Even if there was some abuse, so what? Say 85% of their software is legal. Microsoft still collected HUGE profits from them. I understand that large corperations need to enforce their policys, but kicking in the teeth of their best customers isn't good. I love how large corperations have more power than the govt itself now. Shouldn't it be up to Microsoft to prove that illegal copies are being used? Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that in our Bill of Rights? Or is Gates the new "Bill" of rights? I would think that if MS had reason to believe that a law was broken, that a court order, not an Email, would be the appropriate action. I would take MS a little more seriously if they went through the hassle and expense of going through the courts, let the police collect the evidence, and do things that way. Without proof, the courts would never issue a warrent. If Va Beach submits to this audit, they are giving up their right to remain silent the moment they surrender the first report. Personally, I would tell MS to f*ck off if I was in their position. If MS was that serious, they would spend the time and money on court procedings.
This has to be a joke. There are millions upon millions of porn sites on the net, and easily found on Yahoo or even just trying something in the location bar. If children want to find them, they will. Why can nobody take parental supervision as a method of content controll anymore?
"But the companies say anaconda-dot-com is a special case and they reserve
the right to block any site that might offend customers."
This is crazy too. "Might offend customers?" Who are they to decide what "might" offend me. What offends me is that and ISP, who gets paid to provide a connection to the internet, nothing less, nothing more, believes they have the right to regulate LEGAL content. This isn't child porn, or warez here. What ever happened to freedom of speech? Anaconda.com is a business, and one that depends on visitors to turn a profit. What right does and ISP have to block access to a legal business? It wouldn't be legal for a road crew to intentionally block the enterance to a parking lot of a porn shop just because they built the road. This is no different, you are merely paying a toll to the ISP to use their roads. I realize this is in Canada, and being American, I don't know how close the freedom of speech laws are to ours, but it would seem to me that private business doesn't hold the athority to dictate what is law.
"RCMP computer crime investigator Corporal Jeff Adam says nothing on the
site is illegal but it could be considered obscene under Canadian law"
Would some Canadian Slashdotter please explain what such laws are? And even still, wouldn't that be up to the courts to decide and not private enterprise?
One thing the article didn't provide any information on is, just how did the domain name wind up on these cards to begin with?
I'm not saying that Windows doesn't have more than it's share of problems. Think for a minute about this:
1: Most people converting to Linux are Windows users.
2: Windows9x does have a simple default installation procedure.
3:As you said, Windows has inertia, people know what to expect (and not to expect). People should, and do, expect more from Linux. First impressions mean a lot, and a "buggy" install doesn't look good.
The point that I think Rob was trying to make is that by placing Linux in a popular, non-techie place is that it might attract new users, who may have been hearing about Linux in the MS anti-trust news, from friends, on the net, whatever, and someone who may have never activly gone seeking Linux may see it and decide to give it a try. The point I am trying to make is that if the Linux community wants to win the hearts of the masses, it better be damn perfect. The average computer user doesn't take the scientific approach, that well just because it didn't work now doesn't mean it won't work later. To them, Linux is Linux, then, now, and forever. These are people we many never recover. To most, if the computer turns on, AOL, Napster, and MS Word all work (most of the time), then that's all they care about. They could care less if it was called Windows, Linux, OSx, BSD, Natalie Portman, whatever. It just has to be brainless to use. To further that brainless approach, most average computer users have "boxed" (as in works out of the box) systems that have a "quick restore" CD included with their system that is custom tailored for that particular configuration. Just pop it in, and go. System recovery in 45 minutes or less with a few mouse clicks. Cheaper computers also abandon legacy components, favoring on board video, sound, modem, etc. that can cause problems for Linux, but I seriously doubt Joe user will realize that. Again, Linux itself will take the blame.
Check out this Slashdot article, and this interview with Roland Dyroff of SuSe, and you will see that I'm not the only person who is a little worried about the backlash of pressing Linux into the mass market. The biggest problem, really, remains hardware support. And low end non-legacy systems just add to this complication. I think the grace for Linux will be that more computers are coming pre-installed with Linux, and this will, eventually, solve the biggest problems with getting started using Linux. That would be, well, getting started. If a manufacturer of a boxed system includes a preconfigured install, tailored for just that box, a huge hurdle has been overcome. Unfortionately, OEM support just hasn't been that great for the Open Source community in reguards to conumer level products. Convincing the big companies to sell (and support)preconfigured systems in places like Wal-Mart is what needs to be done to push Linux into the mainstream. For the moment, I would hate to work at Mandrake tech support and have to answer calls like "How do I get my onboard modem to work in my free PC that I got for signing up for 3 years of MSN. Oh yeah, how can I get MSN to work now that I am not using Windows. Can I still use it?" a hundred and fifty times a day.
Until the OEM's, the hardware companies, and the software companies commit to better support for Linux, I don't see it going mainstream. Do I think it is a good idea for it to be marketed in places like Wal-Mart? It really is hard to say. I am just trying to point out some of the potential problems, and I would hate to see somebody get scared away from Linux from a bad experience because they themselves weren't ready to try it. Remember, I am talking about people who view their computer as a "toy", and for the time being, perhaps they are better off on a "toy" operating system (Windows, of course).
I have read some posts saying that this is a "good thing" for Linux to be this much in the limelite, so mabey people might see it on the shelf at Wal-Mart and give it a try. I agree, to an extent. Rob mentions that he had some setup problems, and not only that, but inconsistant ones.
Here lies the problem: if 7.2 has an unstable install utility, it may scare people away from Linux for a long, long time. Difficult is a little different, as most will come to the conclusion that it is just to advanced for them, and mabey inspire them to learn, or at least try again when they may become a little more computer knowledgable. But if it has errors, a newbie will look at that as "poor" software, buy ME, and be on their way. This is not good for the Linux community, especially if some boneheaded reporter should happen upon Linux at their local Wal-Mart, and have a nightmarish time installing it.
So, yes, I think that exposure is good for Linux, but perhaps we should really wait for it to be ready for mainstream before it is made mainstream.
What needs to be done is make the non-geek community understand what Linux is and why it is better than MS. I know a fair amount of people that have no idea what OS even means, and think that America Online IS the internet, and find it amazing that I can connect to the internet without such revolutionary programs. These will be tough people to convert. It is important to get the message out about Linux, but I'm not too sure we should push too many people to try it. The public and the media can both be very unforgiving when something doesn't work right the first time. Especially if they change their Windows partition to a Linux partition and loose everything on their computer. Linux, undoubtedly, will take the fall for that manuver.
*note: This is NOT an anti-Mandrake post. Mandrake Linux is a fine Linux distro, especially for newbies. This is only meant to raise the question: "Is Linux ready for this yet?"*
"...we haven't gotten a whole lot out of space. Space is not like the New World -- there is no tobacco, fur, or gold
to keep the less adventurous people happy."
Actually, space has had one of the biggest payoffs for modern civilization. Communications satalites, GPS, space telescopes, better understanding of the origins of the world and physics in general, and, for all we know, information from spy satelites may very well have kept much of the free world safe during the Cold War. Outer space is a big place, and we are only now beginning to see how we can reap the benefits it has to offer. While "space industry" (meaning in space, not making things for space) is probably a long, long way off, it is the ultimate long term investment. For some, like telecomunications providers, their space investments have already paid off. Ok, except Iridium, but that's another story...
Anyway, it is unfortionate that the prize didn't materialize. Rocket hacking isn't quite as cheap as kernal hacking, I'm sure people invested nicely in the equipment for this contest. However, the rewards of being the first private citizen to launch a rocket into space is the real payoff anyway, and will continue to be the motivation for most in the future as it has in the past.
Figures lie and liars figure, that's just how these things work. If someone wants numbers to reflect a certian side, all they have to do is ask the right questions, the right way.
They made drugs illegal a few years back, and it's really helped! You never see drugs, or hear about drugs anymore.
Yeah, and you can't find a copy of DeCSS anymore either. The point is, when you make something illegal, only criminals will possess it. So am I expected to just throw out any "hacking" software I own after spending my hard earned money on it, or become a criminal just for possessing a CD ROM? I would accept tougher laws on cracking in the criminal sense, but by making it illegal to even find holes just so they can be patched, will leave the door wide open for those who could care less what the law says. And this doesn't affect anybody outside the US and Europe anyway. So, it actually removes from us the tools we need to protect ourselves from such attacks. I suppose now the gov'ts are going to organize a task force and discover all the security patches for us now? I doubt it. They will be up to the crackers to find now.
This isn't really new. I saw an article on this about a year ago in an engineering magazine. You can visit the homepage here. And ABC news has an article here.
This article at BBSpot expliains how the world will end. It will be some mad overclocker who OC's his CPU so fast that it tears a hole in the fabric of the space-time continum. This won't likely happen with the 750Mhz Coppermine used in this disaster, but if Intel ever gets the 2Ghz out, things could get much worse...
...but what do the numbers mean? The reports on what the real long term effects are still very conflicting. So how much of a difference is a phone with 1.49 SAR and 1.38 SAR? It's nice to know this and all, but until we get really good facts on how much cellphone emissions really affect us, this will just be a FYI comparison.
No, it isn't new. But when was the last time you bought something this cool that came with schematics/parts lists/source code/etc? That is why it's here, not to break some new ground on visual perception technoligies. Slashdot may be "News for nerds" but it's also "Stuff that matters". Simple to build, inexpensive geek toys are pretty cool, so what's the big problem with it being here on Slashdot?
The story reads "In the U.S. it is illegal to operate an online casino or sports
betting page due to interstate restrictions on gambling. It seems that a
company called Virtgame.com has been able to prove to the Nevada gaming
comission that its software would prevent any bets from being placed beyond state
boundaries."
IANAL,but what about the YouBet online horse race betting service? Is horse racing not considerd "Sports"? To be fair, YouBet only provides national programs, odds, handicapping, etc. and the actual betting accounts are handled through a company named Ladbroke Racing based in Pennsylvania. It is legal, according to the FAQ for anyone over the age of 18 in the US, excluding AK, CA,
CO, GA, MI, MS, Nevada (?),
NC, SC, UT, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. So what is so different about this Nevada service? Would some technology to block out users from betting in prohibited states already have to exist? According to the article, that was one of the stipulations that allowed this, that it was restricted to Nevada state lines. Is it because YouBet uses proxy wagering in PA, where Off Track Betting is legal? Now, say for example I wanted to place a bet in Nevada. Would it be legal for me to call a friend there, have him wager for me, and mail him a check? Like I said, IANAL, but I do not see how this is a breakthrough in internet gambeling. The methods are different, but it appears that legal internet gambeling has been around longer than this. Does anyone here on/. have any idea what the legal differences are between the Nevada service and one similar to YouBet?
If you have been reading anything to do with carnivore since the begining of this, you would know that carnivore only listens to specific people, it does not hunt down new criminals, only moniters predetermined suspects. A warrent similar to that of a telephone tap is required to use Carnivore as an evidence gathering tool on someone. The FBI *claims* that Carnivore is not used to spy on an entire network. Mabey this
Great numbers, really. But what abut '98/'99? There is no statistic for Student Violent Crime. Were these higher? And why are the '94/'95/'96 figures all based on different guidelines? '94 has it listed as "Student Violent Crimes" only, while '95 has "Student Violent Crimes" and "Under 18 Murders", and for '96 you have "Students nonfatal violent crimes", and "Under 18 Murders".
So, lets break this down: In '95 it went unspecified as to weather or not the "violent crimes" included fatal ones. If it does not, then it would be the same as the '96 guidlines. But if it does, then the '96 numbers would be higher than '95, and that is not an accurate statistic. Further, in '94, the number of fatal murders under 18 isn't specified, so is that included in the "student violent crime" figure?
It is kind of hard to explain, but what I'm trying to say is that if it is starting with the same source of numbers, than by constantly subdividing it into catagories that in part equal less than the previous year, although the sum of the parts is higher than the baseline, it does not make for an acurate statistic.
OTOH, I support what the author is trying to say, I do not think violent games or movies really make a difference in violent crime. But without rock-solid numbers to stand on, the only person you will convince is someone who already supports your beliefs.
Hey cr0sh, check out this link from this page for those "expansion" gizmo's that you said never came to be. They did, and this guy seems to have them. You can email him and mabey he can tell you where he found them. Good luck!
Ahh... the site must have gotten Slashdotted, I'm getting no response from the server. Anyway, I was wondering if anybody remembers Omnibot and his big brother Omnibot2000 from the '80s? I had an Omnibot2000 and these were really neat robots. They had 360 degree rotating wrist, 1 servo actuated arm, and a working gripper. It also had a neat server try that clipped onto his chest and could index drinks and pick them up with his arm and hand them to you. Best of all, his tape player also served to record programs. Yep, you could "teach" him by recording while driving him with the remote control. And as if that wasn't enough, he was an alarm clock also and you could have him set to start running a program at whatever time you wanted. I'm not sure how much they went for new, but you can still pick one up for under 200 bucks at Ebay. Does anyone still have one of these?
Whoops, I apolagize if my post was a little redundant to what was in the article. The link to the article wasn't working at the time when I posted. It worked ten minutes later.
Actually, Titanium is one of the more abundant metals here in North America. The problem, up until now, has been refining it is very expensive. This should help change that. However, the fact that it still has to be alloyed with Chromium and Vanadium (both rarer metals) to be usable will keep the costs from ever reaching "cheap".
Slashdot Mirror
(eight stories down.....)
"What Will Happen to Sega?" "A reader writes "Sega is getting out of hardware altogether."
So, wich one is it?
"But the companies say anaconda-dot-com is a special case and they reserve the right to block any site that might offend customers."
This is crazy too. "Might offend customers?" Who are they to decide what "might" offend me. What offends me is that and ISP, who gets paid to provide a connection to the internet, nothing less, nothing more, believes they have the right to regulate LEGAL content. This isn't child porn, or warez here. What ever happened to freedom of speech? Anaconda.com is a business, and one that depends on visitors to turn a profit. What right does and ISP have to block access to a legal business? It wouldn't be legal for a road crew to intentionally block the enterance to a parking lot of a porn shop just because they built the road. This is no different, you are merely paying a toll to the ISP to use their roads. I realize this is in Canada, and being American, I don't know how close the freedom of speech laws are to ours, but it would seem to me that private business doesn't hold the athority to dictate what is law.
"RCMP computer crime investigator Corporal Jeff Adam says nothing on the site is illegal but it could be considered obscene under Canadian law"
Would some Canadian Slashdotter please explain what such laws are? And even still, wouldn't that be up to the courts to decide and not private enterprise?
One thing the article didn't provide any information on is, just how did the domain name wind up on these cards to begin with?
Check out this Slashdot article, and this interview with Roland Dyroff of SuSe, and you will see that I'm not the only person who is a little worried about the backlash of pressing Linux into the mass market. The biggest problem, really, remains hardware support. And low end non-legacy systems just add to this complication. I think the grace for Linux will be that more computers are coming pre-installed with Linux, and this will, eventually, solve the biggest problems with getting started using Linux. That would be, well, getting started. If a manufacturer of a boxed system includes a preconfigured install, tailored for just that box, a huge hurdle has been overcome. Unfortionately, OEM support just hasn't been that great for the Open Source community in reguards to conumer level products. Convincing the big companies to sell (and support)preconfigured systems in places like Wal-Mart is what needs to be done to push Linux into the mainstream. For the moment, I would hate to work at Mandrake tech support and have to answer calls like "How do I get my onboard modem to work in my free PC that I got for signing up for 3 years of MSN. Oh yeah, how can I get MSN to work now that I am not using Windows. Can I still use it?" a hundred and fifty times a day.
Until the OEM's, the hardware companies, and the software companies commit to better support for Linux, I don't see it going mainstream. Do I think it is a good idea for it to be marketed in places like Wal-Mart? It really is hard to say. I am just trying to point out some of the potential problems, and I would hate to see somebody get scared away from Linux from a bad experience because they themselves weren't ready to try it. Remember, I am talking about people who view their computer as a "toy", and for the time being, perhaps they are better off on a "toy" operating system (Windows, of course).
Here lies the problem: if 7.2 has an unstable install utility, it may scare people away from Linux for a long, long time. Difficult is a little different, as most will come to the conclusion that it is just to advanced for them, and mabey inspire them to learn, or at least try again when they may become a little more computer knowledgable. But if it has errors, a newbie will look at that as "poor" software, buy ME, and be on their way. This is not good for the Linux community, especially if some boneheaded reporter should happen upon Linux at their local Wal-Mart, and have a nightmarish time installing it.
So, yes, I think that exposure is good for Linux, but perhaps we should really wait for it to be ready for mainstream before it is made mainstream.
What needs to be done is make the non-geek community understand what Linux is and why it is better than MS. I know a fair amount of people that have no idea what OS even means, and think that America Online IS the internet, and find it amazing that I can connect to the internet without such revolutionary programs. These will be tough people to convert. It is important to get the message out about Linux, but I'm not too sure we should push too many people to try it. The public and the media can both be very unforgiving when something doesn't work right the first time. Especially if they change their Windows partition to a Linux partition and loose everything on their computer. Linux, undoubtedly, will take the fall for that manuver.
Actually, space has had one of the biggest payoffs for modern civilization. Communications satalites, GPS, space telescopes, better understanding of the origins of the world and physics in general, and, for all we know, information from spy satelites may very well have kept much of the free world safe during the Cold War. Outer space is a big place, and we are only now beginning to see how we can reap the benefits it has to offer. While "space industry" (meaning in space, not making things for space) is probably a long, long way off, it is the ultimate long term investment. For some, like telecomunications providers, their space investments have already paid off. Ok, except Iridium, but that's another story...
Anyway, it is unfortionate that the prize didn't materialize. Rocket hacking isn't quite as cheap as kernal hacking, I'm sure people invested nicely in the equipment for this contest. However, the rewards of being the first private citizen to launch a rocket into space is the real payoff anyway, and will continue to be the motivation for most in the future as it has in the past.
Yeah, and you can't find a copy of DeCSS anymore either. The point is, when you make something illegal, only criminals will possess it. So am I expected to just throw out any "hacking" software I own after spending my hard earned money on it, or become a criminal just for possessing a CD ROM? I would accept tougher laws on cracking in the criminal sense, but by making it illegal to even find holes just so they can be patched, will leave the door wide open for those who could care less what the law says. And this doesn't affect anybody outside the US and Europe anyway. So, it actually removes from us the tools we need to protect ourselves from such attacks. I suppose now the gov'ts are going to organize a task force and discover all the security patches for us now? I doubt it. They will be up to the crackers to find now.
Text mode porn? And I thought text mode quake was bad...
No, it isn't new. But when was the last time you bought something this cool that came with schematics /parts lists /source code /etc? That is why it's here, not to break some new ground on visual perception technoligies. Slashdot may be "News for nerds" but it's also "Stuff that matters". Simple to build, inexpensive geek toys are pretty cool, so what's the big problem with it being here on Slashdot?
Havn't you ever seen The Matrix?
IANAL,but what about the YouBet online horse race betting service? Is horse racing not considerd "Sports"? To be fair, YouBet only provides national programs, odds, handicapping, etc. and the actual betting accounts are handled through a company named Ladbroke Racing based in Pennsylvania. It is legal, according to the FAQ for anyone over the age of 18 in the US, excluding AK, CA, CO, GA, MI, MS, Nevada (?), NC, SC, UT, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. So what is so different about this Nevada service? Would some technology to block out users from betting in prohibited states already have to exist? According to the article, that was one of the stipulations that allowed this, that it was restricted to Nevada state lines. Is it because YouBet uses proxy wagering in PA, where Off Track Betting is legal? Now, say for example I wanted to place a bet in Nevada. Would it be legal for me to call a friend there, have him wager for me, and mail him a check? Like I said, IANAL, but I do not see how this is a breakthrough in internet gambeling. The methods are different, but it appears that legal internet gambeling has been around longer than this. Does anyone here on /. have any idea what the legal differences are between the Nevada service and one similar to YouBet?
If you have been reading anything to do with carnivore since the begining of this, you would know that carnivore only listens to specific people, it does not hunt down new criminals, only moniters predetermined suspects. A warrent similar to that of a telephone tap is required to use Carnivore as an evidence gathering tool on someone. The FBI *claims* that Carnivore is not used to spy on an entire network. Mabey this
So, lets break this down: In '95 it went unspecified as to weather or not the "violent crimes" included fatal ones. If it does not, then it would be the same as the '96 guidlines. But if it does, then the '96 numbers would be higher than '95, and that is not an accurate statistic. Further, in '94, the number of fatal murders under 18 isn't specified, so is that included in the "student violent crime" figure?
It is kind of hard to explain, but what I'm trying to say is that if it is starting with the same source of numbers, than by constantly subdividing it into catagories that in part equal less than the previous year, although the sum of the parts is higher than the baseline, it does not make for an acurate statistic.
OTOH, I support what the author is trying to say, I do not think violent games or movies really make a difference in violent crime. But without rock-solid numbers to stand on, the only person you will convince is someone who already supports your beliefs.