"So, if you think your military isn't spying on you as a civilian, you're right- "The Military" isn't, but a bunch of bored 20-somethings in multi-million-dollar toys ARE. And discipline in the military is so lax that apparently that kind of crap is tolerated. "
The practical issue with privacy is not about having nobody watching you, it's about not having people in power watching you who might try to make your life miserable because of things you're doing that they don't like, even though they are in no way illegal. A few twenty-somethings watching just for entertainment? As long as I don't know about it, I don't really care.
"I think I'd put the DRM stuff in GPL3 as an optional component and see what happens. Let us authors decide whether we want it. If it works for us, it can be made permanant in GPLv4."
It is an optional component; if you want the GPL without DRM clauses, license your code under GPL version 2. The FSF is not forcing anyone to use GPL version 3.
Politicians these days are having real problems distinguishing fantasy from reality. It seems related to computers, for example they can't figure out that someone playing a video game is doing nothing more than pressing buttons and seeing images on a screen, not shooting people or having sex.
"It will get issued but it won't get widely adopted. RMS has become impatient in this quest for social revolution and now he's decided to wield a bigger club. I don't think many others, who write and widely distribute highly useful software, will pick it up and join him."
First off, the GPL version 2 is already good enough that any new version would have difficulty replacing, partly because of the headache of changing licenses. Regardless, in providing GPL version 3 the FSF is merely giving authors a new tool to use; the choice is (as always) up to the author. If many authors want this tool, why shouldn't the FSF provide it? The new restrictions are there for the very purpose of making software more useful, by ensuring that anyone using the software is guaranteed to be able to improve it and actually be able to execute the improved version.
Right on! If you're going to compare to the regular cashiers, have them try to use thos damn self-checkout systems. I've used them perhaps four times total, and I always hate it every time. It's not so much a limitation of technology, rather their target audience. Maybe they have a secret "expert user" mode that lets me scan items as quickly as I can and not require me to place each one individually on the damn scale.
"Microsoft is spreading itself thin here "like too little butter spread over too much bread" quoting Bilbo from LOTR."
I'm totally off-topic here, but that saying is redundant. The most common one is "at the wrong place at the wrong time". It's redundant because what's really meant is "at the wrong place" or "there at the wrong time". If you're at the wrong place, how can there even be a right time? So it's actually nonsense. Your example would be "too little butter spread over the bread" or "too much bread for the amount of butter used". If there's too much bread, then there can't ever be enough butter (or else there wouldn't be too much bread), so it's also redundant.
Plase don't yell at me, I just get really irked by this saying and similar. Anyway, this is Slashdot where we can get technical.:)
"Apple not only has a stranglehold on the music player market, they have insane product loyalty, and they own the elusive "cool factor" with the iPod brand."
And the other companies just can't wrap their head around the attention-to-detail in Apple's user-interface designs, so they keep failing at imitation.
"By observing your electron (and remember, observing means you've destroyed information in it by getting the spin information out), you've gained some information about it. Because of the entanglement, you've also gained information about the other memeber of the pair, without disturbing it, at that very moment, no matter where the other member of that pair is. That's it."
So you're saying it's like starting with a pair of objects, one red, the other blue, and then knowing the color of the other one if you're handed one. But that doesn't sound all mystical and futuristic! And it kills the fantasy that you're transmitting information instantaneously. No fun. How do you expect people to be interested in the truth?!?
"I did notice that the post office box I dropped the disks into seemed to affect the delivery time quite a bit though. I shaved off a day or two by dropping off at the main branch instead of my own."
Plus it can still feel like the video store instead of more conveniently putting the DVD in your outgoing mailbox!
Wow, it must be nice to waste your day away and get paid for it. You must feel a sense of accomplishment after a hard day's non-work. And no, I don't have a job, but I sure as hell wouldn't enjoy spending my days at home surfing the web or reading sites like Slashdot (I spend about 30 minutes a day here). I never understand why people brag about being paid to waste time at work. Now, it'd make more sense to me if they were bragging about having nothing official to do at work and spending that time working on open-source software or some other personal project (what I spend my time doing).
Wait a minute. You describe the low-tech solution (using a timer), then a high-tech solution that does exactly the same thing, that is, notifying you that your items are done. Since the high-tech solution offers no extra functionality (and more opportunities for failure), why not just use a timer? When you first move in, arrive to transfer/pick up your clothes a few minutes early so you can find out exactly how long the washer/dryer takes, then set a timer in the future.
I really hate unwarranted application of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I want every person's vote to be counted properly, not just mine?
Simple: It's made by Diebold.
Kids, don't skip English class, otherwise you could end up like this!
So, will this allow a true port knocking protocol to be implemented?
"Why isn't the USB port working?"
"Knock first!"
"So, if you think your military isn't spying on you as a civilian, you're right- "The Military" isn't, but a bunch of bored 20-somethings in multi-million-dollar toys ARE. And discipline in the military is so lax that apparently that kind of crap is tolerated. "
The practical issue with privacy is not about having nobody watching you, it's about not having people in power watching you who might try to make your life miserable because of things you're doing that they don't like, even though they are in no way illegal. A few twenty-somethings watching just for entertainment? As long as I don't know about it, I don't really care.
How to tell a bootleg/counterfeit from the genuine product: is it a fucking pain in the ass to use (i.e. DRM)? If so, it's genuine.
I think you mean half-circle.
I guess I missed the part where the FSF forced people to use glibc and statically link to it, thus forcing use of the GPL version 3.
"I think I'd put the DRM stuff in GPL3 as an optional component and see what happens. Let us authors decide whether we want it. If it works for us, it can be made permanant in GPLv4."
It is an optional component; if you want the GPL without DRM clauses, license your code under GPL version 2. The FSF is not forcing anyone to use GPL version 3.
Politicians these days are having real problems distinguishing fantasy from reality. It seems related to computers, for example they can't figure out that someone playing a video game is doing nothing more than pressing buttons and seeing images on a screen, not shooting people or having sex.
"It will get issued but it won't get widely adopted. RMS has become impatient in this quest for social revolution and now he's decided to wield a bigger club. I don't think many others, who write and widely distribute highly useful software, will pick it up and join him."
First off, the GPL version 2 is already good enough that any new version would have difficulty replacing, partly because of the headache of changing licenses. Regardless, in providing GPL version 3 the FSF is merely giving authors a new tool to use; the choice is (as always) up to the author. If many authors want this tool, why shouldn't the FSF provide it? The new restrictions are there for the very purpose of making software more useful, by ensuring that anyone using the software is guaranteed to be able to improve it and actually be able to execute the improved version.
Losing game progress in any number of ways:
The what, the what, and the what?!?
Right on! If you're going to compare to the regular cashiers, have them try to use thos damn self-checkout systems. I've used them perhaps four times total, and I always hate it every time. It's not so much a limitation of technology, rather their target audience. Maybe they have a secret "expert user" mode that lets me scan items as quickly as I can and not require me to place each one individually on the damn scale.
Now children won't have to give up their fuel-guzzling toy SUVs and Hummers!
"Microsoft is spreading itself thin here "like too little butter spread over too much bread" quoting Bilbo from LOTR."
:)
I'm totally off-topic here, but that saying is redundant. The most common one is "at the wrong place at the wrong time". It's redundant because what's really meant is "at the wrong place" or "there at the wrong time". If you're at the wrong place, how can there even be a right time? So it's actually nonsense. Your example would be "too little butter spread over the bread" or "too much bread for the amount of butter used". If there's too much bread, then there can't ever be enough butter (or else there wouldn't be too much bread), so it's also redundant.
Plase don't yell at me, I just get really irked by this saying and similar. Anyway, this is Slashdot where we can get technical.
"Apple not only has a stranglehold on the music player market, they have insane product loyalty, and they own the elusive "cool factor" with the iPod brand."
And the other companies just can't wrap their head around the attention-to-detail in Apple's user-interface designs, so they keep failing at imitation.
Where would open-source be today if they didn't have Apple and Microsoft to emulate?
...you see the headline "Talking Mirror, Pirate Skull Security System" and immediately think it's about a filesharing mirror site that talks.
I doubt any criminal would want to steal my iPlod (Microsoft's iPod killer).
"By observing your electron (and remember, observing means you've destroyed information in it by getting the spin information out), you've gained some information about it. Because of the entanglement, you've also gained information about the other memeber of the pair, without disturbing it, at that very moment, no matter where the other member of that pair is. That's it."
So you're saying it's like starting with a pair of objects, one red, the other blue, and then knowing the color of the other one if you're handed one. But that doesn't sound all mystical and futuristic! And it kills the fantasy that you're transmitting information instantaneously. No fun. How do you expect people to be interested in the truth?!?
"I did notice that the post office box I dropped the disks into seemed to affect the delivery time quite a bit though. I shaved off a day or two by dropping off at the main branch instead of my own."
Plus it can still feel like the video store instead of more conveniently putting the DVD in your outgoing mailbox!
Wow, it must be nice to waste your day away and get paid for it. You must feel a sense of accomplishment after a hard day's non-work. And no, I don't have a job, but I sure as hell wouldn't enjoy spending my days at home surfing the web or reading sites like Slashdot (I spend about 30 minutes a day here). I never understand why people brag about being paid to waste time at work. Now, it'd make more sense to me if they were bragging about having nothing official to do at work and spending that time working on open-source software or some other personal project (what I spend my time doing).
My, what did we do without video cameras? It's a wonder we even survived.
Wait a minute. You describe the low-tech solution (using a timer), then a high-tech solution that does exactly the same thing, that is, notifying you that your items are done. Since the high-tech solution offers no extra functionality (and more opportunities for failure), why not just use a timer? When you first move in, arrive to transfer/pick up your clothes a few minutes early so you can find out exactly how long the washer/dryer takes, then set a timer in the future.
I really hate unwarranted application of technology.