I was actually distracted by the fact that most of my house is lit with halogen lamps or fixtures at this point, and I don't actually have a recent LCD. But I was going for "funny", not "informative". The moderators are clearly confused today, if you got funny and I got informative.
When the internet's backbone switched to IPv6, they set it up to tunnel IPv4 over it. That's why most experts still talk about it like it's something in the future. IPv6 is actually faster and more convenient for routing, which is why the backbone routers have already switched. Furthermore, there is support built in for tunnelling your IPv6 over IPv4, so that you can have an IPv4 internal network which works perfectly well with an IPv6 upstream provider (your routers don't have to be very smart; all of the IPv6 traffic is needed to your upstream, which will deal with the IPv6 aspect). Currently, the backbone is tunnelling IPv4 (for most people on the internet) over the IPv6 backbone.
The real reason to switch is that there are a lot of useful special addresses. For example, there is a space of addresses for NICs in ad hoc mode, so you can make a network by connecting a bunch of devices together without needing address assignment at all.
Linux is actually ideal for situations where you want to make solid platforms for running a fixed set of applications. It wouldn't be hard to make hard drive images with a set of office software and a home directory, such that it acts much like a windows box except that you can't possibly alter any of the installed software without the root password. You don't even have to have xterm or an equivalent installed, and the user can't get confused by the unix shell. (For extra fun, install dosemu).
For a small software company, having the source is actually extremely useful, because it's more accurate documentation than any natural language documentation. If you're having some problem, you can often actually identify what the program is doing in that case, and figure out a workaround. If you're used to having that level of access, using software without having the source is like trying to figure out how to operate a VCR from the Consumer Reports review. Even if you can't modify and build the software (or it wouldn't help if you did, because you need to support people running the official version), being able to identify the software's actual quirks, as opposed to the documented ones, is extremely valuable.
Of course, this depends on the code being somewhat clear, which office apps really aren't, and it depends on being able to understand the language the programs are in, which most people can't.
SCO won't learn. The FBI might, on the other hand. Last I heard, fraud was a criminal offense. But chances are that a SCO executive ran into a Google executive at a convention and chatted briefly about Linux, and they haven't actually made any demands. So far, they seem to have avoided actually taking money for any Linux licenses; they keep claiming to be asking people, and they've gotten money from two companies that already had licenses, but individuals trying to buy licenses have been unsuccessful and companies haven't said anything.
SCO isn't really interested in getting money from Google; they're interested in getting press from saying that Google should pay them. Interestingly, when the current court cases resolve that Linux is clean of SCO properly and that SCO is violating the copyrights of probably thousands of individuals and companies, it'll provide good press for Linux on all the successful high-tech companies that use Linux.
Then they bug your house. If they've gone to the trouble of getting a wiretap warrent, they know where you live and can use other techniques if necessary.
Chances are, however, that you won't bother. People caught by wiretaps generally aren't being careful, because people who are being careful don't make incriminating phone calls. They want wiretap abilities because people who aren't being careful do sometimes want a good deal on their phone service, so they might use VoIP.
I think this group sounds more like a street gang than a police force. From what I've heard, organized crime is a popular career for ex-police (I still can't believe there was an FBI agent named Agent Rico who turn into a mafioso. Like, duh, with a name like that...). Since the RIAA has ties to rappers with ties to street gangs, it seems logical that they'd end up that way.
What I want to know is, why would anyone photoshop an image of currency? Don't counterfeiters want their results to be the same as real currency, not different from it? Why is Adobe taking steps to prevent unconvincing forgeries? I suppose this doesn't make any less sense than trying to block DeCSS as a copy protection measure (copies of encrypted DVDs play in anything that would play the original DVDs; CSS prevents duplicating the player, not the DVD).
Actually you can get both in various different colors now. The difference is that duct tape has a nasty evil adhesive which smells bad and gets all over anything you put it on, whereas gaff tape has a nice adhesive that doesn't make an enormous mess.
Ten times less expensive clearly means that, if $X is the cost of a Linux installation, Windows is less expensive by $10X, so Microsoft must be paying you $9X. That doesn't tell you how much it costs to buy a Linux system, but it does tell you how much Microsoft spent on this study...
The most important thing about the stock market is that you can sell your shares at any time, for the going rate. This means that it isn't necessary for a company to have any real value at all (in terms of paying dividends) to have a stock that will make you money. SCO has demonstrated that they can impress the market. Even if everybody agrees that SCO will be out of business in 3 years, it's a good bet that SCOX will go up at some point before then.
SCO's chances in court are unrelated to the value of SCOX. SCOX is a good deal at $10 today if it can be sold for $11 some time next week. SCO's PR only matters to the value of SCOX because it matters to the people who might buy SCOX from you later.
Actually, he's really smart. He's publicly claiming responsibility for doing something right after practically the same thing was found not to be illegal in his country. So Apple (or the RIAA) goes to Norway, and tells them to stop him, and Okokrim tells them that not only do they not want to prosecute, but they have legal precedent that what he's doing isn't a crime.
Sure, the litigation may have not accomplished much, but it did resolve that under current Norwegian law, it's perfectly fine for him to do what he's just done again. It would have been a bad idea for him to wait at all before bringing this to the attention of the public, because then he might be found out after laws are changed.
I bet he's glad now that he got an appeals court descision in his favor, instead of get the original court...
There are people out there who are willing to let various of these slip in favor of cost. Your microwave could easily contain a high-power, high-hear, low-speed, cheap chip, and you wouldn't care. There are relatively few applications where you're going to be doing a lot of processor work, can't burn much power, and are willing to pay to get this.
I suspect that we'll have a much faster stabilization for 2.6.x than we did for previous kernels, because the changes that are destined for 2.6.1 (and beyond) have been in -mm for a while, where people have been testing them. In previous series,.0 is pretty stable, but.1 contained a lot of stuff that had been seen by Linus and nobody else, which generally led to a lot of instability. Now Linus knows better and Andrew Morton has been doing a good job of getting stuff that Linus postponed tested.
Guess I'll have to buy my RA memory and H drive with money from an AT machine, then, so that I can use my X filesystem. Of course, everybody says that window systems shouldn't be used as filesystems, and that old IBM (IB machine?) in the basement's buried. But with more memory in my research assistant, I'll be able to develop a hydrogen drive and take over the world!
In fact, Okokrim essentially had to prosecute him in the first place, because what he did was plausibly against the law, and it's not their job to decide whether things are legal or not. When the lower court decided that what he did (which was never in question) was legal, they had to appeal in order to get a suitable precedent established. Evidentally, they decided that a Supreme Court opinion wasn't necessary.
In any case, Okokrim was probably not all that happy to prosecute a Norwegian citizen at the demands of an insane foreign organization, and they're probably glad to have the precedent that says that this isn't a crime.
It's particularly strange to think that people think being a good orator is a positive characteristic which it is shocking to attribute to anyone who commits atrocities. In fact, it takes a whole lot of skill at something to commit any atrocities, and oratory is about the most common thing, because it can get you a mob, which is just the thing for committing atrocities.
Being a good orator (or being convincing in some medium) is necessary for doing anything on a large scale. Of course Hitler was a fantastic orator. If he weren't, he couldn't have caused much trouble.
If unlicensed copying of copyrighted works doesn't decrease the amount of money that the owners get, what's wrong with it? The reason for copyright to exist in the first place is to make sure that artists get paid. If it is not serving that purpose, then it is entirely pointless (aside from the case of works the author doesn't want distributed in the first place, which are not at issue here).
It is immoral to not compensate the people responsible when you enjoy something. Copying music, getting copied music, and so forth are entirely amoral activities. The transfer of data doesn't hurt or benefit anyone (aside from other people on your network segment, perhaps). No matter what people say, it is not theft, because the owner doesn't lose the item. If I were to steal your bicycle, duplicate it, and return it unharmed and without any wear, you probably wouldn't care at all that I now have a bicycle and didn't before. The manufacturer would probably care that I have a bicycle I didn't pay them for, but if I were to pay them (without getting another bicycle out of the transaction), they'd be satisfied. The moral question is whether people who deserve to get paid get paid. Whether people get their music originally from the CD store or from kazaa, all that matters is that they pay for it in the end. As for whether buying a CD discharges your moral obligation, and whether funding record companies is moral at all, those are separate questions.
I'd suggest a "sidebar" element. About 8 years ago, they ought to have looked at what sorts of semantics were used in existing documents. If they'd read a magazine, they would've realized that there is a need for an element to enclose supplimental information related to the main content. The fact that something is a sidebar is not stylistic information, it's structural information, but they still haven't put it in the part of the standard used to handle structural information.
There still isn't a "footnote" element or a "dropquote" element. The set of structural elements is still insufficient to represent the structural content of most types of documents. For ages, people were stuck writing HTML that used tags that meant different things to make the content look right. Now they're also writing stylesheets which are needed to understnad the content. They've never gotten a good separation between content and presentation, and many of the things they're missing are really simple.
The news, which is evidentally the primary content of the page, is also in its own div element with a hreading and a "skip to next section" link. The only difference is the class of the div element, which is exclusively related to the style.
I think this is what cringley was getting at -- changing linux to reflect the fact that alot of the development is funded by major corporations now instead of hackers working on their free time.
Perhaps, but it's a bit late for him to make predictions about 2001, even if he did have the decency to predict something that didn't happen.
People are reading too much "Web" into this article. I suspect that the only relation to the web that this survey has, or that the article reports, is that the survey was of people who use the web. They aren't confusing the web with the internet at large; they're simply reporting a sample bias (assuming that there are actually people using the internet who aren't active Web surfers).
Or maybe she'll decide to censor the backgrounds. If the police can't tell she was in their jurisdiction, they can't do much.
Of course, I sort of doubt that she was actually naked in a bar and getting photographed without the owner noticing. I'd guess she photographed the bar and herself naked at home, and photoshopped them together. And that means that unwilling people couldn't see her, so it's not public indecency. She ought to show up in court with a set of pictures of her (naked) in places she couldn't possibly have been (the ISS, the moon, meeting a young Nixon, etc.). They're have to exclude the photos from evidence, since they're all from the same source, and some of them are clearly fake.
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually distracted by the fact that most of my house is lit with halogen lamps or fixtures at this point, and I don't actually have a recent LCD. But I was going for "funny", not "informative". The moderators are clearly confused today, if you got funny and I got informative.
All I can say is, if it doesn't come with a Donkey Kong game, it's not right.
When the internet's backbone switched to IPv6, they set it up to tunnel IPv4 over it. That's why most experts still talk about it like it's something in the future. IPv6 is actually faster and more convenient for routing, which is why the backbone routers have already switched. Furthermore, there is support built in for tunnelling your IPv6 over IPv4, so that you can have an IPv4 internal network which works perfectly well with an IPv6 upstream provider (your routers don't have to be very smart; all of the IPv6 traffic is needed to your upstream, which will deal with the IPv6 aspect). Currently, the backbone is tunnelling IPv4 (for most people on the internet) over the IPv6 backbone.
The real reason to switch is that there are a lot of useful special addresses. For example, there is a space of addresses for NICs in ad hoc mode, so you can make a network by connecting a bunch of devices together without needing address assignment at all.
Linux is actually ideal for situations where you want to make solid platforms for running a fixed set of applications. It wouldn't be hard to make hard drive images with a set of office software and a home directory, such that it acts much like a windows box except that you can't possibly alter any of the installed software without the root password. You don't even have to have xterm or an equivalent installed, and the user can't get confused by the unix shell. (For extra fun, install dosemu).
I doubt there are many slashdotters with apartments that aren't in part lit by either CRTs or halogens (such as LCD backlights).
For a small software company, having the source is actually extremely useful, because it's more accurate documentation than any natural language documentation. If you're having some problem, you can often actually identify what the program is doing in that case, and figure out a workaround. If you're used to having that level of access, using software without having the source is like trying to figure out how to operate a VCR from the Consumer Reports review. Even if you can't modify and build the software (or it wouldn't help if you did, because you need to support people running the official version), being able to identify the software's actual quirks, as opposed to the documented ones, is extremely valuable.
Of course, this depends on the code being somewhat clear, which office apps really aren't, and it depends on being able to understand the language the programs are in, which most people can't.
SCO won't learn. The FBI might, on the other hand. Last I heard, fraud was a criminal offense. But chances are that a SCO executive ran into a Google executive at a convention and chatted briefly about Linux, and they haven't actually made any demands. So far, they seem to have avoided actually taking money for any Linux licenses; they keep claiming to be asking people, and they've gotten money from two companies that already had licenses, but individuals trying to buy licenses have been unsuccessful and companies haven't said anything.
SCO isn't really interested in getting money from Google; they're interested in getting press from saying that Google should pay them. Interestingly, when the current court cases resolve that Linux is clean of SCO properly and that SCO is violating the copyrights of probably thousands of individuals and companies, it'll provide good press for Linux on all the successful high-tech companies that use Linux.
Then they bug your house. If they've gone to the trouble of getting a wiretap warrent, they know where you live and can use other techniques if necessary.
Chances are, however, that you won't bother. People caught by wiretaps generally aren't being careful, because people who are being careful don't make incriminating phone calls. They want wiretap abilities because people who aren't being careful do sometimes want a good deal on their phone service, so they might use VoIP.
I think this group sounds more like a street gang than a police force. From what I've heard, organized crime is a popular career for ex-police (I still can't believe there was an FBI agent named Agent Rico who turn into a mafioso. Like, duh, with a name like that...). Since the RIAA has ties to rappers with ties to street gangs, it seems logical that they'd end up that way.
What I want to know is, why would anyone photoshop an image of currency? Don't counterfeiters want their results to be the same as real currency, not different from it? Why is Adobe taking steps to prevent unconvincing forgeries? I suppose this doesn't make any less sense than trying to block DeCSS as a copy protection measure (copies of encrypted DVDs play in anything that would play the original DVDs; CSS prevents duplicating the player, not the DVD).
Actually you can get both in various different colors now. The difference is that duct tape has a nasty evil adhesive which smells bad and gets all over anything you put it on, whereas gaff tape has a nice adhesive that doesn't make an enormous mess.
Ten times less expensive clearly means that, if $X is the cost of a Linux installation, Windows is less expensive by $10X, so Microsoft must be paying you $9X. That doesn't tell you how much it costs to buy a Linux system, but it does tell you how much Microsoft spent on this study...
The most important thing about the stock market is that you can sell your shares at any time, for the going rate. This means that it isn't necessary for a company to have any real value at all (in terms of paying dividends) to have a stock that will make you money. SCO has demonstrated that they can impress the market. Even if everybody agrees that SCO will be out of business in 3 years, it's a good bet that SCOX will go up at some point before then.
SCO's chances in court are unrelated to the value of SCOX. SCOX is a good deal at $10 today if it can be sold for $11 some time next week. SCO's PR only matters to the value of SCOX because it matters to the people who might buy SCOX from you later.
Unfortunately, patching a leak in a space station is somewhat similar to taping a duct. And the only thing that duct tape is bad for is taping ducts.
Actually, he's really smart. He's publicly claiming responsibility for doing something right after practically the same thing was found not to be illegal in his country. So Apple (or the RIAA) goes to Norway, and tells them to stop him, and Okokrim tells them that not only do they not want to prosecute, but they have legal precedent that what he's doing isn't a crime.
Sure, the litigation may have not accomplished much, but it did resolve that under current Norwegian law, it's perfectly fine for him to do what he's just done again. It would have been a bad idea for him to wait at all before bringing this to the attention of the public, because then he might be found out after laws are changed.
I bet he's glad now that he got an appeals court descision in his favor, instead of get the original court...
There are people out there who are willing to let various of these slip in favor of cost. Your microwave could easily contain a high-power, high-hear, low-speed, cheap chip, and you wouldn't care. There are relatively few applications where you're going to be doing a lot of processor work, can't burn much power, and are willing to pay to get this.
I suspect that we'll have a much faster stabilization for 2.6.x than we did for previous kernels, because the changes that are destined for 2.6.1 (and beyond) have been in -mm for a while, where people have been testing them. In previous series, .0 is pretty stable, but .1 contained a lot of stuff that had been seen by Linus and nobody else, which generally led to a lot of instability. Now Linus knows better and Andrew Morton has been doing a good job of getting stuff that Linus postponed tested.
Guess I'll have to buy my RA memory and H drive with money from an AT machine, then, so that I can use my X filesystem. Of course, everybody says that window systems shouldn't be used as filesystems, and that old IBM (IB machine?) in the basement's buried. But with more memory in my research assistant, I'll be able to develop a hydrogen drive and take over the world!
In fact, Okokrim essentially had to prosecute him in the first place, because what he did was plausibly against the law, and it's not their job to decide whether things are legal or not. When the lower court decided that what he did (which was never in question) was legal, they had to appeal in order to get a suitable precedent established. Evidentally, they decided that a Supreme Court opinion wasn't necessary.
In any case, Okokrim was probably not all that happy to prosecute a Norwegian citizen at the demands of an insane foreign organization, and they're probably glad to have the precedent that says that this isn't a crime.
It's particularly strange to think that people think being a good orator is a positive characteristic which it is shocking to attribute to anyone who commits atrocities. In fact, it takes a whole lot of skill at something to commit any atrocities, and oratory is about the most common thing, because it can get you a mob, which is just the thing for committing atrocities.
Being a good orator (or being convincing in some medium) is necessary for doing anything on a large scale. Of course Hitler was a fantastic orator. If he weren't, he couldn't have caused much trouble.
If unlicensed copying of copyrighted works doesn't decrease the amount of money that the owners get, what's wrong with it? The reason for copyright to exist in the first place is to make sure that artists get paid. If it is not serving that purpose, then it is entirely pointless (aside from the case of works the author doesn't want distributed in the first place, which are not at issue here).
It is immoral to not compensate the people responsible when you enjoy something. Copying music, getting copied music, and so forth are entirely amoral activities. The transfer of data doesn't hurt or benefit anyone (aside from other people on your network segment, perhaps). No matter what people say, it is not theft, because the owner doesn't lose the item. If I were to steal your bicycle, duplicate it, and return it unharmed and without any wear, you probably wouldn't care at all that I now have a bicycle and didn't before. The manufacturer would probably care that I have a bicycle I didn't pay them for, but if I were to pay them (without getting another bicycle out of the transaction), they'd be satisfied. The moral question is whether people who deserve to get paid get paid. Whether people get their music originally from the CD store or from kazaa, all that matters is that they pay for it in the end. As for whether buying a CD discharges your moral obligation, and whether funding record companies is moral at all, those are separate questions.
I'd suggest a "sidebar" element. About 8 years ago, they ought to have looked at what sorts of semantics were used in existing documents. If they'd read a magazine, they would've realized that there is a need for an element to enclose supplimental information related to the main content. The fact that something is a sidebar is not stylistic information, it's structural information, but they still haven't put it in the part of the standard used to handle structural information.
There still isn't a "footnote" element or a "dropquote" element. The set of structural elements is still insufficient to represent the structural content of most types of documents. For ages, people were stuck writing HTML that used tags that meant different things to make the content look right. Now they're also writing stylesheets which are needed to understnad the content. They've never gotten a good separation between content and presentation, and many of the things they're missing are really simple.
The news, which is evidentally the primary content of the page, is also in its own div element with a hreading and a "skip to next section" link. The only difference is the class of the div element, which is exclusively related to the style.
I think this is what cringley was getting at -- changing linux to reflect the fact that alot of the development is funded by major corporations now instead of hackers working on their free time.
Perhaps, but it's a bit late for him to make predictions about 2001, even if he did have the decency to predict something that didn't happen.
People are reading too much "Web" into this article. I suspect that the only relation to the web that this survey has, or that the article reports, is that the survey was of people who use the web. They aren't confusing the web with the internet at large; they're simply reporting a sample bias (assuming that there are actually people using the internet who aren't active Web surfers).
Or maybe she'll decide to censor the backgrounds. If the police can't tell she was in their jurisdiction, they can't do much.
Of course, I sort of doubt that she was actually naked in a bar and getting photographed without the owner noticing. I'd guess she photographed the bar and herself naked at home, and photoshopped them together. And that means that unwilling people couldn't see her, so it's not public indecency. She ought to show up in court with a set of pictures of her (naked) in places she couldn't possibly have been (the ISS, the moon, meeting a young Nixon, etc.). They're have to exclude the photos from evidence, since they're all from the same source, and some of them are clearly fake.