Set up OSX VNC so that it only accepts connections from localhost (I don't know this specific VNC server, but it should be an option. If not, find a different VNC server.) Figure out which display it's running (probably 0), and add 5900 to that number to get the port it's running on. Enable the ssh server on your OSX box; someone else will have to tell you how to do this with launchd because I don't remember, but I've done it and it's not too hard. There's also a freeware tool called sshhelper which is a gui that's supposed to walk you through the setup.
On the windows box, get an ssh client (I recommend PuTTY). Set up your connection so that it will tunnel (or forward) from some port, I'll use 5903, on your local machine to port 5900 (or whatever) on the remote machine. PuTTY's docs tell you how to do this; search for "port forwarding." Start your SSH session and log in. You don't have to do anything more with SSH, but just make sure you logged in successfully. Then tell your VNC client to connect to localhost::5903, replacing the port number with the one you actually used, or if it's a number greater than and close to 5900, you can use localhost:3 (in this example) instead.
I suspect the advantages in closed hardware are more about being able to cheaply license third-party IP without buying the rights necessary to open it up. I don't think the benchmark cheating thing is such a showstopper as all that; a hypothetical open hardware manufacturer could, for instance, go ahead and openly cheat, claiming that in all likelihood nvidia and ATI are doing the same thing. I don't really know if open hardware is feasible in the current IP climate; if not, it could either be because third-party IP is too essential to cheaply producing a good product or because the legal protections aren't enough to prevent a competitor from ripping off your design.
Anyway, I like the fact that the discussion has gone from open hardware being an absolute right to open hardware being a good idea that needs legal protection from unfair competition.
Believe me when I say that it's rare for me to take the libertarian viewpoint on these types of arguments. But if you're uncomfortable with other people knowing secrets about your physical property (which you bought in full knowledge that these secrets existed), that only means that you shouldn't have made it your physical property. This thing you call a "right" (of the buyer) is just as much a requirement on the buyer as the manufacturer: if the seller can't provide the specs, then I am unable to buy just as much as the seller is unable to sell. Now, if you want to argue about your right to reverse engineer, i.e. perform whatever experiments you want on physical property that you own, then I'll be right with you: your right to know is fine and dandy, just not your right to make someone tell you.
The analogy about food labelling is interesting, but just because there's a law (which I agree with) doesn't mean there's a "right." I'm glad that food vendors have to comply with labelling requirements so that I can make an informed choice about what I'm eating. But note that no one's required to print their recipe on the box, and furthermore if you're selling food but not as food (think of decorative jars of peppers or bullshit like that) you don't have to label it at all. Think of closed hardware as "not labelled for hacker use" if you like, though many hacker types would disagree with that characterization as well.
I really am all for open hardware; I just have a knee-jerk reaction against arguments that hinge on asserting something as a new right. A right is something that either everyone agrees should be guaranteed; it's not just something that would be nice for you. There are plenty of arguments for open hardware that are purely practical; you could even argue for making closed hardware illegal on the basis that innovation and sharing of design insight etc etc is in everyone's best interests. I probably wouldn't back you up on that last, but I probably wouldn't hassle you about it either.
I feel that you may be mistaking "I don't like this situation and wish it were different" for "This is unfair and my rights are being violated." I, too, would like to have open drivers for all hardware and detailed specifications and design schematics available to me as the hardware owner. I am not a big intellectual property owner and do not particularly understand the impetus to keep secrets like those, but sadly, hardware producers are under no legal or moral obligation to open up, and they seem to think they have plenty of incentive not to in most cases. They are perfectly within their rights to sell you a chunk of hardware that doesn't do anything at all, or a chunk of hardware that they swear up and down does amazing things but won't tell you how to get it to work, and all you can really do is refuse to buy it, take it back, or write them an angry letter. Making something that's useless (to you, or to everyone) isn't a crime, nor is making something that could be useful but only telling people how to use it in specific situations.
What's your justification for all these assertions?
The other guy didn't particularly justify his either, but his story is more in line with my personal experience, so I'd like to know where your story's coming from.
Read the frickin article, you knee-jerk, cynical jackass.
If someone donated through SA rather than directly to the red cross (which it doesn't take a genius to do) it's because they decided they'd rather do it that way, and in some cases maybe they wouldn't have donated at all otherwise. They might not have rational reasons, but having another way to give money to a good cause doesn't hurt, and the amount that had gone in was a testament to that fact.
Are people still donating through SA's red cross link now? Probably. As many people as were donating through their paypal link before, so as to get free stuff and have their amount go towards SA's total? Probably not. Draw your own conclusions.
I think most of my bootloader issues stem not from the inadequacy of bootloaders themselves but from the myriad different slightly incompatible partitioning tools, none of which seems to get everything quite right. To this day only LILO can load linux for me (GRUB installs just fine and then can't find the right drive to read the menu.lst from) and I can't complete a windows install because it can't understand the partition scheme -- eh, who needs it anyway. Both bootloaders work great as long as the disk is set up right, as far as I've been able to tell; GRUB is preferable for boot-time flexibility but LILO seems to be more tolerant of my crapped up partition layout.
I would guess that this type of problem is quite widespread; it seems that there are a multitude of ways to get in trouble with most of the partition tools available currently. Some of them still seem to have a hard time dealing with large disks on older BIOSes, some are incompatible in varying degrees with the way Windows wants things done, some will report problems without offering solutions, and some don't see any problems at all (if only Windows and Grub were so blind.) I've tried ranish, parted, fdisk, cfdisk, sfdisk,... is there anything which just works?
The trailer doesn't seem much like the show, but they're always a bit too flashy. I'm hoping the trailer will have more of the atmosphere of the show, though the plot looks really good.
As I recall it was more that when they run out of gas the life support fails, which is pretty reasonable. Unless we're talking about different episodes, but there exist only 14 to choose from.
Eh? Knowing nothing besides the obvious about either protocol, I can't see how there'd be any such fundamental limitation in USB. It would certainly make USB drives much more complicated and expensive to make them smart enough to know what data they're allowed to share with what device, but why couldn't it be done? I don't know so much about what the host controller's role is but in the worst case you'd have some adapter inside that acts as a host controller for the memory itself and a slave device for the actual external host controller, while filtering what goes between. It wouldn't be easy, and it would need an additional secure protocol to program the permissions in addition to the usual USB drive protocol, but I don't see how it'd be impossible.
yes, I've certainly heard that argument before. Thing is, it's just as bullshit as the argument that says women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't, so that's gender discrimination. Both arguments are missing the point, which is that people should be allowed to marry WHO THEY WANT TO (within the bounds of consensual adult relationships), and since one group is allowed to and another group isn't, THAT is discrimination.
And yes, it's in large part about the word marriage. If there were an existing institution called "garriage" which had exactly the same meaning for gays as marriage for heterosexuals, no one would be complaining. As it is, state-recognized unions between homosexuals are a new thing and we can call them whatever we want - but really the only reason not to use the preexisting word "marriage" is if we want it to have an unequal status. That's why it IS an equality issue - it's the legitimacy, acceptance, pride thing, as you said yourself.
There's a certain style of argument that without explicitly stating your support for a position, leads people to assume that you support that position. It is an effective tactic for petty arguments to do this and then attack people in capital letters for assuming they understood your position. However this will never lead people to actually understand your position. The higher road is to post what you actually believe without playing argumentative tricks.
Don't be so preoccupied with winning the argument; it's not that important. What is important is equal protection under the law, and that means that we can't have laws that place heterosexual couples above homosexual couples.
Within the context of arguing against homosexual marriage you said that marriage would give homosexual relationships legitimacy, so forgive me for assuming that you feel homosexual relationships are less than legitimate.
Maybe you meant it that way or maybe you didn't, but read it again and tell me the "protected minority" you were talking about up to that point wasn't gays.
In any case, I just wanted you to think about whether or not your ideas make any sense.
You should call homosexuality degenerate and unrighteous and link to James Dobson right in your first post instead of buried down at the bottom of the thread. It would be more intellectually honest. It would also get you laughed at and ignored more quickly.
And BTW, for every one gay person who struggles and fakes it through his whole miserable life in a heterosexual marriage, there are ten closet cases who divorce at age 40 and are much happier for it. Legitimizing and accepting homosexuality would just save them and their former spouses a lot of misery.
There has never been and will never be an argument against gay marriage on the basis that it would weaken heterosexual marriage.
If you support heterosexual marriage, you believe people should be encouraged to have stable heterosexual relationships.
If you are against homosexual marriage, you believe people should not be encouraged to have stable homosexual relationships. If homosexuals are not to have stable homosexual relationships, then they either have to have stable heterosexual relationships or no stable relationships at all.
If you think gays should be in heterosexual relationships, or no relationships at all, you're a true right-wing loony. If you think they should just sleep around, then there's a disease from the early 80's you should read up on.
Slashdot Mirror
Set up OSX VNC so that it only accepts connections from localhost (I don't know this specific VNC server, but it should be an option. If not, find a different VNC server.) Figure out which display it's running (probably 0), and add 5900 to that number to get the port it's running on. Enable the ssh server on your OSX box; someone else will have to tell you how to do this with launchd because I don't remember, but I've done it and it's not too hard. There's also a freeware tool called sshhelper which is a gui that's supposed to walk you through the setup.
On the windows box, get an ssh client (I recommend PuTTY). Set up your connection so that it will tunnel (or forward) from some port, I'll use 5903, on your local machine to port 5900 (or whatever) on the remote machine. PuTTY's docs tell you how to do this; search for "port forwarding." Start your SSH session and log in. You don't have to do anything more with SSH, but just make sure you logged in successfully. Then tell your VNC client to connect to localhost::5903, replacing the port number with the one you actually used, or if it's a number greater than and close to 5900, you can use localhost:3 (in this example) instead.
I suspect the advantages in closed hardware are more about being able to cheaply license third-party IP without buying the rights necessary to open it up. I don't think the benchmark cheating thing is such a showstopper as all that; a hypothetical open hardware manufacturer could, for instance, go ahead and openly cheat, claiming that in all likelihood nvidia and ATI are doing the same thing. I don't really know if open hardware is feasible in the current IP climate; if not, it could either be because third-party IP is too essential to cheaply producing a good product or because the legal protections aren't enough to prevent a competitor from ripping off your design.
Anyway, I like the fact that the discussion has gone from open hardware being an absolute right to open hardware being a good idea that needs legal protection from unfair competition.
Believe me when I say that it's rare for me to take the libertarian viewpoint on these types of arguments. But if you're uncomfortable with other people knowing secrets about your physical property (which you bought in full knowledge that these secrets existed), that only means that you shouldn't have made it your physical property. This thing you call a "right" (of the buyer) is just as much a requirement on the buyer as the manufacturer: if the seller can't provide the specs, then I am unable to buy just as much as the seller is unable to sell. Now, if you want to argue about your right to reverse engineer, i.e. perform whatever experiments you want on physical property that you own, then I'll be right with you: your right to know is fine and dandy, just not your right to make someone tell you.
The analogy about food labelling is interesting, but just because there's a law (which I agree with) doesn't mean there's a "right." I'm glad that food vendors have to comply with labelling requirements so that I can make an informed choice about what I'm eating. But note that no one's required to print their recipe on the box, and furthermore if you're selling food but not as food (think of decorative jars of peppers or bullshit like that) you don't have to label it at all. Think of closed hardware as "not labelled for hacker use" if you like, though many hacker types would disagree with that characterization as well.
I really am all for open hardware; I just have a knee-jerk reaction against arguments that hinge on asserting something as a new right. A right is something that either everyone agrees should be guaranteed; it's not just something that would be nice for you. There are plenty of arguments for open hardware that are purely practical; you could even argue for making closed hardware illegal on the basis that innovation and sharing of design insight etc etc is in everyone's best interests. I probably wouldn't back you up on that last, but I probably wouldn't hassle you about it either.
I feel that you may be mistaking "I don't like this situation and wish it were different" for "This is unfair and my rights are being violated." I, too, would like to have open drivers for all hardware and detailed specifications and design schematics available to me as the hardware owner. I am not a big intellectual property owner and do not particularly understand the impetus to keep secrets like those, but sadly, hardware producers are under no legal or moral obligation to open up, and they seem to think they have plenty of incentive not to in most cases. They are perfectly within their rights to sell you a chunk of hardware that doesn't do anything at all, or a chunk of hardware that they swear up and down does amazing things but won't tell you how to get it to work, and all you can really do is refuse to buy it, take it back, or write them an angry letter. Making something that's useless (to you, or to everyone) isn't a crime, nor is making something that could be useful but only telling people how to use it in specific situations.
Whereas if you're not masturbating, either you want sex and you don't have someone to give you some at the moment, or you're actually having sex.
Seriously, you don't think anyone ever consciously decides that it's safer to jerk off than to have random sex?
What's your justification for all these assertions?
The other guy didn't particularly justify his either, but his story is more in line with my personal experience, so I'd like to know where your story's coming from.
Would someone mod the parent back up at least to 1? Agree or disagree, there's nothing there that remotely qualifies as a troll.
And yet people always use "foo" as the throwaway identifier. Maybe most coders have an aversion to two-letter names for some reason.
Read the frickin article, you knee-jerk, cynical jackass.
If someone donated through SA rather than directly to the red cross (which it doesn't take a genius to do) it's because they decided they'd rather do it that way, and in some cases maybe they wouldn't have donated at all otherwise. They might not have rational reasons, but having another way to give money to a good cause doesn't hurt, and the amount that had gone in was a testament to that fact.
Are people still donating through SA's red cross link now? Probably. As many people as were donating through their paypal link before, so as to get free stuff and have their amount go towards SA's total? Probably not. Draw your own conclusions.
I think most of my bootloader issues stem not from the inadequacy of bootloaders themselves but from the myriad different slightly incompatible partitioning tools, none of which seems to get everything quite right. To this day only LILO can load linux for me (GRUB installs just fine and then can't find the right drive to read the menu.lst from) and I can't complete a windows install because it can't understand the partition scheme -- eh, who needs it anyway. Both bootloaders work great as long as the disk is set up right, as far as I've been able to tell; GRUB is preferable for boot-time flexibility but LILO seems to be more tolerant of my crapped up partition layout.
... is there anything which just works?
I would guess that this type of problem is quite widespread; it seems that there are a multitude of ways to get in trouble with most of the partition tools available currently. Some of them still seem to have a hard time dealing with large disks on older BIOSes, some are incompatible in varying degrees with the way Windows wants things done, some will report problems without offering solutions, and some don't see any problems at all (if only Windows and Grub were so blind.) I've tried ranish, parted, fdisk, cfdisk, sfdisk,
The trailer doesn't seem much like the show, but they're always a bit too flashy. I'm hoping the trailer will have more of the atmosphere of the show, though the plot looks really good.
As I recall it was more that when they run out of gas the life support fails, which is pretty reasonable. Unless we're talking about different episodes, but there exist only 14 to choose from.
Eh? Knowing nothing besides the obvious about either protocol, I can't see how there'd be any such fundamental limitation in USB. It would certainly make USB drives much more complicated and expensive to make them smart enough to know what data they're allowed to share with what device, but why couldn't it be done? I don't know so much about what the host controller's role is but in the worst case you'd have some adapter inside that acts as a host controller for the memory itself and a slave device for the actual external host controller, while filtering what goes between. It wouldn't be easy, and it would need an additional secure protocol to program the permissions in addition to the usual USB drive protocol, but I don't see how it'd be impossible.
we are done, because I thought our argument was heading toward the reasonable and the non-namecalling, but evidently not.
yes, I've certainly heard that argument before. Thing is, it's just as bullshit as the argument that says women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't, so that's gender discrimination. Both arguments are missing the point, which is that people should be allowed to marry WHO THEY WANT TO (within the bounds of consensual adult relationships), and since one group is allowed to and another group isn't, THAT is discrimination.
And yes, it's in large part about the word marriage. If there were an existing institution called "garriage" which had exactly the same meaning for gays as marriage for heterosexuals, no one would be complaining. As it is, state-recognized unions between homosexuals are a new thing and we can call them whatever we want - but really the only reason not to use the preexisting word "marriage" is if we want it to have an unequal status. That's why it IS an equality issue - it's the legitimacy, acceptance, pride thing, as you said yourself.
There's a certain style of argument that without explicitly stating your support for a position, leads people to assume that you support that position. It is an effective tactic for petty arguments to do this and then attack people in capital letters for assuming they understood your position. However this will never lead people to actually understand your position. The higher road is to post what you actually believe without playing argumentative tricks.
Don't be so preoccupied with winning the argument; it's not that important. What is important is equal protection under the law, and that means that we can't have laws that place heterosexual couples above homosexual couples.
Within the context of arguing against homosexual marriage you said that marriage would give homosexual relationships legitimacy, so forgive me for assuming that you feel homosexual relationships are less than legitimate.
Maybe you meant it that way or maybe you didn't, but read it again and tell me the "protected minority" you were talking about up to that point wasn't gays.
In any case, I just wanted you to think about whether or not your ideas make any sense.
So put up some reason of your own -- why shouldn't they have those things?
Should we just go ahead and amend the constitution to overturn Marbury v. Madison then?
You said the PROTECTED minority. Nobody's fighting for protections for pro-gay-marriage people, but for actual gays.
You should call homosexuality degenerate and unrighteous and link to James Dobson right in your first post instead of buried down at the bottom of the thread. It would be more intellectually honest. It would also get you laughed at and ignored more quickly.
And BTW, for every one gay person who struggles and fakes it through his whole miserable life in a heterosexual marriage, there are ten closet cases who divorce at age 40 and are much happier for it. Legitimizing and accepting homosexuality would just save them and their former spouses a lot of misery.
There has never been and will never be an argument against gay marriage on the basis that it would weaken heterosexual marriage.
If you support heterosexual marriage, you believe people should be encouraged to have stable heterosexual relationships.
If you are against homosexual marriage, you believe people should not be encouraged to have stable homosexual relationships. If homosexuals are not to have stable homosexual relationships, then they either have to have stable heterosexual relationships or no stable relationships at all.
If you think gays should be in heterosexual relationships, or no relationships at all, you're a true right-wing loony. If you think they should just sleep around, then there's a disease from the early 80's you should read up on.
The fact that something failed previously is THE worst excuse for not trying it again.
You don't think much about the logical consequences of your arguments, do you?
... acceptance ... a sense of legitimacy and pride
And we certainly can't let them have that.