I'm not trying to say that their deaths didn't matter. By "only 12" I mean that if terrorists are trying to kill a whole bunch of people then chemical and biological weapons just aren't what they need.
Out of thousands there were 12 who died. From a terrorists perspective this would be a failure if their goal was to kill "a whole shit load of people". Just look at the Oklahoma city bombing, and the Sep. 11 attacks. They were much more effective than any biological or chemical attack to date.
I feel bad for anyone who dies at the hands of someone else. I was not trying to say that because only 12 died that it didn't mean anything as you seemed to have interpreted.
Okay, I'm very sick of the media and government trying to scare people by making them believe that they are at threat from biological and chemical weapons used by terrorists.
The fact of the matter is that biological and chemical weapons just aren't practical. They are pretty fucking dangerous, I won't argue that. But they are very impractical as weapons of mass destruction.
For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed. 12 out of thousands. A success? I say no.
You see, first of all it takes a lot of money and people with very huge educations just to produce the stuff. Then it is incredibly hard and dangerous to transport it. You run the risk of infecting yourself.
But the real reason that we aren't going to see a whole lot of these attacks is because the payload just isn't high enough. After spending millions of dollars to produce the stuff, expending a couple chemists who died in the shitty-ass lab in afghanistan producing it you've only killed a couple people. It's much cheaper, easier and kills a lot more people to just set off a bomb in some building.
But what about just making people sick? After all there was something like 5500 people pooring into the hospitals in tokyo after the sarin gass. Well what they didn't tell you is that 90% of those people were just people who panicked because they were in the subway that day and wanted to get checked out.
And don't forget that before that incident the same terrorist group had tried to use anthrax. They sprayed the shit off a building onto a group of civilians and no one was infected by it.
I read a good article about this written by a phd in microbiology. It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed. You can read it here.
Yes, but are you still putting money into their pockets?
The day that new cd's contain wma encoded song formats I will no longer put money into their pocket.
More to the point, has their over-all profitability been decreased as a result of these "stupid" decisions?
I think so. During the whole napster craze I bought a whole shit load of new cds. For example: Esthero. I liked one of her songs so I downloaded it using napster and then decided I wanted to hear some of her other stuff. I found out that I liked her so much that I went out and bought her album. The same thing happened with Rage Against the Machine. I went out and bought every single one of their albums because I found out that liked them so much.
I would not have done this without napster.
Well, napster is gone for the most part. I still go on openNap servers but all I can find are hits. No more "other stuff". So I don't buy as many cds as I did before the RIAA went after napster.
So I agree with the original poster. The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot and they are being ignorant about it. The worst part is that because of their ignorance they are going to keep losing more and more money and they will keep blaming it on piracy when that's really not the issue.
but i SWEAR TO GOD there have been none more idiotic than those of the RIAA. They are literally shooting themselves in their feet OVER and OVER AGAIN, and they act like they don't even realize it!!!
I just heard on the news last week that record sales were down quite drastically in the last couple months. I find this hilarious considering that they went after napster because it was supposedly hurting sales, when really sales were up during the whole napster craze.
Well they get what they deserve. Napster is gone and record sales are down, just like the their own statistics told them were going to happen.
I don't understand this phenomenon relating to human stupidity any more than you do.
--
Garett
Re:what's the difference?
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
I know. I wasn't trying to say that they were. It just sounded that way.
I'm prefectly aware that XEmacs started as Lucid Emacs. Lucid being a company (that employed the infamous Jamie Zawinsky of mosaic/netscape/aol fame) who went out of business quite a while ago. Although the only thing I'm not clear on is when it turned into XEmacs and when the FSF decided to do some sort of merge to make them "compatible".
But even though they are completely different editors I still think of XEmacs as "Emacs for X11".
--
Garett
Re:what's the difference?
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The two editors evolved differently. Vim started as 100% compatible vi clone with extra features, while emacs was an attempt to create a 100% free (as in speech) text editor when the alternatives were vi (closed source commercial implementations), pico etc.
So in a nutshell here are the differences:
o Emacs uses lisp to completely customize the editor. Vim uses it's own little scripting language to do syntax highlighting, create shortcuts etc...
o Vim is just an editor. Emacs will do everything except pick your nose (ei: check e-mail, surf the net, even play games). You can also write Emacs extensions with emacs-lisp to get it to pick your nose if you really want it to.
o The interface is quite different. Vim (like vi) has editing mode and command mode. Emacs just has editing mode. Both are command-driven though unless you use gvim or XEmacs - in that case you get an X11 user interface.
There are lots of other differences feature wise but these are the big ones. The best suggestion I can give you is to just try both. They are both relatively hard to learn since you have to memorize a lot of commands. But once you have them down pat they easily become two of the best text editors available.
One thing to note though: because they are hard to learn it's suggested that you only pick them up if you do a LOT of text-editing (programmers for example). They really are programmers editors and not for people who just want to create the odd ascii file. Do not use them expecting something like notepad for windows. If you do you will hate them.
I applaud them for leaving them out. They're terribly insecure. People should use ssh instead.
He was talking about the clients, not the servers. While I agree with your comment about insecurity you don't have security problems with the clients. I also happen to use ftp and telnet all the time. This does not make things any less secure (and I should point out that I am a security freak, choosing ssh over those almost 100% of the time).
An example: I was just using the ftp client to log into various anonymous ftp servers that I know of to see if they have the Mandrake 8.1 iso images before using wget to grab them.
I also use telnet all the time to debug http and smtp problems. When there's a problem with my e-mail, for example, (pop3 + fetchmail + postfix + procmail + pine) and it's not something obvious (like the net connection is down) then I'll check the mail server like so:
$ telnet mail_server 110
USER my_user
USER my_pass
LIST
....
RETR
....
QUIT
So if those tools are not present on any unix box that I'm using then there's a problem.
The other thing that should be pointed out is that 90% (usually more though) of the software that's installed on a Linux system isn't the product of the company that's selling it.
This is important because the MS issue is that they are forcing their product to be used instead of a competing one.
It seems that people are just looking for a simple answer to a very complex question.
Usually when this happens (from my observation) people point fingers at the easy targets (muslims and arabs for example). This is just another case.
The majority of people (72%) just don't understand "new" technology in general and how it works. The possiblity of terrorists using encryption and e-mail and the internet scares the shit out of them. So it's very easy for them to say that modifying those technologies to allow police to easily "snoop on them" will help. When in fact they just don't know because they don't understand how it works.
This scares me because - with a few exceptions - in a democracy what the majority of the people want will happen (well in a true democracy it should anyway). So it won't surprise me if we see bills passed that will require this kind of thing to take place.
Public Domain, contrary to popular belief, is not a copyright, not a license, not a anything. It is basically saying that "This code no longer belongs to me. I am relinquishing all rights to call it my own. It now belongs to the public".
So I could take any public domain software and call it my own without modifying it. Because public domain is the "giving up any rights to the work".
Basically what I want in a license is credit where credit is due. I want the world to know that I wrote my code, but at the same time alow them to use it for whatever the hell they want. So basically my thinking is "Since I don't make money off the code I write on my spare time I don't care if anyone else makes money off of it. But I at least want credit for doing the work".
So the public domain is not a good idea for a "licence". That's why most public domain software is generally just an implementation of a popular algorithm, or a proof of concept etc.
a) the hijackers were heard speaking in Arab-accented broken English
Whats your source? I'm not believing much of what I hear on the news regarding the calls from within the plane. With so much shit going on (like the entire world being on alert) the rumour mill is working overtime. The cellphone calls to 911 from the plane can not be trusted. They weren't released by the FBI AFAIK and they were never played on the news. All I heard about the cellphone calls were from news anchors. No recordings what-so-ever. And every story I hear about the calls is different. I'm assuming that whatever I hear about the calls are just rumour.
I could be wrong about this one though.
2) there were flight manuals, in Arabic, in one of their car's
Fist of all, you can not prove that the cars belonged to the highjackers. Secondly from what I hear you have to train for a pretty long time to learn how to fly an 757/67 in a flight simulator. You can not fly it by reading a book. As a matter of fact I doubt there is such a thing as a flight manual for that kind of a plane. So I do not buy that story for a second.
3) at least one had a Koran
Where are the pictures? How do you know? Have you seen footage from within the flight? I haven't.
Do you think it's possable to get rid of ALL the terorist groups? That would mean declaring war on ALL third world countries, and then every country that envies us...
Why do you think that terrorists are only from thrid-world countries. And why do you consider Afghanistan, Iraq etc. thrid-world?
It's very arrogant IMO to be so sure that whoever did this horrible attack wasn't right from the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this was the case. Hell, it could even be the pilots themselves and the planes never were highjacked to begin with (although I guess some cellphone calls that occured from within the planes show evidence to support a highjack).
I won't be surprised either if it turns out to be a terrorist group from the middle east.. Just please don't jump to conclusions. That's what's going to make life hell for a lot of American and Canadian Arabs in the the comming times.
--
Garett
Re:once again.....GNU/Linux lags BSD
on
USB 2.0 For Linux
·
· Score: 2
I never said that you were wrong. I don't believe that you were wrong. Where did you get that impression from?
Did you even read my post?
--
Garett
Re:once again.....GNU/Linux lags BSD
on
USB 2.0 For Linux
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
His post was the troll, not mine. Explanation:
My post offered a honest opinion (in a purposefully-loud tone) and gave facts and explanations to back it up.
All he did was bash Linux. He mentioned how BSD had USB before Linux in an attempt to make linux look inferior. Then he offered a rude joke that bashed MS and Linux and made BSD come out favourable. What he essentially did was offered an opposed opinion with nothing to back it up in an attempt to aggravate his "target".
IMHO his post was troll-like. Mine was rude and flameful, but it was well though-out, had a point and was not meant to offend anyone. It was meant to simply to point out how annoyed I was at his post.
--
Garett
Re:once again.....GNU/Linux lags BSD
on
USB 2.0 For Linux
·
· Score: 3, Offtopic
Will someone please hurry up and mod this freak a troll please, I'm all out of mod points! I'm very sick and tired of hearing BSD zealots bash linux.
I have nothing against BSD. As a matter of fact I LOVE BSD. I have deployed all the major BSD variants (Free, NET and Open) and their merits are undisputable. But for crying out loud this flaming is FUCKING ANNOYING!
And the funny thing is that what you guys accuse Linux users of you are guilty of yourself! I'm thinking in particular of the 1337 h4x0r attitude. While a number of Linux lusers have been guilty of this in the past I'm seeing more and more BSD lusers doing the same thing. By bashing Linux! "I'm so 1337 u 1inUx users 5ucK! Switch to BSD! It's awesome. It doesn't suck like linux!"
So please shut up and stop being hypocrits. BSD is great but so is Linux. Get over it! No one wants to hear your whining.
Now someone please mod this post as offtopic.
P.S Oh and for the record. Regarding my first paragraph: I'm also sick of hearing Linux users bash MS.
<more_sarcasm>Now that e-tailers have been brought back to reality and Napster is dead for all practical purposes, there's still no reason for broadband. No need for the convenience and power of having all the world's information at your fingertips. No reason why an AOL dialup account can't satisfy all your surfing needs.</more_sarcasm>
Like d00d! U can't be serious! What about the pr0n ?!? We NEED broadband for the pr0n !!!! Oh PLEEZE don't take away my pr0n !!!
--
Garett
Re:The problem with frequent kernel releases
on
2.4.9 Kernel Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Some already pointed this out but it was only a minor point in his/her post. It is _the_ point for mine so I will rant entirely about it.
The only kernel releases that should break applications are the major and minor releases (not the patch/bugfix releases). If you have an app that works with 2.4.7 (for example) and breaks with 2.4.8 then either your app is broken or it's a driver issue where the maintainer fucked up. Which seemed to be what happened to me with Q3A and the SB Live! drivers in 2.4.8. Although I'm not certain wether it's an issue with the drivers or Q3A.
The patch level releases fix bugs. Sometimes serious bugs. So you should be greatful that they come out as fast as they do. The minor releases (2.2-2.4) only come out every couple of years so I would hardly consider that "Too fast! OMG I can't keep up!".
I'm sorry but you're very off. To succesfully program on a computer system there is only one program that you need: assembly.
When it all boils down it you get assembly. All programs execute CPU instructions. And while those instructions may be just 1's and 0's I don't consider the binary numeral system to be a "programming language". Instead it's just assembly instructions being represented as binary numbers.
Heck, even interpreted languages may not translate directly into assembly, but their interpreters still execute assembly the desired assembly instructions on the CPU.
Well, as long as the interpreters are compiled anyway. I suppose you _could_ have an interpreted interpreter. Heh that got me thinking: a ruby interpreter which is written in python which is interpreted by a perl script which is interprted by a PERL implementation in Java. Oh no! I'm goign to give my self nightmares!
Anyway to bring this dumb rant to a close and to get back on topic: When it all boils down to it the only language that you _need_ to get by is assembly.
2. AFAIK, ripping to ogg is a 2 step process, save the track as a wav, then encode to ogg. This is 5 times slower than modern CD to mp3 rippers. And with my massive mp3s sitting there, I'd like to have a program that could convert from mp3 to ogg. Maybe there is a way to convert mp3 to wav to ogg in a bash script. I really haven't researched it.
AFAIK it's the same for mp3s. If any cd rippers skip that step then the same can be done with.ogg. But I do know for _sure_ that grip rips to wav and then encodes as mp3.
As a matter of fact, mp3 is a compression scheme for wav format. So it _must_ be converted from wav. Any cd ripper that skips that probably does it as an illusion. For example: rips a 32k buffer, converts to wav while in memory and then to mp3 without saving the entire song as a wav on disk first.
When service was down, I would ping my subnet's default gateway, and not receive a response. I subscribe to 2 IPs, on different subnets, and they've both been affected at various different times.
But when that happens the light on the cable modem goes out. So it wasn't router issues.
Personally, I feel that if this continues, @Home needs to credit me back part of my subscription fee.
Yeah I'm thinking of switching to DSL personally. I know that this particular situation was not @home's fault (well, that is up for debate since if they didn't deploy IIS none of this would happen) but I've been experiencing really shitty service ever since I subscribed. A lot of down time really often.
Slow service? I don't know about other @home customers (I'd like to hear) but my net connection was completely _down_ for about 8 hours this afternoon. As a matter of fact I just got back on.
The interesting thing was that the "cable" light on my cable modem was still on when usually when I can't get on the net it is off.
So I wonder what the problem really was. If maybe the routers were all up but the dhcp servers were down or something....
Yeah well the thing that gets to me the most is people's ignorance regarding encryption and "copy protection".
I do not understand, as much as I've tried, how it can possibly be conceived that encrypting something prevents it from being copied. It doesn't. Therefore I do not see how something that unencrypts something can be considered a "copyright circumvention device".
Let's say that Mary has an e-book and she wants to share it with John. How does she do this? She makes a copy of it. Now the supposed problem here is that her e-book is encrypted right? Wrong. There is no problem. When she makes a copy is encrypted but when John loads it into his e-book ta-da! He can read it because his e-book unencrypts it in order to display it!
Encrypted or not you can still make copies so how is software that unencrypts a piece of data considered a "copyright circumvention device"?
Slashdot Mirror
whoa there buddy slow down.
I'm not trying to say that their deaths didn't matter. By "only 12" I mean that if terrorists are trying to kill a whole bunch of people then chemical and biological weapons just aren't what they need.
Out of thousands there were 12 who died. From a terrorists perspective this would be a failure if their goal was to kill "a whole shit load of people". Just look at the Oklahoma city bombing, and the Sep. 11 attacks. They were much more effective than any biological or chemical attack to date.
I feel bad for anyone who dies at the hands of someone else. I was not trying to say that because only 12 died that it didn't mean anything as you seemed to have interpreted.
--
Garett
Okay, I'm very sick of the media and government trying to scare people by making them believe that they are at threat from biological and chemical weapons used by terrorists.
The fact of the matter is that biological and chemical weapons just aren't practical. They are pretty fucking dangerous, I won't argue that. But they are very impractical as weapons of mass destruction.
For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed. 12 out of thousands. A success? I say no.
You see, first of all it takes a lot of money and people with very huge educations just to produce the stuff. Then it is incredibly hard and dangerous to transport it. You run the risk of infecting yourself.
But the real reason that we aren't going to see a whole lot of these attacks is because the payload just isn't high enough. After spending millions of dollars to produce the stuff, expending a couple chemists who died in the shitty-ass lab in afghanistan producing it you've only killed a couple people. It's much cheaper, easier and kills a lot more people to just set off a bomb in some building.
But what about just making people sick? After all there was something like 5500 people pooring into the hospitals in tokyo after the sarin gass. Well what they didn't tell you is that 90% of those people were just people who panicked because they were in the subway that day and wanted to get checked out.
And don't forget that before that incident the same terrorist group had tried to use anthrax. They sprayed the shit off a building onto a group of civilians and no one was infected by it.
I read a good article about this written by a phd in microbiology. It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed. You can read it here.
--
Garett
Meanwhile, in an RMS office somewhere:
"Okay, so Windows 2001 it is then."
No, that's GNU/Windows 2001.
--
Garett
Yes, but are you still putting money into their pockets?
The day that new cd's contain wma encoded song formats I will no longer put money into their pocket.
More to the point, has their over-all profitability been decreased as a result of these "stupid" decisions?
I think so. During the whole napster craze I bought a whole shit load of new cds. For example: Esthero. I liked one of her songs so I downloaded it using napster and then decided I wanted to hear some of her other stuff. I found out that I liked her so much that I went out and bought her album. The same thing happened with Rage Against the Machine. I went out and bought every single one of their albums because I found out that liked them so much.
I would not have done this without napster.
Well, napster is gone for the most part. I still go on openNap servers but all I can find are hits. No more "other stuff". So I don't buy as many cds as I did before the RIAA went after napster.
So I agree with the original poster. The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot and they are being ignorant about it. The worst part is that because of their ignorance they are going to keep losing more and more money and they will keep blaming it on piracy when that's really not the issue.
--
Garett
Yeah it's pretty much equivalent to buying a Britney Spears cd, except you don't have to pay for it.
--
Garett
but i SWEAR TO GOD there have been none more idiotic than those of the RIAA. They are literally shooting themselves in their feet OVER and OVER AGAIN, and they act like they don't even realize it!!!
I just heard on the news last week that record sales were down quite drastically in the last couple months. I find this hilarious considering that they went after napster because it was supposedly hurting sales, when really sales were up during the whole napster craze.
Well they get what they deserve. Napster is gone and record sales are down, just like the their own statistics told them were going to happen.
I don't understand this phenomenon relating to human stupidity any more than you do.
--
Garett
I know. I wasn't trying to say that they were. It just sounded that way.
I'm prefectly aware that XEmacs started as Lucid Emacs. Lucid being a company (that employed the infamous Jamie Zawinsky of mosaic/netscape/aol fame) who went out of business quite a while ago. Although the only thing I'm not clear on is when it turned into XEmacs and when the FSF decided to do some sort of merge to make them "compatible".
But even though they are completely different editors I still think of XEmacs as "Emacs for X11".
--
Garett
The two editors evolved differently. Vim started as 100% compatible vi clone with extra features, while emacs was an attempt to create a 100% free (as in speech) text editor when the alternatives were vi (closed source commercial implementations), pico etc.
So in a nutshell here are the differences:
o Emacs uses lisp to completely customize the editor. Vim uses it's own little scripting language to do syntax highlighting, create shortcuts etc...
o Vim is just an editor. Emacs will do everything except pick your nose (ei: check e-mail, surf the net, even play games). You can also write Emacs extensions with emacs-lisp to get it to pick your nose if you really want it to.
o The interface is quite different. Vim (like vi) has editing mode and command mode. Emacs just has editing mode. Both are command-driven though unless you use gvim or XEmacs - in that case you get an X11 user interface.
There are lots of other differences feature wise but these are the big ones. The best suggestion I can give you is to just try both. They are both relatively hard to learn since you have to memorize a lot of commands. But once you have them down pat they easily become two of the best text editors available.
One thing to note though: because they are hard to learn it's suggested that you only pick them up if you do a LOT of text-editing (programmers for example). They really are programmers editors and not for people who just want to create the odd ascii file. Do not use them expecting something like notepad for windows. If you do you will hate them.
--
Garett
I applaud them for leaving them out. They're terribly insecure. People should use ssh instead.
He was talking about the clients, not the servers. While I agree with your comment about insecurity you don't have security problems with the clients. I also happen to use ftp and telnet all the time. This does not make things any less secure (and I should point out that I am a security freak, choosing ssh over those almost 100% of the time).
An example: I was just using the ftp client to log into various anonymous ftp servers that I know of to see if they have the Mandrake 8.1 iso images before using wget to grab them.
I also use telnet all the time to debug http and smtp problems. When there's a problem with my e-mail, for example, (pop3 + fetchmail + postfix + procmail + pine) and it's not something obvious (like the net connection is down) then I'll check the mail server like so:
$ telnet mail_server 110
USER my_user
USER my_pass
LIST
....
RETR
....
QUIT
So if those tools are not present on any unix box that I'm using then there's a problem.
--
Garett
The other thing that should be pointed out is that 90% (usually more though) of the software that's installed on a Linux system isn't the product of the company that's selling it.
This is important because the MS issue is that they are forcing their product to be used instead of a competing one.
--
Garett
It seems that people are just looking for a simple answer to a very complex question.
Usually when this happens (from my observation) people point fingers at the easy targets (muslims and arabs for example). This is just another case.
The majority of people (72%) just don't understand "new" technology in general and how it works. The possiblity of terrorists using encryption and e-mail and the internet scares the shit out of them. So it's very easy for them to say that modifying those technologies to allow police to easily "snoop on them" will help. When in fact they just don't know because they don't understand how it works.
This scares me because - with a few exceptions - in a democracy what the majority of the people want will happen (well in a true democracy it should anyway). So it won't surprise me if we see bills passed that will require this kind of thing to take place.
But I hope I'm wrong....
--
Garett
I can't agree with that.
Public Domain, contrary to popular belief, is not a copyright, not a license, not a anything. It is basically saying that "This code no longer belongs to me. I am relinquishing all rights to call it my own. It now belongs to the public".
So I could take any public domain software and call it my own without modifying it. Because public domain is the "giving up any rights to the work".
Basically what I want in a license is credit where credit is due. I want the world to know that I wrote my code, but at the same time alow them to use it for whatever the hell they want. So basically my thinking is "Since I don't make money off the code I write on my spare time I don't care if anyone else makes money off of it. But I at least want credit for doing the work".
So the public domain is not a good idea for a "licence". That's why most public domain software is generally just an implementation of a popular algorithm, or a proof of concept etc.
--
Garett
a) the hijackers were heard speaking in Arab-accented broken English
Whats your source? I'm not believing much of what I hear on the news regarding the calls from within the plane. With so much shit going on (like the entire world being on alert) the rumour mill is working overtime. The cellphone calls to 911 from the plane can not be trusted. They weren't released by the FBI AFAIK and they were never played on the news. All I heard about the cellphone calls were from news anchors. No recordings what-so-ever. And every story I hear about the calls is different. I'm assuming that whatever I hear about the calls are just rumour.
I could be wrong about this one though.
2) there were flight manuals, in Arabic, in one of their car's
Fist of all, you can not prove that the cars belonged to the highjackers. Secondly from what I hear you have to train for a pretty long time to learn how to fly an 757/67 in a flight simulator. You can not fly it by reading a book. As a matter of fact I doubt there is such a thing as a flight manual for that kind of a plane. So I do not buy that story for a second.
3) at least one had a Koran
Where are the pictures? How do you know? Have you seen footage from within the flight? I haven't.
4) they were apparently from Arab countries
This is an assumption. Which is my point.
--
Garett
Do you think it's possable to get rid of ALL the terorist groups? That would mean declaring war on ALL third world countries, and then every country that envies us...
Why do you think that terrorists are only from thrid-world countries. And why do you consider Afghanistan, Iraq etc. thrid-world?
It's very arrogant IMO to be so sure that whoever did this horrible attack wasn't right from the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this was the case. Hell, it could even be the pilots themselves and the planes never were highjacked to begin with (although I guess some cellphone calls that occured from within the planes show evidence to support a highjack).
I won't be surprised either if it turns out to be a terrorist group from the middle east.. Just please don't jump to conclusions. That's what's going to make life hell for a lot of American and Canadian Arabs in the the comming times.
--
Garett
I never said that you were wrong. I don't believe that you were wrong. Where did you get that impression from?
Did you even read my post?
--
Garett
His post was the troll, not mine. Explanation:
My post offered a honest opinion (in a purposefully-loud tone) and gave facts and explanations to back it up.
All he did was bash Linux. He mentioned how BSD had USB before Linux in an attempt to make linux look inferior. Then he offered a rude joke that bashed MS and Linux and made BSD come out favourable. What he essentially did was offered an opposed opinion with nothing to back it up in an attempt to aggravate his "target".
IMHO his post was troll-like. Mine was rude and flameful, but it was well though-out, had a point and was not meant to offend anyone. It was meant to simply to point out how annoyed I was at his post.
--
Garett
Will someone please hurry up and mod this freak a troll please, I'm all out of mod points! I'm very sick and tired of hearing BSD zealots bash linux.
I have nothing against BSD. As a matter of fact I LOVE BSD. I have deployed all the major BSD variants (Free, NET and Open) and their merits are undisputable. But for crying out loud this flaming is FUCKING ANNOYING!
And the funny thing is that what you guys accuse Linux users of you are guilty of yourself! I'm thinking in particular of the 1337 h4x0r attitude. While a number of Linux lusers have been guilty of this in the past I'm seeing more and more BSD lusers doing the same thing. By bashing Linux! "I'm so 1337 u 1inUx users 5ucK! Switch to BSD! It's awesome. It doesn't suck like linux!"
So please shut up and stop being hypocrits. BSD is great but so is Linux. Get over it! No one wants to hear your whining.
Now someone please mod this post as offtopic.
P.S Oh and for the record. Regarding my first paragraph: I'm also sick of hearing Linux users bash MS.
--
Garett
Like d00d! U can't be serious! What about the pr0n ?!? We NEED broadband for the pr0n !!!! Oh PLEEZE don't take away my pr0n !!!
--
Garett
The only kernel releases that should break applications are the major and minor releases (not the patch/bugfix releases). If you have an app that works with 2.4.7 (for example) and breaks with 2.4.8 then either your app is broken or it's a driver issue where the maintainer fucked up. Which seemed to be what happened to me with Q3A and the SB Live! drivers in 2.4.8. Although I'm not certain wether it's an issue with the drivers or Q3A.
The patch level releases fix bugs. Sometimes serious bugs. So you should be greatful that they come out as fast as they do. The minor releases (2.2-2.4) only come out every couple of years so I would hardly consider that "Too fast! OMG I can't keep up!".
</rant>
--
Garett
I'm sorry but you're very off. To succesfully program on a computer system there is only one program that you need: assembly.
When it all boils down it you get assembly. All programs execute CPU instructions. And while those instructions may be just 1's and 0's I don't consider the binary numeral system to be a "programming language". Instead it's just assembly instructions being represented as binary numbers.
Heck, even interpreted languages may not translate directly into assembly, but their interpreters still execute assembly the desired assembly instructions on the CPU.
Well, as long as the interpreters are compiled anyway. I suppose you _could_ have an interpreted interpreter. Heh that got me thinking: a ruby interpreter which is written in python which is interpreted by a perl script which is interprted by a PERL implementation in Java. Oh no! I'm goign to give my self nightmares!
Anyway to bring this dumb rant to a close and to get back on topic: When it all boils down to it the only language that you _need_ to get by is assembly.
Thank you.
--
Garett
AFAIK it's the same for mp3s. If any cd rippers skip that step then the same can be done with .ogg. But I do know for _sure_ that grip rips to wav and then encodes as mp3.
As a matter of fact, mp3 is a compression scheme for wav format. So it _must_ be converted from wav. Any cd ripper that skips that probably does it as an illusion. For example: rips a 32k buffer, converts to wav while in memory and then to mp3 without saving the entire song as a wav on disk first.
--
Garett
How it works (I don't live in the U.S):
Every byte in the pdf file is XOR'd with every letter of the word "encrypted".
#define key "encrypted"
while((c = get_byte()) {
for(i = 0; i < strlen(key); i++)
c ^= key[i];
}
It's basically just as secure as Rot-X, but it's definitely not Rot-13 (although Rot-13 was mentioned in the presentation).
So if they wanted to they could use a different key per e-book, but according to Dmitri's presentation they don't.
--
Garett
But when that happens the light on the cable modem goes out. So it wasn't router issues.
Personally, I feel that if this continues, @Home needs to credit me back part of my subscription fee.
Yeah I'm thinking of switching to DSL personally. I know that this particular situation was not @home's fault (well, that is up for debate since if they didn't deploy IIS none of this would happen) but I've been experiencing really shitty service ever since I subscribed. A lot of down time really often.
--
Garett
The interesting thing was that the "cable" light on my cable modem was still on when usually when I can't get on the net it is off.
So I wonder what the problem really was. If maybe the routers were all up but the dhcp servers were down or something....
Anyone else have similar problems?
--
Garett
I do not understand, as much as I've tried, how it can possibly be conceived that encrypting something prevents it from being copied. It doesn't. Therefore I do not see how something that unencrypts something can be considered a "copyright circumvention device".
Let's say that Mary has an e-book and she wants to share it with John. How does she do this? She makes a copy of it. Now the supposed problem here is that her e-book is encrypted right? Wrong. There is no problem. When she makes a copy is encrypted but when John loads it into his e-book ta-da! He can read it because his e-book unencrypts it in order to display it!
Encrypted or not you can still make copies so how is software that unencrypts a piece of data considered a "copyright circumvention device"?
--
Garett