A 707 is a MUCH smaller plane. It's MUCH smaller than than a 747 and still smaller than the 757's that were involved.
Actually, it is now being said that both planes that hit the towers were 767s. The 757s were to attack the Pentagon and Camp David. The Pentagon plane hit its target. The Camp David plane did not.
Mark my words, my friends: today has been one small step for terrorism, but one giant leap for the police state.
Which is why I've already written letters to both of my Senators, my Representative, and President Bush.
I will follow-up by sending one to my Governor, State Congresspeople, Mayor, and local city council.
It may not do much good, but we should all be writing letters to our lawmakers to give them feedback on what the actual people want.
If you don't know who your Representative in the House is, check here and find your Senators here.
Write the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20500.
I agree that Rollercoaster Tycoon is a good game (my 9 yr old can't stop playing it) but it is a sim-game. It simulates running a theme park. Very much like Sim-Theme. Only RCT is better.
I also think that if Lemmings is OK, OddWorld should be OK. There is minor violence but the game is entertaining and designed to challenge your problem solving skills.
Other than that, I can tell you the Carmen Sandiego games will hardly hold their attention if my son and neices/nephews are any guide. The games are a great idea on paper, but the kids just don't seem to stay involved long enough.
Also, there is a younger child's educational game called "Mortimer and the Riddle of the Medallion" that is pretty good.
Why not take an engine like Quake/Unreal and a level editor to create your own scenarios? You could remove monsters and weapons and basically make a multi-player maze.
I'm not so sure. What he did was write a program to do something legal in a country where writing it is also legal. You can't break a law that doesn't exist where you are and since the DMCA is not a law in Russia, in writing the application, he did not violate it.
A case may be made that ElcomSoft violated the DMCA by hosting the site in the US and using a US clearinghouse to process the credit card transactions (the sales transaction occurred in the US) which is a clear violation of the DMCA.
Selling the application in the US...a violation. Writing the application in Russia...NOT a violation.
The extent to which Skylarov was involved in selling the application is the key to whether HE violated the DMCA or not.
The war between ATI and Nvidia in particular is likely going to squeeze out smaller companies like Trident, just like what happened in the desktop world.
Which is precisely why their decision makes no sense. They can't compete in the high-end market space, the only thing they have is low-end and perhaps some embedded space. And it is EXACTLY those markets where open source software is more likely to have an advantage.
Some believe they are protecting themselves from this risk via RSA authentication. Of course they're not, because the risk only affects passwords in session
But if all you ever use is Public Key Algorithms for authentication (RSA/DSA,etc.) then you won't ever need to type passwords in session.
But if by chance you can't avoid typing passwords in session, try this.
Store your keys on removeable media also...and remove the media when you aren't using it...like put it in your shirt pocket (bizcard CD-Rs are great for this) or in a locked drawer in a locked room in a locked building, etc...
Wow what a whiner. So what? Can't you take a little name calling? RMS gets called everything from a pinko communist un-american to a raving lunatic for speaking his mind. Whatever you do you have to be ready to defend it.
That's what I'm doing...defending it. I'm not whining. RMS is the one whining about putting his brand on Linux. And if he can take the names hey, good for him. Woohoo! I'm happy for RMS that he can take a good ribbing.
This is not about calling names. This is about a way of life. Repeatedly, FSF propaganda attempts to convince its audience that anyone with opposing views is more concerned with profit than community. Can't there be an in-between? Perhaps I want to earn a living developing software. Perhaps I also don't want to fsck my customers just because I can. It's like RMS doesn't think this is possible.
One more thing...I'm not calling him a communist. I am saying his ideals fall in line with a communist world view. I'm saying his beliefs are akin to communism. Drawing a comparison. And I never said communism is bad. Even if he is communist, fine. There's nothing wrong with being communist in-and-of-itself. Being oppresive, dictatorial, and an overwhelming control freak...that's bad. And mixing that with communism is, well...bad, mkay?
Actually, RMS does advocate forcing people to do it his way via passing/repealing laws to so it can't be done any other way. He has shown that if he had the power, he would make it so. No, he wouldn't put a gun to somebody's head.
Of course, this talk of guns is all hyperbole here. The point is, RMS would like to take away any right I may have under current law to decide what license I release my software under. He would force me to do it his way, see? Force. Not armed force, but force nonetheless.
I'm going to assume that you meant "immaterial" instead of "inanimate", since that makes more sense.
To you maybe. Perhaps I'm not as educated.
Inanimate...as in NOT alive. Versus slaves who are living, breathing ANIMATE objects. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word immaterial (as it may pertain to some legalese or other interpretation I am unaware of) but, whether it is an immaterial creation or one of significant import, it changes nothing. The point is the FSF feels something created by an individual (or group) doesn't belong to the creator but the consumer.
In other words, anyone who thinks intellectual property is not identical to physical property is a communist?
Huh, wha? You actually got that out of it? No, thinking Intellectual Property and Real Property are different things doesn't make you a communist. Saying that anyone who thinks otherwise should have to give up their creations for the good of humanity against their will is what makes you a communist.
What gets me in all this is that I AGREE that Intellectual Property is not the same as Real Property. I AGREE with most of what the FSF stands for. But MOSTLY, I DISAGREE with the idea that others with different viewpoints should LOSE their right to choose and be forced to adhere to RMS' vision.
What difference does it make if Microsoft forces their will on me or RMS does? I am still not free.
"Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
That's what freedom is. The FSF doesn't appear to be willing to "agree to disagree." Rather, they appear hell-bent on making everybody see it their way. (But then, I've never actually met RMS, so maybe I've got it all wrong...)
The Free Software movement simply puts forth the idea that copyright shouldn't be extended to software. Nobody's restricting anyone's right to write software, they're simply saying don't think you can control your software after it leaves your hands. If you don't want anyone else to use it, or copy off it, or reverse engineer it, keep a single copy in your safe.
But they don't just put forth the idea. They advocate forcing those with a different mindset to doing it their way. If I disagree, I'm "greedy" or somehow I care more about profits than my community. Guess what, I have to survive. I don't think I should be allowed to fsck people because I can write a program that they can't any more than I think a guy who happened to be blessed with great height, excellent motor skills, and an innate ability to throw a ball through a hoop should be able to get millions a year while teachers and other people doing important work that builds our society earn pennies on the dollar. But I have a right to earn a living.
My creations are mine until I explicitly give them away. Whether they be programs, books, articles, or doodles on a piece of scratch paper. I made them. They are mine. Feel free to disagree. I am not attempting to impinge on your right to do so. The FSF is.
And as far as keeping anyone from copying and/or reverse engineering anything...if it is useful enough for someone to do so, I have no illusion that ANY license or LAW will stop them.
These "extremists" saved your asses. Or maybe you'd prefer having to drive to your local college to use the Internet, or worse yet, using a Windows box.
I see the Clue Bus departed before you arrived.
The FSF never saved my ASS from anything. They are NOT the reason the Internt is cheap and readily accessible, nimrod.
The INTERNET is what it IS because GOVERNMENTS (i.e., TAXPAYERS) PAID FOR IT. (ever heard of a little thing called DARPA!?)
If my software ends up being used by others to extend their self...do I have any ethical right to control them by restricting their redistribution?
Ay, there's the rub. Your software doesn't just "end up" being used by others. Like it or not, as difficult as it may be, people have a choice in what software they use for any given purpose.
This is the biggest problem I have with the righteous indignation of the FSF spouting about how I'm infringing upon others. I'll tell you right now, I have developed several "proprietary" applications in use by different people at various corporations and NOT ONE OF THEM GIVES A RAT'S ASS if they can modify the source or not. BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO CODE.
Software isn't thrust upon you. If you don't like the terms of some software license, write your own damn software. If your place of employment says, "You have to use MS-Office..." you still have a choice. Either your job or your "ethics" are more important to you. You will use it or quit or use something else and lie to your boss.
Perhaps the better question is: If I paint a picture and another person thinks they can make it better, do they have a right to change it even if I don't want them to?
I would suggest that we each seriously consider that the license we choose is the law we are imposing on these others.
Consider it considered. Law is established by Government(s). The debate over who controls that is another issue entirely. And believe it or not folks, we actually CHOOSE to obey LAWS. They are not mechanisms for absolute control. (If we all obeyed laws, why are there so many prisons?) LAWS are just rules we either CHOOSE to obey or RISK facing the consequences.
What the FSF (Free Software FREAKS) fail to realize is just because they got burned by some big corporation somewhere that had some license restriction (boo hoo) YOU STILL CHOSE TO USE THAT SOFTWARE. Don't give me any bullshit about not having a choice. You coulda been a frikkin bus driver if you didn't like the license.
"That means the barrier to entry into the operating-system market is nowhere near as impregnable as the judge has claimed, which in turn helps explain many of Microsoft's aggressive business tactics to preserve its market position. Because the judge's most essential finding is clearly erroneous, it cannot support his conclusions of law."
I think the flawed conclusion is that the application base is the real barrier to entry. What makes the operating-system market so "impregnable" is that we're already being F-ed by M$ every day!
after I explained the nature of a Slashdot interview, and how the questions were gathered and chosen, as well as the fact that he was free to be as candid and discursive as he'd like, [snip];) Lars seemed impressed by the forum that Slashdot offered and called it "a nice setup" for an interview.
Did you miss that or what? I think you're totally off base. I applaud/. for putting it out there for what it is without editorial mangling.
Most "reputable journalists" print/air exactly what their news directors tell them to...which is all too often EXACTLY what their corporate sponsors, political friends, et. al. want them to air.
Thank you/. for displaying that NEWS is supposed to be direct dissemination of FACTS...and that bull@#$! editorializing and [snippage] equates to SOMEONE ELSE deciding FOR ME what IS and IS NOT relevant to a given issue.... I really don't want to get into how messed up "real news" is here... Suffice to say: I can decide what's relevant for myself. Put it all on the table and let ME decide how I feel about it.
I agree. But, I would start by teaching them some basic HTML. The greatest advantage is they can post the results so their geek friends can check it out and see how cool they are.
Then move into some combination of Perl, PHP, JavaScript, and Java for adding real use to those HTML pages they just created.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is now being said that both planes that hit the towers were 767s. The 757s were to attack the Pentagon and Camp David. The Pentagon plane hit its target. The Camp David plane did not.
Which is why I've already written letters to both of my Senators, my Representative, and President Bush.
I will follow-up by sending one to my Governor, State Congresspeople, Mayor, and local city council.
It may not do much good, but we should all be writing letters to our lawmakers to give them feedback on what the actual people want. If you don't know who your Representative in the House is, check here and find your Senators here.
Write the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20500.
I agree that Rollercoaster Tycoon is a good game (my 9 yr old can't stop playing it) but it is a sim-game. It simulates running a theme park. Very much like Sim-Theme. Only RCT is better.
I also think that if Lemmings is OK, OddWorld should be OK. There is minor violence but the game is entertaining and designed to challenge your problem solving skills.
Other than that, I can tell you the Carmen Sandiego games will hardly hold their attention if my son and neices/nephews are any guide. The games are a great idea on paper, but the kids just don't seem to stay involved long enough.
Also, there is a younger child's educational game called "Mortimer and the Riddle of the Medallion" that is pretty good.
Why not take an engine like Quake/Unreal and a level editor to create your own scenarios? You could remove monsters and weapons and basically make a multi-player maze.
I'm not so sure. What he did was write a program to do something legal in a country where writing it is also legal. You can't break a law that doesn't exist where you are and since the DMCA is not a law in Russia, in writing the application, he did not violate it.
A case may be made that ElcomSoft violated the DMCA by hosting the site in the US and using a US clearinghouse to process the credit card transactions (the sales transaction occurred in the US) which is a clear violation of the DMCA.
Selling the application in the US...a violation.
Writing the application in Russia...NOT a violation.
The extent to which Skylarov was involved in selling the application is the key to whether HE violated the DMCA or not.
Seems to me like a braindead marketroid decision.
But if all you ever use is Public Key Algorithms for authentication (RSA/DSA,etc.) then you won't ever need to type passwords in session.
But if by chance you can't avoid typing passwords in session, try this.
Store your keys on removeable media also...and remove the media when you aren't using it...like put it in your shirt pocket (bizcard CD-Rs are great for this) or in a locked drawer in a locked room in a locked building, etc...
This is not about calling names. This is about a way of life. Repeatedly, FSF propaganda attempts to convince its audience that anyone with opposing views is more concerned with profit than community. Can't there be an in-between? Perhaps I want to earn a living developing software. Perhaps I also don't want to fsck my customers just because I can. It's like RMS doesn't think this is possible.
One more thing...I'm not calling him a communist. I am saying his ideals fall in line with a communist world view. I'm saying his beliefs are akin to communism. Drawing a comparison. And I never said communism is bad. Even if he is communist, fine. There's nothing wrong with being communist in-and-of-itself. Being oppresive, dictatorial, and an overwhelming control freak...that's bad. And mixing that with communism is, well...bad, mkay?
Actually, RMS does advocate forcing people to do it his way via passing/repealing laws to so it can't be done any other way. He has shown that if he had the power, he would make it so. No, he wouldn't put a gun to somebody's head.
Of course, this talk of guns is all hyperbole here. The point is, RMS would like to take away any right I may have under current law to decide what license I release my software under. He would force me to do it his way, see? Force. Not armed force, but force nonetheless.
Inanimate...as in NOT alive. Versus slaves who are living, breathing ANIMATE objects. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word immaterial (as it may pertain to some legalese or other interpretation I am unaware of) but, whether it is an immaterial creation or one of significant import, it changes nothing. The point is the FSF feels something created by an individual (or group) doesn't belong to the creator but the consumer. Huh, wha? You actually got that out of it? No, thinking Intellectual Property and Real Property are different things doesn't make you a communist. Saying that anyone who thinks otherwise should have to give up their creations for the good of humanity against their will is what makes you a communist.
What gets me in all this is that I AGREE that Intellectual Property is not the same as Real Property. I AGREE with most of what the FSF stands for. But MOSTLY, I DISAGREE with the idea that others with different viewpoints should LOSE their right to choose and be forced to adhere to RMS' vision.
What difference does it make if Microsoft forces their will on me or RMS does? I am still not free.
"Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
That's what freedom is. The FSF doesn't appear to be willing to "agree to disagree." Rather, they appear hell-bent on making everybody see it their way. (But then, I've never actually met RMS, so maybe I've got it all wrong...)
But they don't just put forth the idea. They advocate forcing those with a different mindset to doing it their way. If I disagree, I'm "greedy" or somehow I care more about profits than my community. Guess what, I have to survive. I don't think I should be allowed to fsck people because I can write a program that they can't any more than I think a guy who happened to be blessed with great height, excellent motor skills, and an innate ability to throw a ball through a hoop should be able to get millions a year while teachers and other people doing important work that builds our society earn pennies on the dollar. But I have a right to earn a living.
My creations are mine until I explicitly give them away. Whether they be programs, books, articles, or doodles on a piece of scratch paper. I made them. They are mine. Feel free to disagree. I am not attempting to impinge on your right to do so. The FSF is.
And as far as keeping anyone from copying and/or reverse engineering anything...if it is useful enough for someone to do so, I have no illusion that ANY license or LAW will stop them.
The INTERNET is what it IS because GOVERNMENTS (i.e., TAXPAYERS) PAID FOR IT. (ever heard of a little thing called DARPA!?)
This is the biggest problem I have with the righteous indignation of the FSF spouting about how I'm infringing upon others. I'll tell you right now, I have developed several "proprietary" applications in use by different people at various corporations and NOT ONE OF THEM GIVES A RAT'S ASS if they can modify the source or not. BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE NOT TO CODE.
Software isn't thrust upon you. If you don't like the terms of some software license, write your own damn software. If your place of employment says, "You have to use MS-Office..." you still have a choice. Either your job or your "ethics" are more important to you. You will use it or quit or use something else and lie to your boss.
Perhaps the better question is: If I paint a picture and another person thinks they can make it better, do they have a right to change it even if I don't want them to?
Consider it considered. Law is established by Government(s). The debate over who controls that is another issue entirely. And believe it or not folks, we actually CHOOSE to obey LAWS. They are not mechanisms for absolute control. (If we all obeyed laws, why are there so many prisons?) LAWS are just rules we either CHOOSE to obey or RISK facing the consequences.
What the FSF (Free Software FREAKS) fail to realize is just because they got burned by some big corporation somewhere that had some license restriction (boo hoo) YOU STILL CHOSE TO USE THAT SOFTWARE. Don't give me any bullshit about not having a choice. You coulda been a frikkin bus driver if you didn't like the license.
What other version is it going to be in?
http://www.shoutcast.com/support/docs/
check it out...think about it.
What makes the operating-system market so "impregnable" is that we're already being F-ed by M$ every day!
after I explained the nature of a Slashdot interview, and how the questions were gathered and chosen, as well as the fact that he was free to be as candid and discursive as he'd like, [snip] ;) Lars seemed impressed by the forum that Slashdot offered and called it "a nice setup" for an interview.
/. for putting it out there for what it is without editorial mangling.
/. for displaying that NEWS is supposed to be direct dissemination of FACTS...and that bull@#$! editorializing and [snippage] equates to SOMEONE ELSE deciding FOR ME what IS and IS NOT relevant to a given issue. ... I really don't want to get into how messed up "real news" is here... Suffice to say: I can decide what's relevant for myself. Put it all on the table and let ME decide how I feel about it.
Did you miss that or what? I think you're totally off base. I applaud
Most "reputable journalists" print/air exactly what their news directors tell them to...which is all too often EXACTLY what their corporate sponsors, political friends, et. al. want them to air.
Thank you
I agree. But, I would start by teaching them some basic HTML. The greatest advantage is they can post the results so their geek friends can check it out and see how cool they are.
Then move into some combination of Perl, PHP, JavaScript, and Java for adding real use to those HTML pages they just created.