Yeah, you're trying to be funny, but we (us old timers, that is) learned thirty years ago to never unshar and uudecode anything found on usenet. I think that's your problem.
Yeah, character! It's where drunks sleep in the gutters, and wealthy old gay men come to pick up teenage boys fresh from the farm, and where you find dimly lit bars named "The Glory Hole" and "Bottoms Up".
I've been hanging out in various usenet groups for years and yet to have picked up a virus that infected my system and wasn't picked up my Norton AV.
I'm still trying to come to terms with the concept of catching a virus from a plain text usenet post. I realize most of usenet is 7-bit text, but it would still take a damned smart hacker to hide a virus in those remaining eighth bits...
If you will notice, the file manager did not replace the command line. In fact, it perfectly complements it, as what is displayed in the "URL" bar exactly matches where the file is located in the file hierarchy.
But the rumblings I hear from the type manager movement indicate that they want to REPLACE the file manager. They want to get rid of it completely, to chisel away its name from every pillar in Egypt. The file manager did not eliminate the command line, but those that want the type manager talk as if they want to destroy all that have come before them.
But the question isn't what this president will do with that power, but what that power will allow any president to do.
Where were you when Clinton was president? Oh that's right! President's only do wrong when they are Republicans.
I am neither a Democrat or Republican, yet I can't help but noticing that the Democrats define morality in terms of party affiliation. This is why I invented the term "antibushitarian", because the Democrat Party has ceased being a party of principle and now reactively opposes anything advocated or done by Bush. Bush could help an old lady cross the street and some Democrat leader would be bitching about it on CNN in less than an hour later.
I do NOT want presidents to be given extraordinary powers, and I am pleased beyond measure that you also believe this. But where were you during the Clinton administration? Why was NO ONE concerned about extraordinary presidential powers until Bush? I've asked this question before, and I've always gotten the same response: "I was just a kid" back then. Goddammit! Is there ANYONE who from the left side of the fence who criticized Clinton between 1992 and 2000?
After seeing this story all week, I still can't get past the most basic question in my head: Why the hell is Windows executing software from an audio CD?
Who the fsck modded this interesting? I don't know who samzenpus is, but maybe he had insomnia and decided to check the queue late at night. Or maybe he doesn't live in your timezone and it wasn't posted at midnight where he lives. Or maybe he does but he thought it important enough NOT TO DELAY FOR EIGHT HOURS!
This isn't the 1:00AM News where only the insomniacs hear the story. It's ten hours later and the story is STILL on the front page of Slashdot! Untwist your panties and get on with life.
Someone needs to mod you up. As imperfect as the US is, you would think its critics wouldn't have to invent falsehoods to make their point. There's no problem so slight that the antibushitarian can't hyperbolate it into an absurdity, and then burst a blood vessel screaming about the injustice of it.
If "all the children of the world" get a linux laptop, that will have to change.
What crack have you been smoking? All the children of the world are NOT going to get a linux laptop. To misquote Darth Vader: I find your faith in government... disturbing.
Here are the top 15 most repressive countries when it comes to the Internet, according to Reporters without Borders:
Wait! Where is the US in that list? OMG! You forgot the Evil and Republ^H^H^Hressive US! Everyone knows that the Internet must be taken AWAY from the US because they are so repressive they denied the.xxx domain!
Um, no, not really. Free speech is the natural state of mankind. It is the absence of laws abridging speech. Politics is about deciding who gets to be in control, but free speech is an absence of control.
Why do American Slashdotters always bring up China?
Because they're one of the biggest voices behind this push. They're not alone, of course, and you're right to bring this up. They're also joined by loud ranting from Saudi Arabia and Libya. And the conference itself is being held in internet-loving Tunisia.
American Slashdotters might have had a different opinion if the conference had been held in Norway and its chief supporters were Canada, New Zealand and Holland. But that's not what's happening. The reason you're seeing this opinion from us is because the world's most notorious foes of free speech and press are all at the forefront of this movement to put the internet under UN control.
Stop and step back ten feet from the issue. What actual substantive problems are at the heart of this issue? Other than the absurdly trivial.xxx domain, there are none! While the rest of the world is royally pissed that the US is nominally in charge of a handful of name servers, no one can point to any actual misgovernance.
I guess you haven't been reading Slashdot today. Every other post here seems to be "America is teh Great Evil". I've seen more America bashing in this topic than I usually see in a month's worth of Slashdot....it isn't Americans that are disliked so much as the American Government.
So much as? So much as? You really do dislike Americans. Thanks you for being honest.
In fact the only people that have ever been rude to me while overseas were (*gasp*) French. It was even funnier to hear them bitch about us in French because they just assumed that we were all lazy Americans and that none of us spoke their language.
Gawd, France was like that thirty years ago when I was there! This one French shopkeeper wouldn't speak to me in English because it was beneath him, even though he know English. It was a very weird conversation. I would speak to him in English, he would understand but answer in French, and my German travelling companion would translate for me.
So you really do think that a bunch of dictators meeting in Tunisia is best solution?
Sorry to be trite, but that's how I see it. I would be much more sympathetic to your view if it this conference were held in a place like Iceland and attended by representatives from freedom loving nations such as Canada and Holland. Instead I see it being held in Tunisia and attended by Saudi Arabia and China.
The main feature of the the US control over the internet is that it is NOT controlled. I want to keep it that way. Which means that while I might agree that official "ownership" should be taken away from the US, it should NOT be given to the UN.
One type is like my mom (or my manager) who no matter how organized they can be with the closet and a European vacation itinerary, don't have the first clue about organizing stuff on the computer. Every email they've ever received is sitting in their inbox; every file they've ever downloaded sits in their "My Documents" folder; they have two hundred icons on the destkop; and they buy new memory cards for their camera when their old card fills up. These people HATE the file manager. For these people, the type manager is the solution to all their problems.
Then there's the other type of person, like me. We have a clear grasp of "file" and "directory" concepts. We are able to create subdirectories, and thus organizational hierarchies. We don't need a type manager to find our songs, because we know that "Money" is located at "share/music/ogg/Pink Floyd/The Dark Side of the Moon". There's no need for us to type phrases into a googlesque searchbar to get back 43,000 results which we need to narrow down by further typing in the searchbar. We don't hate the type manager, we just find it annoying and useless. For us, the file manager works.
Unfortunately, the first type of people whine the loudest, so they're most likely to get their whims catered to. It doesn't matter that the Unix desktop is wholly unsuitable for their needs, we're going to give them preference over Unix using type two people anyway.
The correct solution is NOT to dump one type of manager for another. Instead it is to understand that the file manager and type manager solve two DIFFERENT kinds of problems, that we need both. And by "both" I don't mean one is the default and the other an undocumented configuration setting hidden somewhere in the depths of gconf. There's no reason both functions can't be incorporated into the very same manager.
You will notice that there are several requirements in LGPL, and some of them include words like "reverse engineering" and "prominent notice" and "a copy of this License".
Yet nowhere does it say that you must attach the complete source code. That's what the whine is about. NOT that there wasn't a notice, NOT that there wasn't a copy of the license, but instead a lack of SOURCE CODE. Notice the difference?
The difficult bit is determining who gets to decide what information a root server should contain.
It's not difficult at all. There's no need to set up a five year UN commission to study the problem, just copy over the information from the other pre-existing servers! It's only when you decide that that information is insufficient (lacking the all important.xxx domain) that you change it.
but recently the US government unilaterally ignored ICANN's decision
I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. What do you mean, they "ignored" a decision? Maybe I'm all mixed up on how this internet thingy works, but don't we *want* the US government to ignore ICANN? After all, it can't futz about with the root servers if it ignores them!
I used to always think a license meant what it says, not what the hordes of Slashdot children wishes it did. Please people, GO READ THE FRIGGING LGPL!
The LGPL does not require you to distribute the source code, it only requires you to give the source code to a user who asks for it. Including the source code with the software is only one of several means to accomplish this. Has any legal user of the software asked Sony for the source code? Anyone? I thought not...
It's not that I think Sony is innocent. Hardly! But that's no excuse for hundreds of Slashdot posters to be whining about licnese terms that don't even exist.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use Qt, simply use the fugly SGI style.
Yeah, you're trying to be funny, but we (us old timers, that is) learned thirty years ago to never unshar and uudecode anything found on usenet. I think that's your problem.
Yeah, character! It's where drunks sleep in the gutters, and wealthy old gay men come to pick up teenage boys fresh from the farm, and where you find dimly lit bars named "The Glory Hole" and "Bottoms Up".
I've been hanging out in various usenet groups for years and yet to have picked up a virus that infected my system and wasn't picked up my Norton AV.
I'm still trying to come to terms with the concept of catching a virus from a plain text usenet post. I realize most of usenet is 7-bit text, but it would still take a damned smart hacker to hide a virus in those remaining eighth bits...
What is really sad is that everyone is pontificating that the Unix desktop needs to be more like Windows...
If you will notice, the file manager did not replace the command line. In fact, it perfectly complements it, as what is displayed in the "URL" bar exactly matches where the file is located in the file hierarchy.
But the rumblings I hear from the type manager movement indicate that they want to REPLACE the file manager. They want to get rid of it completely, to chisel away its name from every pillar in Egypt. The file manager did not eliminate the command line, but those that want the type manager talk as if they want to destroy all that have come before them.
But the question isn't what this president will do with that power, but what that power will allow any president to do.
Where were you when Clinton was president? Oh that's right! President's only do wrong when they are Republicans.
I am neither a Democrat or Republican, yet I can't help but noticing that the Democrats define morality in terms of party affiliation. This is why I invented the term "antibushitarian", because the Democrat Party has ceased being a party of principle and now reactively opposes anything advocated or done by Bush. Bush could help an old lady cross the street and some Democrat leader would be bitching about it on CNN in less than an hour later.
I do NOT want presidents to be given extraordinary powers, and I am pleased beyond measure that you also believe this. But where were you during the Clinton administration? Why was NO ONE concerned about extraordinary presidential powers until Bush? I've asked this question before, and I've always gotten the same response: "I was just a kid" back then. Goddammit! Is there ANYONE who from the left side of the fence who criticized Clinton between 1992 and 2000?
And don't give me any crap about how corrupt the American government is.
Actually I wasn't going to. While it's hardly the model of perfection, corruption in US government is not on the top one hundred list of problems.
After seeing this story all week, I still can't get past the most basic question in my head: Why the hell is Windows executing software from an audio CD?
Who the fsck modded this interesting? I don't know who samzenpus is, but maybe he had insomnia and decided to check the queue late at night. Or maybe he doesn't live in your timezone and it wasn't posted at midnight where he lives. Or maybe he does but he thought it important enough NOT TO DELAY FOR EIGHT HOURS!
This isn't the 1:00AM News where only the insomniacs hear the story. It's ten hours later and the story is STILL on the front page of Slashdot! Untwist your panties and get on with life.
Someone needs to mod you up. As imperfect as the US is, you would think its critics wouldn't have to invent falsehoods to make their point. There's no problem so slight that the antibushitarian can't hyperbolate it into an absurdity, and then burst a blood vessel screaming about the injustice of it.
Everything was on Digg three days ago. But it will take you three more days to find it.
If "all the children of the world" get a linux laptop, that will have to change.
What crack have you been smoking? All the children of the world are NOT going to get a linux laptop. To misquote Darth Vader: I find your faith in government... disturbing.
Here are the top 15 most repressive countries when it comes to the Internet, according to Reporters without Borders:
.xxx domain!
Wait! Where is the US in that list? OMG! You forgot the Evil and Republ^H^H^Hressive US! Everyone knows that the Internet must be taken AWAY from the US because they are so repressive they denied the
Most journalists consider honesty to be a dangerous addiction.
Isn't that "free speech" thing politics itself?
Um, no, not really. Free speech is the natural state of mankind. It is the absence of laws abridging speech. Politics is about deciding who gets to be in control, but free speech is an absence of control.
Why do American Slashdotters always bring up China?
.xxx domain, there are none! While the rest of the world is royally pissed that the US is nominally in charge of a handful of name servers, no one can point to any actual misgovernance.
Because they're one of the biggest voices behind this push. They're not alone, of course, and you're right to bring this up. They're also joined by loud ranting from Saudi Arabia and Libya. And the conference itself is being held in internet-loving Tunisia.
American Slashdotters might have had a different opinion if the conference had been held in Norway and its chief supporters were Canada, New Zealand and Holland. But that's not what's happening. The reason you're seeing this opinion from us is because the world's most notorious foes of free speech and press are all at the forefront of this movement to put the internet under UN control.
Stop and step back ten feet from the issue. What actual substantive problems are at the heart of this issue? Other than the absurdly trivial
In most cases they are not...
...it isn't Americans that are disliked so much as the American Government.
I guess you haven't been reading Slashdot today. Every other post here seems to be "America is teh Great Evil". I've seen more America bashing in this topic than I usually see in a month's worth of Slashdot.
So much as? So much as? You really do dislike Americans. Thanks you for being honest.
In fact the only people that have ever been rude to me while overseas were (*gasp*) French. It was even funnier to hear them bitch about us in French because they just assumed that we were all lazy Americans and that none of us spoke their language.
Gawd, France was like that thirty years ago when I was there! This one French shopkeeper wouldn't speak to me in English because it was beneath him, even though he know English. It was a very weird conversation. I would speak to him in English, he would understand but answer in French, and my German travelling companion would translate for me.
So you really do think that a bunch of dictators meeting in Tunisia is best solution?
Sorry to be trite, but that's how I see it. I would be much more sympathetic to your view if it this conference were held in a place like Iceland and attended by representatives from freedom loving nations such as Canada and Holland. Instead I see it being held in Tunisia and attended by Saudi Arabia and China.
The main feature of the the US control over the internet is that it is NOT controlled. I want to keep it that way. Which means that while I might agree that official "ownership" should be taken away from the US, it should NOT be given to the UN.
There are two types of people in this world...
One type is like my mom (or my manager) who no matter how organized they can be with the closet and a European vacation itinerary, don't have the first clue about organizing stuff on the computer. Every email they've ever received is sitting in their inbox; every file they've ever downloaded sits in their "My Documents" folder; they have two hundred icons on the destkop; and they buy new memory cards for their camera when their old card fills up. These people HATE the file manager. For these people, the type manager is the solution to all their problems.
Then there's the other type of person, like me. We have a clear grasp of "file" and "directory" concepts. We are able to create subdirectories, and thus organizational hierarchies. We don't need a type manager to find our songs, because we know that "Money" is located at "share/music/ogg/Pink Floyd/The Dark Side of the Moon". There's no need for us to type phrases into a googlesque searchbar to get back 43,000 results which we need to narrow down by further typing in the searchbar. We don't hate the type manager, we just find it annoying and useless. For us, the file manager works.
Unfortunately, the first type of people whine the loudest, so they're most likely to get their whims catered to. It doesn't matter that the Unix desktop is wholly unsuitable for their needs, we're going to give them preference over Unix using type two people anyway.
The correct solution is NOT to dump one type of manager for another. Instead it is to understand that the file manager and type manager solve two DIFFERENT kinds of problems, that we need both. And by "both" I don't mean one is the default and the other an undocumented configuration setting hidden somewhere in the depths of gconf. There's no reason both functions can't be incorporated into the very same manager.
You will notice that there are several requirements in LGPL, and some of them include words like "reverse engineering" and "prominent notice" and "a copy of this License".
Yet nowhere does it say that you must attach the complete source code. That's what the whine is about. NOT that there wasn't a notice, NOT that there wasn't a copy of the license, but instead a lack of SOURCE CODE. Notice the difference?
a free country like china
Dude! You owe me a new keyboard because I just spewed my morning coffee all over it! Through my nose! And it was hot coffee too!
The difficult bit is determining who gets to decide what information a root server should contain.
.xxx domain) that you change it.
It's not difficult at all. There's no need to set up a five year UN commission to study the problem, just copy over the information from the other pre-existing servers! It's only when you decide that that information is insufficient (lacking the all important
but recently the US government unilaterally ignored ICANN's decision
I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. What do you mean, they "ignored" a decision? Maybe I'm all mixed up on how this internet thingy works, but don't we *want* the US government to ignore ICANN? After all, it can't futz about with the root servers if it ignores them!
I used to always think a license meant what it says, not what the hordes of Slashdot children wishes it did. Please people, GO READ THE FRIGGING LGPL!
The LGPL does not require you to distribute the source code, it only requires you to give the source code to a user who asks for it. Including the source code with the software is only one of several means to accomplish this. Has any legal user of the software asked Sony for the source code? Anyone? I thought not...
It's not that I think Sony is innocent. Hardly! But that's no excuse for hundreds of Slashdot posters to be whining about licnese terms that don't even exist.