> No, a properly configured router will only block packets that don't appear to > come from that network. That still gives you a lot of addresses to chose from.
No. A properly configured router is connected to TWO networks, and will not allow traffic to pass either direction unless the source IP matches what it knows of the two networks.
If your network is 192.168.1.0/24, and your source IP is not, it should drop it. If a packet attempts to get in to you and its source IP _is_ in that range, it should also drop it.
Forging your IP will fail the first test. The second test is to prevent others from pretending to be hosts in your network to bypass IP based security rules.
> Dude, you can do that with _any_ distro with binary packages. > I personally do it with Slackware.
I didn't mean to imply that only deb can do this. Just that its what I happen to use. The parents post was claiming that building from source each time is the 'only way', which was what I was arguing:)
> The TGZ packaging scheme (also mentioned in the article, along with RPM and DEB) > just... Well... Sucks.
Not intended as an attack aginst your comment (You are fully correct, it sucks) but to clarify a point:.tgz is not really a package format..tgz (.tar.gz, or a compressed tape-archive) is no more a binary package format than.zip is for windows.
Slackware created a rather elegant hack at the time, of having a/package/install.sh script in the tarfile which is run with a bash shell after the files are extracted to do any command based setup, but that is it.
Imagine if you will, a.zip file that states 'uncompress this file exactly here C:\windows\system\whatever\foo.bin ' That is all a.tgz can do.
This is why it supports no dependencys or checking, because its just an archive file.
Technically speaking, this isnt a package format as much as a creative way to run a shell script after extracting some files.
* I realize you were just replying to the articles claim that it is a package format, and from your own experences. I just wanted to explain why your experences sucked... It was more of a design flaw to use an archive as a package format, then the package format sucks. From an archive stand point,.zip and.tgz do great.
One of the main reasons I enjoy DEB binary packages which also do not have any of the bad issues you mention is this:
I'll download the source and compile it on my nice fast zippy P4 2.6ghz machine, then build a.deb from that, not just to install on that machine (Personally I like the fact i can remove it with a package manager) but i can also install that binary package I made myself on my slower systems that dont have a compiler installed.
My three router computers are all p133 or p166 machines. No way am I compiling anything there. Routers also dont need gcc installed.
I run my own private apt repository for this (Its just apache and some config files in text format, and one more line in my apt sources file.) This way I can tell whichever machines to apt-get it, and later I can apt-get remove it as well.
I also dont have a huge server farm, I just have 8 machines at home for different purposes. Below the P4 mentioned above, my next fastest system is a p2 450. The others get way slower below that (p2 200 and the like, or worse.)
I also dont want a compiler on any system but my development system. The machines in my DMZ dont need compilers, as if they do happen to get rooted, that's one less tool for them to use aginst me.
Open source is also about choice. Please let us have ours, even if you have made your own.
>> How hard would it be to build a RFID spoofing tool that emits gazillions of >> random RFID numbers whenever it is polled?
> Not very, but it's highly illegal. FCC hunts down tiny 100 watt FM transmitters > in the wild, imagine their reaction to unlicensed microwave transmitters.
Uhh, the RFID tags are emitting the signal... You think they are illegal? Well, the article shows they clearly are not illegal as they are going to implant RFID tags in everything.
A devide that emits the same signal as the RFID tags will fall into the exact same legal bracket.
I really do hope they outlaw RFID tags however, then I wont mind that my device is illegal too, as it will be a crime to track me anyways.
The idea is based off the spoofed port scan method. When you want to port scan someone and not have your IP know, you scan them and also spoof hundreds of fake IPs scanning them at the same time. 99 fake ones plus your real 1 is 100 ips in the logs. Have fun figuring out which one is really doing it and is me.
This will be the same thing. My RFID tags will reply, but so will my device, giving millions of numbers back. Good luck figuring out which RFID tags are really on me.
> "...to anyone and everyone then on what later became the web..." What??
I think they are saying in 1971 it was distributed to anyone and everyone... Then, on what later became the web, they distributed it there too.
Keeping in mind the web ripped most of its ideas from gopher, and FTP before that, so the web wasnt a breakthrough idea out of nothingness. But i dont think they meant it as 'distributed on one medium which later that medium turned into the web'
Thats atleast how i believe it was suppost to be read.. Hard to tell without commas and what not;}
Ahh but you are forgetting, in the USA, you cant do that. Well, you can, but then you are voilating copyright and thus a criminal.
The law specifically says you can not distribute a work that is copyrighted without the copyright holders permission.
The only reason its not _illegal_ is because of fair use laws, but the DMCA removed most of those, and the next version of law change will no doubt remove most or all of the rest.
Its only a matter of time if things dont start getting better soon.
Software and music labels already go after people selling used copyrighted materials online (Ebay and amazon and such) Once its in their best interests to do this to real world stores, they will. And they will win there too.
Its sad, and it sucks, and i hate it too.. but its true:{
While its not MS's fault that they didnt cave to these demands, and I do aggree their last demand made them look childish, plus the fact we didnt get to see their previous 'talks' with MS (They could have made nothing but this one childish demand for all we really know)
But saying that MS sells their stuff too cheap is NOT our problem or fault nor should matter in anything at all.
Snippits from your post: > They do, on the other hand, have reason not to comply as their units are > sold at a loss. and > All MS has to do now is post a loss as a result of it, and the courts will have > to factor that in their decisions.
By this reasoning, little Jimmy that bought an XboX and one game is costing MS money, so MS should be allowed to sue him for loss of profit.
Or maybe I bought an XboX waiting for one particular game to be released, and it keeps getting delayed.. Uhoh, I'm costing MS money! Time to get sued.
No.
MS selling stuff too cheap is their fault, and their stupidity.
If the courts aggreed with you, any loser on ebay that sold something cheap and later realized it was worth alot more money could sue the buyer.
When a person or company sells something for alot less than its worth, its called stupidity and stupid people deserve what they get.
If you sold something to me for $10 that cost you $50 to make, you have no legal or moral grounds to bitch and complain about it. The deal is done. it was your fault for not looking into what price to set.
The future isnt garneteed, nor do any laws care about the future. Doing something stupid now under the asumption you will get money in the future is called gambling which in most states is illegal.
An example is buying a lottery ticket. You are paying for a piece of paper that is worth probably $0.05 in paper product, yet will cost $5 or more. That is stupid. But its stupidity in the hopes that you will get alot more money in the future. Its a Gamble.
You dont hear "The state lottery cost me money, i bought the ticket knowing it was at a lost cuz i planned on getting money from the winnings!" (Well maybe you do, but you dont listen to it)
MS doing this is the same thing.
They are gambling that they will possibly make money after selling the xbox at a lost stupidly and now are bitching and moaning that they lost that gamble.
Aww.
Lets also not lose focus. When a razor company sells you a razor, gambling that they will make money on the blades, do you see them trying to pass laws to make it illegal to do anything with their razor other than what they want? There is a reason for this.
With MS it is no different. Yet they want to pass laws (and pretty much seems like they are going to get away with it)
If i was to buy an XboX, its MY hardware to do with as i please, which includes replacing your copyrighted software with myown.
Copyright does not mean im not allowed to delete your crap and use my own. Only that i cant give out your copyrighted code (Which noone doing these mods has any reason to do, nor should they if you still believe in copyright)
If i buy a book and feel like dipping each page in whiteout and using it as a diary, the book publisher cant say squat about it! Nether can MS.
Then if you look at the REASON they sell the console at a lost, its even worse. They only do that so they can actually compare in price to their competition!
Notice how macs dont charge prices similar to home build PCs? Yet they still sell? Its because the people that buy macs feel they are worth the extra money. Is MS out right admitting noone would ever buy their xbox due to technology alone? Well, that wouldnt be surprising, but it seems even MS aggrees here, or they wouldnt NEED to sell it at a lost!
If their business plan includes losing money on a crappy hardware product which they want to control every aspect of after
> What games can effectively be played on Linux on the XBox?
Well since linux doesnt yet run on an unmod'ed xbox, none of course.
Again, i said, if one knows how to program for linux, and knows how to make games, one can MAKE games for the xbox.
Instead of reverse engeneering the xbox controller, you read/dev/js0-3 just like now. Instead of figuring out how to access the dvd through the drm chips, you just read/write to/dev/cdrom
Right now noone can use linux on the xbox, so of course noone has made any games for it. Thats like asking what games have people coded that run on super-new-unreleased-cuz-hardware-doesnt-exist-con sole-system-3000 If it doesnt exist, none:)
The point of a console system is you take your cd (or dvd in this case) to a buddys house, drop it in his console, and play. Linux on the xbox would allow thousands upon thousands of developers to do that. Right now not only is it expensive cost wise, but its expensive learning wise, as you are forced to use an os or kernel MS provides, so you have to learn how to use it. Granted being a form of windows im sure alot of people already know how to code for it, but this is slashdot. (I can write linux software, i can not write windows software, thus why I would want linux on xbox)
For an example, I have used the Sega Dreamcast linux kernel ports for just this reason. My first game (just a testing the waters kinda thing) was a rewrite of dopewars for linux on dreamcast. Granted thats a stupid game, but I did it without making a dime or spending one, unlike how MS wants game development to proceed.
> Hence leaving out the 5.1 sound and a uberVideo subsystem (both of which are > pretty much wasted on an XBox running Linux - by and large.)
Why would those be wasted on a linux kernel running on a video game console? Those piece of hardware are the REASON you are running linux on the thing in the first place.
If you were only putting linux on it to use as a server or a workstation, then yes, but that would be stupid as hell. If you want a server, build a server. If you want a workstation, build a workstation.
The reason to put linux on an xbox, is to play games on your xbox.
Lets put it this way. How many people right now can write code for the xbox? Very very few. How many people right now can write a linux game? Lots.
SO, by putting linux on an xbox, you have changed the answer to the first question to match that of the second.
But it would be very hard to play a video game with no video card or sound card, as you suggest:)
> WTF are you on mate? Nanotubes are made of carbon, not of metal
I believe what he is referring to, quoted from the link he posted in that same comment:
"We have shown that there are ways of making single-walled nanotubes without the use of metals," Avouris said. (Check the link, 2nd non-bold paragraph down)
Also, compare your reply (of carbon, not of metal) It appears you just made that up.
The parents post says: "And as far as commercial entities go, don't forget IBM's find back in September of 2002, which was making nanotubes with carbon instead of metal."
With.. Not of.. With metal.
The parent posters argument was correct. Your 'correction' was flawed, even if correct.
Hopefully the moderators wont be as hard on you for being wrong as you were on the parent poster even though he was not wrong at all:)
A video game console is what you expect to find in your friends and familys livingrooms connected to the TV with the 4 joysticks.
A computer is the thing on the desk that one person sits at and operates while optionally other people sit around watching or being bored.
Ok, atari and NES may have been before computers were this popular, but explain why consoles like xbox and ps2 are even sold at all when the same software can run on a normal PC already? Its not beyond our technology to make any game made for ps2 or xbox or dreamcast to be coded on windows. Yet they dont, they still make consoles, people still buy them, they must be doing something right.
Playing games is an experence more than just the software. I would expect most people would prefer to play games on a console, not a computer.
> You want to run Linux on a $200 device? Buy an e-Machine and shut the fuck up.
Uhh, but an eMachine is a COMPUTER The xBox is a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE
If you dont know the uses for each, you really shouldnt be telling anyone else which one they need over the other.
Remember, its YOU that assumed it would be used like a computer in the first place. Most people would want to run linux on an xbox so they can actually write GAMES for the thing!
I hate to sound so much like flamebait, but 'i know whats best for everyone' attitudes really piss me off:/
BackupPC is what we use. It works with both Windows and Unix, and lets you view the archives through a web interface (matter of fact, you can control any aspect of the backup process via web OR command line, for users or scripts, however you prefer)
You can specify how many backups to keep and when to start deleting.
For each backup, it later goes through and compares files with the last backup. If any match, it removes the file and makes a hard link to the old file to save disk space.
> What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable?
Well, this isnt a standard 'its not theft, its copyright' post, so please hear me out.
Its not theft to most people. And here is why.
Ever sit around and come up with jokes to tell your friends? Or have a friend that did that in your group of friends?
Ever retell that joke, or hear it told again?
Thats illegal. For the same reason not getting permission to retell a story is illegal. and the same reason sharing songs is illegal.
Humanity came about sharing information by passing it down from generation to generation. Some have even argued this is what seperates us from the monkeys and what not.
The point is, people dont think repeating a joke is illegal any more than telling a story they heard, nor any more than simply sharing a song they hear.
Copyright is trying to come at this from the other side of what thousands of years have taught us.
Right wrong moral or immoral, its that its not technically possible to put limits on information, and before 50 years ago, no body ever did or had it expected. Now it is expected, and people dont want to change.
Right or wrong wont come into this post. Its that people are USED to sharing storys jokes songs and experences with eachother. Its how we define our relationships, with what experences we share with others. Music is no different than a story or a joke or a tale of what you did over sumer vacation.
That is just how most people feel.
So to come back to answering your post.. Its not so much claiming theft is moral that is happening. Its people dont think of it as theft in the first place.
> Doesn't that lessen the incentive to carpool? Why are going to carpool if you > have to share the carpool with a bunch of rich wankers who can afford stickers?
Maybe I am misreading the intent of your post ("Why are going to carpool if" is confusing, i'm not being a gramar nazi at all btw)
But if you travel with the people with a sticker... you ARE carpooling.
The incentive to carpool used to be so you can use the lane. Now its so you can use the lane and also not pay to use the lane. Both of those options still have the same effect on the polution issue.
> Judging from some of the comments and attitudes that are prevalent here, I think > a lot of people need to be told what copyright is, and what it's supposed to do.
You appear to be one of them.
Copyright was started to ensure the public gets an artists work, if they choose to copyright that work.
I dont see myself (being the public) getting any of these works. I see plenty of laws making it illegal for me to better all of humanity by improving on someone elses idea however.
I personally choose to better mankind by ignoring our current form of copyright. While I do not do this by downloading music, I fully believe that if the artists dont want to play by the rules of copyright, they shouldnt expect us to either. So to all that arnt, more power to you.
The only reason i dont download music for free is because i dont care for the crap that is concidered music these days. But that is my personal opinion, and if I did want this music to enrich my life, i would at this point just take it.
Hmm not a bad idea.. Lynx for the browser, on a dumb-terminal! Much cheaper too. Only need one computer and a serial mux system... hang 250+ vt100's off of it and pipe lynx to them.
Being AC i probably shouldnt bother correcting you, but:
> Yes, the Kazaa downloaders are stealing music, which is not right.
Actually is IS right. Changing copyright laws to what we have now is what is wrong.
Think of it this way. Would you be happy if all of a sudden all GPL software was instantly and retroactivly changed by our government to be a different licence where you now didnt have to give the source away?
Well, thats exactly what happened with copyright.
Copyright was invented so that an artists work would not disapear from the face of the earth because the creator of that work wanted it.
If they didnt want their work to be public property after a time, they are perfectly free to NOT copyright it. They made the choice. Live by it.
Now they are not giving back to the public what is owed. I have no reason to give them anything they feel is owed to them. The streets are all two way.
Unfortunatly since america controls the roots,.iq will not be added back globally untill we are on better terms than currently. Granted they can set it up and run their top level, but every ISP that runs their own name servers would need to add the cctld to their root hints to see it:/
But, it looks like after checking,.iq is added back to the roots and pointing somewhere.
% dig @a.root-servers.net. iq.
iq. 2D IN NS NS2.MYNET.NET. iq. 2D IN NS NS1.MYNET.NET.
> I'm saying that basing your defences on the fact that spam software isn't RFC > compliant means your fine until the spammers get RFC compliant, and that isn't > very difficult at all.
Whats even worse is not all mail servers are RFC compliant either:/
Slashdot Mirror
> No, a properly configured router will only block packets that don't appear to
> come from that network. That still gives you a lot of addresses to chose from.
No. A properly configured router is connected to TWO networks, and will not allow traffic to pass either direction unless the source IP matches what it knows of the two networks.
If your network is 192.168.1.0/24, and your source IP is not, it should drop it.
If a packet attempts to get in to you and its source IP _is_ in that range, it should also drop it.
Forging your IP will fail the first test.
The second test is to prevent others from pretending to be hosts in your network to bypass IP based security rules.
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
[snip]
model name : Pentium II (Klamath)
cpu MHz : 233.869
[snip]
Doh, i guess you are right!
Dunno where the 200 number stuck in my memory from.
> Dude, you can do that with _any_ distro with binary packages.
:)
> I personally do it with Slackware.
I didn't mean to imply that only deb can do this. Just that its what I happen to use.
The parents post was claiming that building from source each time is the 'only way', which was what I was arguing
> The TGZ packaging scheme (also mentioned in the article, along with RPM and DEB)
.tgz is not really a package format. .tgz (.tar.gz, or a compressed tape-archive) is no more a binary package format than .zip is for windows.
/package/install.sh script in the tarfile which is run with a bash shell after the files are extracted to do any command based setup, but that is it.
.zip file that states 'uncompress this file exactly here C:\windows\system\whatever\foo.bin ' .tgz can do.
.zip and .tgz do great.
> just... Well... Sucks.
Not intended as an attack aginst your comment (You are fully correct, it sucks) but to clarify a point:
Slackware created a rather elegant hack at the time, of having a
Imagine if you will, a
That is all a
This is why it supports no dependencys or checking, because its just an archive file.
Technically speaking, this isnt a package format as much as a creative way to run a shell script after extracting some files.
* I realize you were just replying to the articles claim that it is a package format, and from your own experences. I just wanted to explain why your experences sucked... It was more of a design flaw to use an archive as a package format, then the package format sucks.
From an archive stand point,
One of the main reasons I enjoy DEB binary packages which also do not have any of the bad issues you mention is this:
.deb from that, not just to install on that machine (Personally I like the fact i can remove it with a package manager) but i can also install that binary package I made myself on my slower systems that dont have a compiler installed.
I'll download the source and compile it on my nice fast zippy P4 2.6ghz machine, then build a
My three router computers are all p133 or p166 machines. No way am I compiling anything there. Routers also dont need gcc installed.
I run my own private apt repository for this (Its just apache and some config files in text format, and one more line in my apt sources file.)
This way I can tell whichever machines to apt-get it, and later I can apt-get remove it as well.
I also dont have a huge server farm, I just have 8 machines at home for different purposes. Below the P4 mentioned above, my next fastest system is a p2 450. The others get way slower below that (p2 200 and the like, or worse.)
I also dont want a compiler on any system but my development system. The machines in my DMZ dont need compilers, as if they do happen to get rooted, that's one less tool for them to use aginst me.
Open source is also about choice. Please let us have ours, even if you have made your own.
Rocky's Boots perhaps?
You can read more about it, see screenshots, and even download it, from its creators site here.
You went into a robot and had to 'program' its hardware to do tasks in a maze like setting.
>> How hard would it be to build a RFID spoofing tool that emits gazillions of
>> random RFID numbers whenever it is polled?
> Not very, but it's highly illegal. FCC hunts down tiny 100 watt FM transmitters
> in the wild, imagine their reaction to unlicensed microwave transmitters.
Uhh, the RFID tags are emitting the signal... You think they are illegal?
Well, the article shows they clearly are not illegal as they are going to implant RFID tags in everything.
A devide that emits the same signal as the RFID tags will fall into the exact same legal bracket.
I really do hope they outlaw RFID tags however, then I wont mind that my device is illegal too, as it will be a crime to track me anyways.
The idea is based off the spoofed port scan method.
When you want to port scan someone and not have your IP know, you scan them and also spoof hundreds of fake IPs scanning them at the same time.
99 fake ones plus your real 1 is 100 ips in the logs. Have fun figuring out which one is really doing it and is me.
This will be the same thing. My RFID tags will reply, but so will my device, giving millions of numbers back. Good luck figuring out which RFID tags are really on me.
> This seems to confirm my belief that most mac
> people don't buy their own hardware, but get it
> through work or school.
Well, we are in a recession at the moment.
People dont have money. Companys do.
Only makes sense to market to who can afford your product until the recession is over.
> "...to anyone and everyone then on what later became the web..." What??
;}
I think they are saying in 1971 it was distributed to anyone and everyone...
Then, on what later became the web, they distributed it there too.
Keeping in mind the web ripped most of its ideas from gopher, and FTP before that, so the web wasnt a breakthrough idea out of nothingness.
But i dont think they meant it as 'distributed on one medium which later that medium turned into the web'
Thats atleast how i believe it was suppost to be read.. Hard to tell without commas and what not
> and even pass the book onto a friend.
:{
Ahh but you are forgetting, in the USA, you cant do that.
Well, you can, but then you are voilating copyright and thus a criminal.
The law specifically says you can not distribute a work that is copyrighted without the copyright holders permission.
The only reason its not _illegal_ is because of fair use laws, but the DMCA removed most of those, and the next version of law change will no doubt remove most or all of the rest.
Its only a matter of time if things dont start getting better soon.
Software and music labels already go after people selling used copyrighted materials online (Ebay and amazon and such)
Once its in their best interests to do this to real world stores, they will. And they will win there too.
Its sad, and it sucks, and i hate it too.. but its true
While its not MS's fault that they didnt cave to these demands, and I do aggree their last demand made them look childish, plus the fact we didnt get to see their previous 'talks' with MS (They could have made nothing but this one childish demand for all we really know)
But saying that MS sells their stuff too cheap is NOT our problem or fault nor should matter in anything at all.
Snippits from your post:
> They do, on the other hand, have reason not to comply as their units are
> sold at a loss.
and
> All MS has to do now is post a loss as a result of it, and the courts will have
> to factor that in their decisions.
By this reasoning, little Jimmy that bought an XboX and one game is costing MS money, so MS should be allowed to sue him for loss of profit.
Or maybe I bought an XboX waiting for one particular game to be released, and it keeps getting delayed.. Uhoh, I'm costing MS money! Time to get sued.
No.
MS selling stuff too cheap is their fault, and their stupidity.
If the courts aggreed with you, any loser on ebay that sold something cheap and later realized it was worth alot more money could sue the buyer.
When a person or company sells something for alot less than its worth, its called stupidity and stupid people deserve what they get.
If you sold something to me for $10 that cost you $50 to make, you have no legal or moral grounds to bitch and complain about it. The deal is done. it was your fault for not looking into what price to set.
The future isnt garneteed, nor do any laws care about the future.
Doing something stupid now under the asumption you will get money in the future is called gambling which in most states is illegal.
An example is buying a lottery ticket. You are paying for a piece of paper that is worth probably $0.05 in paper product, yet will cost $5 or more.
That is stupid.
But its stupidity in the hopes that you will get alot more money in the future.
Its a Gamble.
You dont hear "The state lottery cost me money, i bought the ticket knowing it was at a lost cuz i planned on getting money from the winnings!"
(Well maybe you do, but you dont listen to it)
MS doing this is the same thing.
They are gambling that they will possibly make money after selling the xbox at a lost stupidly and now are bitching and moaning that they lost that gamble.
Aww.
Lets also not lose focus.
When a razor company sells you a razor, gambling that they will make money on the blades, do you see them trying to pass laws to make it illegal to do anything with their razor other than what they want?
There is a reason for this.
With MS it is no different. Yet they want to pass laws (and pretty much seems like they are going to get away with it)
If i was to buy an XboX, its MY hardware to do with as i please, which includes replacing your copyrighted software with myown.
Copyright does not mean im not allowed to delete your crap and use my own. Only that i cant give out your copyrighted code (Which noone doing these mods has any reason to do, nor should they if you still believe in copyright)
If i buy a book and feel like dipping each page in whiteout and using it as a diary, the book publisher cant say squat about it!
Nether can MS.
Then if you look at the REASON they sell the console at a lost, its even worse.
They only do that so they can actually compare in price to their competition!
Notice how macs dont charge prices similar to home build PCs? Yet they still sell? Its because the people that buy macs feel they are worth the extra money.
Is MS out right admitting noone would ever buy their xbox due to technology alone? Well, that wouldnt be surprising, but it seems even MS aggrees here, or they wouldnt NEED to sell it at a lost!
If their business plan includes losing money on a crappy hardware product which they want to control every aspect of after
> What games can effectively be played on Linux on the XBox?
/dev/js0-3 just like now. Instead of figuring out how to access the dvd through the drm chips, you just read/write to /dev/cdrom
n sole-system-3000 :)
Well since linux doesnt yet run on an unmod'ed xbox, none of course.
Again, i said, if one knows how to program for linux, and knows how to make games, one can MAKE games for the xbox.
Instead of reverse engeneering the xbox controller, you read
Right now noone can use linux on the xbox, so of course noone has made any games for it. Thats like asking what games have people coded that run on super-new-unreleased-cuz-hardware-doesnt-exist-co
If it doesnt exist, none
The point of a console system is you take your cd (or dvd in this case) to a buddys house, drop it in his console, and play.
Linux on the xbox would allow thousands upon thousands of developers to do that. Right now not only is it expensive cost wise, but its expensive learning wise, as you are forced to use an os or kernel MS provides, so you have to learn how to use it. Granted being a form of windows im sure alot of people already know how to code for it, but this is slashdot. (I can write linux software, i can not write windows software, thus why I would want linux on xbox)
For an example, I have used the Sega Dreamcast linux kernel ports for just this reason. My first game (just a testing the waters kinda thing) was a rewrite of dopewars for linux on dreamcast.
Granted thats a stupid game, but I did it without making a dime or spending one, unlike how MS wants game development to proceed.
> Hence leaving out the 5.1 sound and a uberVideo subsystem (both of which are
:)
> pretty much wasted on an XBox running Linux - by and large.)
Why would those be wasted on a linux kernel running on a video game console?
Those piece of hardware are the REASON you are running linux on the thing in the first place.
If you were only putting linux on it to use as a server or a workstation, then yes, but that would be stupid as hell.
If you want a server, build a server. If you want a workstation, build a workstation.
The reason to put linux on an xbox, is to play games on your xbox.
Lets put it this way.
How many people right now can write code for the xbox? Very very few.
How many people right now can write a linux game? Lots.
SO, by putting linux on an xbox, you have changed the answer to the first question to match that of the second.
But it would be very hard to play a video game with no video card or sound card, as you suggest
> WTF are you on mate? Nanotubes are made of carbon, not of metal
:)
I believe what he is referring to, quoted from the link he posted in that same comment:
"We have shown that there are ways of making single-walled nanotubes without the use of metals," Avouris said.
(Check the link, 2nd non-bold paragraph down)
Also, compare your reply (of carbon, not of metal)
It appears you just made that up.
The parents post says:
"And as far as commercial entities go, don't forget IBM's find back in September of 2002, which was making nanotubes with carbon instead of metal."
With.. Not of.. With metal.
The parent posters argument was correct.
Your 'correction' was flawed, even if correct.
Hopefully the moderators wont be as hard on you for being wrong as you were on the parent poster even though he was not wrong at all
A video game console is what you expect to find in your friends and familys livingrooms connected to the TV with the 4 joysticks.
A computer is the thing on the desk that one person sits at and operates while optionally other people sit around watching or being bored.
Ok, atari and NES may have been before computers were this popular, but explain why consoles like xbox and ps2 are even sold at all when the same software can run on a normal PC already?
Its not beyond our technology to make any game made for ps2 or xbox or dreamcast to be coded on windows.
Yet they dont, they still make consoles, people still buy them, they must be doing something right.
Playing games is an experence more than just the software.
I would expect most people would prefer to play games on a console, not a computer.
> You want to run Linux on a $200 device? Buy an e-Machine and shut the fuck up.
:/
Uhh, but an eMachine is a COMPUTER
The xBox is a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE
If you dont know the uses for each, you really shouldnt be telling anyone else which one they need over the other.
Remember, its YOU that assumed it would be used like a computer in the first place. Most people would want to run linux on an xbox so they can actually write GAMES for the thing!
I hate to sound so much like flamebait, but 'i know whats best for everyone' attitudes really piss me off
> ...of a seemingly shaven lady...
Just to point it out, these xrays bounce off the skin only.
So, she could possibly be as retro as the 70's downstairs, but you still couldnt tell.
Look at the top of her head, she does have a full head of hair there atleast, so you can see what I mean.
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
BackupPC is what we use. It works with both Windows and Unix, and lets you view the archives through a web interface (matter of fact, you can control any aspect of the backup process via web OR command line, for users or scripts, however you prefer)
You can specify how many backups to keep and when to start deleting.
For each backup, it later goes through and compares files with the last backup. If any match, it removes the file and makes a hard link to the old file to save disk space.
Check it out
> What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable?
Well, this isnt a standard 'its not theft, its copyright' post, so please hear me out.
Its not theft to most people.
And here is why.
Ever sit around and come up with jokes to tell your friends?
Or have a friend that did that in your group of friends?
Ever retell that joke, or hear it told again?
Thats illegal. For the same reason not getting permission to retell a story is illegal. and the same reason sharing songs is illegal.
Humanity came about sharing information by passing it down from generation to generation. Some have even argued this is what seperates us from the monkeys and what not.
The point is, people dont think repeating a joke is illegal any more than telling a story they heard, nor any more than simply sharing a song they hear.
Copyright is trying to come at this from the other side of what thousands of years have taught us.
Right wrong moral or immoral, its that its not technically possible to put limits on information, and before 50 years ago, no body ever did or had it expected. Now it is expected, and people dont want to change.
Right or wrong wont come into this post. Its that people are USED to sharing storys jokes songs and experences with eachother. Its how we define our relationships, with what experences we share with others. Music is no different than a story or a joke or a tale of what you did over sumer vacation.
That is just how most people feel.
So to come back to answering your post.. Its not so much claiming theft is moral that is happening. Its people dont think of it as theft in the first place.
> Doesn't that lessen the incentive to carpool? Why are going to carpool if you
> have to share the carpool with a bunch of rich wankers who can afford stickers?
Maybe I am misreading the intent of your post ("Why are going to carpool if" is confusing, i'm not being a gramar nazi at all btw)
But if you travel with the people with a sticker... you ARE carpooling.
The incentive to carpool used to be so you can use the lane.
Now its so you can use the lane and also not pay to use the lane.
Both of those options still have the same effect on the polution issue.
> And what exactly would be so bad about that?
> Judging from some of the comments and attitudes that are prevalent here, I think
> a lot of people need to be told what copyright is, and what it's supposed to do.
You appear to be one of them.
Copyright was started to ensure the public gets an artists work, if they choose to copyright that work.
I dont see myself (being the public) getting any of these works.
I see plenty of laws making it illegal for me to better all of humanity by improving on someone elses idea however.
I personally choose to better mankind by ignoring our current form of copyright.
While I do not do this by downloading music, I fully believe that if the artists dont want to play by the rules of copyright, they shouldnt expect us to either. So to all that arnt, more power to you.
The only reason i dont download music for free is because i dont care for the crap that is concidered music these days. But that is my personal opinion, and if I did want this music to enrich my life, i would at this point just take it.
Hmm not a bad idea.. Lynx for the browser, on a dumb-terminal! Much cheaper too.
Only need one computer and a serial mux system... hang 250+ vt100's off of it and pipe lynx to them.
Being AC i probably shouldnt bother correcting you, but:
> Yes, the Kazaa downloaders are stealing music, which is not right.
Actually is IS right.
Changing copyright laws to what we have now is what is wrong.
Think of it this way.
Would you be happy if all of a sudden all GPL software was instantly and retroactivly changed by our government to be a different licence where you now didnt have to give the source away?
Well, thats exactly what happened with copyright.
Copyright was invented so that an artists work would not disapear from the face of the earth because the creator of that work wanted it.
If they didnt want their work to be public property after a time, they are perfectly free to NOT copyright it.
They made the choice. Live by it.
Now they are not giving back to the public what is owed. I have no reason to give them anything they feel is owed to them.
The streets are all two way.
Unfortunatly since america controls the roots, .iq will not be added back globally untill we are on better terms than currently. :/
.iq is added back to the roots and pointing somewhere.
Granted they can set it up and run their top level, but every ISP that runs their own name servers would need to add the cctld to their root hints to see it
But, it looks like after checking,
% dig @a.root-servers.net. iq.
iq. 2D IN NS NS2.MYNET.NET.
iq. 2D IN NS NS1.MYNET.NET.
FAITH.MYNET.NET 208.21.175.13
JAGUAR.MYNET.NET 208.21.175.12
As to what they may be serving, nic.iq (an RFC defined standard) doesnt work, so I dunno what to think...
> I'm saying that basing your defences on the fact that spam software isn't RFC
:/
> compliant means your fine until the spammers get RFC compliant, and that isn't
> very difficult at all.
Whats even worse is not all mail servers are RFC compliant either