Linux PCs are built you are still paying someone for a BIOS. In many cases they are still making BIOS with MsDos in mind.
Now instead Linux PC makers can preinstall something made with Linux in mind...
I'm still hoping someone makes a software shutdown powersuply for the desktop PC...
The PS button only applys power... when off this turns the computer on... when on this sends a signal to the computer to turn off... the software then runs shutdown and then sends a signal to the powersuply telling it to accually turn off...
(I believe this allready happend so on laptops.. but this function is't passed to desktops becouse it isn't considered useful... however this is how the 3B2 works.. no real off switch just an on switch that tells the OS to shutdown)
The number one problem with lawsutes such as this is ignoring the level of lagitamacy...
:)
Now if a drunk in a bar clames to be a ninja can you sue him for fraud?
On the other hand if the same guy made the same clame in a TV ad he could be sued.
The reason? A drunk in a bar has no lagitamacy where as a TV ad needs to maintain a level of lagitamacy.
Now.... Someone says all kinds of crapola about someone on Usenet. A news reporter reports it. Who dose the person sue? Oh he sues the original usenet poster of course. The news reporter has a responsability to be clear and to check things out but a given usenet poster has no such restriction leaving it to the reader to varify any clames.
For this reason defemation should have no meaning on usenet but deathly restrictive on the news.
Now Slashdot clames to point to the news. So if Slashdot points to an artical that is wrong Slashdot is not at fault the artical source is.
But today tablods who have no credability and rummor sites who have minimal credability are being held to news media standards who have extream credablity. In the mean time the news is being held to a much lower standard.
Short of violating Adobes patents and copyrights a rummor media outlet should be allowed to publish reviews of betas..
In fact I think reviews of betas are a GOOD thing.... back in 1993/4/5 Lotus wouldn't publish Lotus 123 for OS/2 warp waiting for Windows 95 to be relase becouse they used the same interface.
That was bad enough as Lotus 123 was THE busness app that everyone wanted (the 1980s "MsOffice") but other software companys folowed Lotus's lead.
Lotus was protecting is apperence. They didn't want anyone else making a app that was similer to 123 in apperence...
This robbed Warp of it's early release. Like Linux hurt Win2K by being out in the early 1990s and ready LONG before Win2k Warp could have hurt 95 by being ready a few years ahead.
Worse.. it HURT Warp... It ment Warp was out long enough for the full extent of Warp's defects to be known at the time of Win95's release. This lead to a PR campaign clamming 95 as being bug free.
By the time Warp's bugs were fixed the PR damage had been done and 95 had the markeshare. It was only then that it became known just how defective 95 really was... those bugs would still be in place 2 years later to be fixed at the end of 1997 and released in 1998 (to be overshowed by Win98).
Had Lotus 123 gotten a Beta review Lotus would have realised they could lose the Os/2 platform to a 123 clone based on the beta...
They wouldn't have pulled that stunt...
I expect many software companys learnned from how Microsoft repaid Lotus for it's loyality to Windows (Microsoft Exel) and how IBM treated Lotus for it's disloyalty to OS/2 (IBM saved Lotus by buying it out).
I mean.. I expect no one repeated this stunt becouse of what happend to Lotus.
Even if no one PLANS to repeate Lotuses mistake they still fear beta reviews.
They also learnned from Atari and Nintendo...
Atari sold the same game console from the 1970's into the 1980's. Atari made upgrades but never discontinued the original VCS/2600 (Originally VCS later renamed 2600). This eventually killed Atari.
But Nintendo discontinued old machines and made the bulk of it's money from the game cartrages.
The continual upgrade only representing PART of Nintendos plan set the standard for the computer industry. Software companys frequently upgrade apps by adding features. This isn't wise.
It premotes feature frenzy.
But Photoshop has been around for years and Adobe may not be able to add any new features.
This leaves Photoshop 6 with being a code cleanup. Faster maybe, Easyer maybe. Better.. but not in the ways people expect.
The market now expects features. Adobe could give them that with Photoshop in the past becouse there was allways new features people needed.
We have come a long way sence painting pacages for the c64 bundled with a light pen or a touch tablet.
Now we can edit photos in ways that preveously required a photo lab (don't get paranoid photolabs consisted of peoples bathrooms in some cases.. the avrage person could still do this for less than a new computer system.. so we arn't talking about a new age of forgery).
Also the need for graphic images has expanded. Not just for print but for the Internet. A greater numer of people need computer generated graphics.
So this justifyed adding features. But now what. What features can you add to a pacage that dose everything?
This isn't the end of photoshop by a long shot but Adobe has so focused on new releases and upgrades they compleatly ignore the growing piracy problem.
It may be to late to contain. If Adobe dosn't convence the public that Photoshop 6 is more than just "faster cleanner code" they may lose sales to pireted copys of Photoshop 5.
Even if Photoshop 6 IS just faster cleaner code I would think it's worth the upgrade. Better software over features... allways gets my attention
But the avrage user dosn't think like me. They are programmed to want features and screw quality.
If I am right that 6 IS just faster cleaner code then I suggest Adobe PR that as THE feature. The ultimate feature. The greatest feature ever.
Make no mistake... not only will the open source community back you on this... So will some strong open source rivals.. such as Sun... who like open source rely on better stronger code over feature frenzy.
The idea behind IP protection is so a single author holds the rights to his music, storys, etc.
:)
Say I write a story. That is mine under copyright. If I give it away thats my right. If I publish it on Usenet that is my right. If I sell it to BlahBlah books that is my right. Having sold it BlahBlah books now owns my rights they arn't mine anymore. But I have the money in trade for that deal. Plus money from sales. A good deal.
Say I sell my music to BlahBlah records. Same issue. same story..
But.. fans of my writing do not turn to BlahBlah or usenet or where-ever.. they turn to ME...
Fans of my music turn to ME...
But thats becouse as part of the agreement my name is on the music/story/etc so my fans know where to go if I am good. (They also know who to avoid if I stink)
While book publishers won't "own" a writer the music industry wants to do just that.
"The artist formerly known as Prince"... The Prince name was not owned by the artist but by his recording company. By contract if he leaves them he leaves the name behind. I never liked "Prince" but what he did when he felt he needed to leave that recording studio was pritty cool in my opinion.
Steven King can pick and chouse his publishers. He can stay with one that treats him well or he can move on to someone who treats him better.. or move to one that treats him like a bitch but pays really really big bucks...
Totally his choice...
But the power of the IP is eroding.
Can the avrage Jo do a realistic prior art search? No...
But a larg company can BS it's way through one...
Thats why Amazon has one click patents and Jo shmo dosn't own the Tri-metric reverse phase encryption he dreammed up one night and why we have nither one click or Tri-metric encryption.
IP has it's uses... but for the most part it's being abused...
But IP law has a future....
I like the current application of IP law by commic strip websites...
Want to copy my strip? Shure... include my URL... want to use my carricters? Shure include my URL... Want to sell a book? Ok we talk contract and such...
Want to print t-shirts? Mugs? etc? Get my permition... Want to give away my work? Shure include my url...
Napster? Shure... include my URL....
Blast a strip all over the moon? Hack yeah.. include my URL....
See a theam here?
You like my music? Go buy my CD.. you don't want to buy my CD? Well then I guess you'll have to settle for whats on Napster... you'll miss out on 90% of my stuff and you'll miss out on the cool stuff... My comments to my fans... the lerics.. the fold out poster in the box...
Oh yeah and for those people who Napster my music.... INCLUDE MY URL....
Thank you
Intel asked that Harvard put covers on the iMacs.. That was reasonable enough.
But the covers made the iMacs overheat.. The iMacs case is mostly airvents... hard to cover without blocking that...
Harvard should have taken the covers back to Intel and told them what was wrong. They didn't.
Intel didn't ask them to turn iMacs off.. They told them to cover same. It was purely a university choice to turn the iMacs off...
I'm shure Intel when faced with it would have backed down and said ok leave the iMacs alone.
This is the truely scary part.. Not so much what Intel asked but that the University took action in the name of Intel..
I think this should be noted...
Schools are waisting money on stuff not needed.. local governments trying to ballence budgets won't allocate needed funds... lots of evil money issues that a sponsership quickfix can help handle.
But at what cost?
Universitys are teaching ethical behavure (a function I an allready conserned about) now that ethical behavure is up for sale.. what shall we teach the new workforce...
(Coffie/Cola) Work ethics.. yes this is good.. but then we can forget to teach about sleep depervation. No Coke-a-cola wouldn't ask that but the Universitys would do it anyway...
It's not just that companys are paying money and asking something in return. Thats bad enough...
But Intel, Coke, and so forth would avoid asking anything that could turn into bad press...
But education institutions want to look good to the sponsers.. They don't consider the bad press they could generate for same...
So Harvard turns iMacs off for Intel...
Ispocan University removes all refrence to sleep depervation for a coffie sponser...
And Hoho Collage forgets you can get sports injurts even with protective gear for a company that sells same.
It's not what they asked for.. It's what they do on there own that scares me....
Whats scary isn't that they were once trusted...
It's that they still are....
And that makes it posable for any group to insert a socal mandate...
I'm sure cola and coffie companys would sponser hard work ethics... (work hardder.. buy more caffine)
Microsoft anti-piracy (Oh yeah don't copy ANY software... it's illegal)
and sports companys safty (gotta sell that protective gear)
It can all look innocent at first but it gets nasty quick...
>OK so there are fools out there who believe that if people are not out there working to improve the state of industry then they're wasting their time. but a lot of arts graduates take up a useful role in society someone has to make the TV programs you watch, someone has to look afetr the homeless (Unless you think it should all be down to policemen with clubs)
Teaching arts is a GOOD thing.. teaching non-productive classes is a good thing... Teaching "think this way" classes is a bad thing...
People should help the homeless out of a sence of ethics within themselfs.. NOT out of a sence of ethics programmed into them at collage...
Am I to believe a person who got C in "Ethical behavure 101" are more ethical than people who never took the class?
[No such class exists as far as I know.. similer yes but not that exact one]
The problem with ethics and morals is it's all subjective.
To you and me it's ethical to help out those in need.
But there is the darwinist ethics who believe it's ethical and moral to run people over. Some people have turnned self intrested selfishness into a socal mandate...
I'd rather there be a class on how to research and learn about socal injustous than a class teaching it.
I don't want any one pair of hands stearing a moral colective... it allways leads to abuse...
The problem is that Linux isn't (currently) easy to learn and even if it ever became so the mem is burnt in..
Just as people think Linux is hard to use and hard to admin (Linux was NEVER hard to use... this implys difficulting on Linux experts... and that isn't the case... the difficulty is clearly on the new users who have yet to learn Linuxes obscure and cryptic commands).
Mac is very powerful but just as Linux is forever tagged with the "Hard" lable Mac is forever tagged with the "simple" lable...
Still it's pointed out time and time again the reason people pick Windows over Linux is Windows is "user friendly" it's not but it is easy to learn and thats a big step forward for newbes comparied to Linux...
But NOT comparied to Mac.. who really is user friendly..
So Linux scoops up the geeks, the techs and the power users and Mac scoops up the newbes and the techno paranoid...
It's got it's place in things....
And unlike Windows... Mac and Linux work together perfictly...
Mac has made the extra effort to work with Unix for a long time.. Older Macs have become Internet terminals in otherwise Unix networks.
Linux also makes an extra effort to work with Mac.. supporting AppleTalk protocalls at the kernel level.
On a network I doupt you could easly recognise where the Macs end and the Linux boxes start...
Or pick the odd box in a stack of systems...
For me an ideal office network is Macs and Linux boxes... between the two all needs are meet