He certainly has a "right" to do so, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Try going to the microsoft campus and telling them all how evil they are. You may have a "right" to do so, but a little thought will reveal that this is not the most efficient use of time. The ACs tone was inflammatory and provocative, a well reasoned argument showing the good and bad side of Linux would not be flamed. They asked for it.
#1 You KNOW we don't take trolling ACs seriously. If you have something to say at least identify yourself.
#2 "Microsoft is not just out to make money. They have done a lot of good things for the PC." Yeah, we're really thankful for our daily reboots.
#3 "arcane command line strings are NOT the most intuitive way to use a computer" Ever heard of KDE or Gnome?
As for your other points... yeah yeah whatever. Thats your opinion and I can respect that, but WHAT exactly are you trying to prove? You know most people here don't agree with you( if you didn't realize that then you have a serious problem) so what are trying to achieve? This is very childish behavior.
So why don't you run along to www.microsoft.com and have a good time, OK?
Why don't you log in AC? Perhaps because you know you are trolling? Why else do you hide?
I have no problem with discussions about MS but not on slashdot. Go to microsoft.com or MSDN, I am sure they have press releases. Over here, you are just very delibarately TROLLING.
I agree, I was just rereading the Halloween documents, and I remembered the bit about "decomoditizing protocols." MS is trying to act as if they want standards here, when they have clearly stated in the past that having "commodity" protocols is not one of their long term goals.
There are some more details on the "wonderful" proposals. They are for our own good, right? HA HA! http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl ?/features/990531ucita.htm Or click here
Is reverse engineering legal?
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Just wondering, is reverse engineering legal now? Is it legal to take a working (proprietary)program, disassemble it and publish the source code on the web?
I agree. I mean imagine if not only is the software unreliable and expensive, it gives M$ the right to come and shut down all your NT servers whenever they feel like it! THAT will help me guarantee reliable service....
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is only my understanding of this proposal, I guess they'll need SOME kind of excuse to actually shut you down but STILL.....
All the more reason to use OSS
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
You know Linus and Alan are not going to get off their terminals long enough to sue your ass!
Seriously, how can you run something mission critical with software that can be legally yanked at anytime? Even the suits will be able to understand this.
The journalist shows the usual cluelessness (a)Linux doesn't have a GUI - please! b)Linux is hard to install - no OS is easy to install) and Alan sets him straight. I was also interested to hear Alan's comments about the suits delaying releasing product until the PR guys prepare a spin. Very typical of bureaucrats.
Overall not a bad article. Though Alan's appearance might scare off a few "corporate sponsors";) But who cares......
Yes, I see how the most economically, militarily, and politically powerful country on earth is "crippled." Not to mention the scientific and cultural influence of the US (assuming thats what you are talking about). I simply fail to understand how the US is crippled.
"That national labs have better technology than the technology industry is probably the best indictment of how much taxation has hindered the development and spread of technology. If these companies didn't have to spend so much on taxes, accountants to calculate them, their support staff, and lawyers and their support staff, they could devote those funds to lowering costs or further research."
Point well taken, but my understanding is that the National labs and agencies such as NASA can focus on research that would simply not be cost effective for the private sector. For example a company might find that it can take a man to Mars for 4 billion bucks, but realize they can only get 1 billion dollars in revenue, and thus find the venture unprofitable. Same thing for high energy physics; it's useful but not economical for the private sector. Government agencies have no such constraints, and thus can investigate new technologies that are not yet ready for commercial application. Once the megabucks have been invested by the National Labs (at great financial loss) any marketable new technologies can then be developed by the commercial sector and mass produced.
I disagree, the fact that they misunderstand us will only add to our hipness. Furthermore it will give us a certain "bad ass" quality (those all powerful, dark, menacing hackers - you don't wanna mess with them!) that is not to be dismissed. Otherwise we'll just be a bunch of guys who sit in front of terminals way too much. No, we will remain the somewhat mysterious and misunderstood brotherhood/sisterhood of HACKERS.
Ok I just checked now at 5:24pm EST and the official page is back. Now a very embarrassed/upset sysadmin has to restore the system from backup (to make sure security has not been compromised). This may be funny to us, but lets spare a thought for the guy who has to do all the work;)
Thanks Aron, I knew I had mixed up copyrights, patents and trademarks terribly. Ok, so all of the above cover "specific" instances and not the "general" case of the "idea."
Thats better, but I still think it should be limited somehow, for the overall benefit of society.
And yes, the money should go to the inventor/creator not some money hungry distributor who benefits from an artificial monopoly.
New proposal:different time limits on patents depending on the industry involved. e.g 1 year for tech(computer), 5 years for drugs etc. This could/should encourage faster innovation.
1. OK, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) but I believe that copyright law will have to be seriously adjusted in this digital age. Simply put, copying and transmitting most information is now WAY too easy. Its hard to regulate it and any attempt to do so causes major inconvenience.
2.I think a solution is reducing some of the rights of copyright holders and then rigidly enforcing those rights that remain. I think the whole concept of "owning" ideas is pretty strange anyway. So if I think up a cure to cancer that means I "own" this idea? And people can die left and right if I don't feel like letting them use "my" idea?
3. Certainly you should be allowed to profit from your idea, but I propose copyrights should be limited to 1 year. After that all bets are off. This will be a much cleaner implementation and during that year the copyright can be rigidly enforced and stiff fines levied.
4. OK, this idea probably has a lot of holes in it, but the concept of anyone owning an idea "forever" is deeply troublesome. I mean even if you are the creator, if you didn't want to share you could have taken your idea with you to the grave. Lets see how much profit you would have gotten then...
1.I don't need their damn "guidance." I can form a better opinion scrolling through 20 +2 comments on slashdot than in reading a 8 page opinion in wired. I will get every point of view, some NEW information (possibly from the people actually involved), and eventually form my own opinion.
2. As far as the TRUTH what is the TRUTH? IMHO all we have is evidence (with different degrees of reliability) and different opinions about it. Just because Bob Metcalfe thinks something doesn't make it true. No one is an oracle and if you made a good call in the past that does not mean you are going to do it again.
3. To sum it up, I don't need or want your OPINION. How many times has main stream opinion been totally clueless about things? Just give me the HARD DATA thank you, and then I can actually THINK.
4. This also ties in with some ideas about fault - tolerance (why should I rely on one "voice of reason" when I can sample from millions of minds? -what are the respective chances of failure?)and the postmodern fractured society we live in (what makes your TRUTH more important than any other TRUTH? -The fact that you're CNN?).
5. I think there will be a big explosion in weblogs in the next few years on every subject conceivable. Thats what the people want, give them the information and they will find what they want. Not some precanned editorials.
Slashdot Mirror
He certainly has a "right" to do so, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Try going to the microsoft campus and telling them all how evil they are. You may have a "right" to do so, but a little thought will reveal that this is not the most efficient use of time. The ACs tone was inflammatory and provocative, a well reasoned argument showing the good and bad side of Linux would not be flamed. They asked for it.
#1 You KNOW we don't take trolling ACs seriously. If you have something to say at least identify yourself.
... yeah yeah whatever. Thats your opinion and I can respect that, but WHAT exactly are you trying to prove? You know most people here don't agree with you( if you didn't realize that then you have a serious problem) so what are trying to achieve? This is very childish behavior.
#2 "Microsoft is not just out to make money. They have done a lot of good things for the PC."
Yeah, we're really thankful for our daily reboots.
#3 "arcane command line strings are NOT the most intuitive way to use a computer"
Ever heard of KDE or Gnome?
As for your other points
So why don't you run along to www.microsoft.com and have a good time, OK?
Why don't you log in AC? Perhaps because you know you are trolling? Why else do you hide?
I have no problem with discussions about MS but not on slashdot. Go to microsoft.com or MSDN, I am sure they have press releases. Over here, you are just very delibarately TROLLING.
I agree, I was just rereading the Halloween documents, and I remembered the bit about "decomoditizing protocols." MS is trying to act as if they want standards here, when they have clearly stated in the past that having "commodity" protocols is not one of their long term goals.
There are some more details on the "wonderful" proposals. They are for our own good, right? HA HA!l ?/features/990531ucita.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.p
Or click here
Just wondering, is reverse engineering legal now?
Is it legal to take a working (proprietary)program, disassemble it and publish the source code on the web?
I agree. I mean imagine if not only is the software unreliable and expensive, it gives M$ the right to come and shut down all your NT servers whenever they feel like it! THAT will help me guarantee reliable service....
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is only my understanding of this proposal, I guess they'll need SOME kind of excuse to actually shut you down but STILL.....
You know Linus and Alan are not going to get off their terminals long enough to sue your ass!
Seriously, how can you run something mission critical with software that can be legally yanked at anytime? Even the suits will be able to understand this.
Anonymizer.com is BLOCKED!
I only started reading /. in January and this has
been bugging me. Is it some MS related thing?
The journalist shows the usual cluelessness (a)Linux doesn't have a GUI - please! b)Linux is hard to install - no OS is easy to install) and Alan sets him straight. I was also interested to hear Alan's comments about the suits delaying releasing product until the PR guys prepare a spin. Very typical of bureaucrats.
;) But who cares......
Overall not a bad article. Though Alan's appearance might scare off a few "corporate sponsors"
Yes, I see how the most economically, militarily, and politically powerful country on earth is "crippled." Not to mention the scientific and cultural influence of the US (assuming thats what you are talking about). I simply fail to understand how the US is crippled.
"It took them out to figure out this long?"
I think you mean:
"It took them that long to figure this out?"
Thats much better;)
"That national labs have better technology than the technology industry is probably the best indictment of how much taxation has hindered the development and spread of technology. If these companies didn't have to spend so much on taxes, accountants to calculate them, their support staff, and lawyers and their support staff, they could devote those funds to lowering costs or further research."
Point well taken, but my understanding is that the National labs and agencies such as NASA can focus on research that would simply not be cost effective for the private sector. For example a company might find that it can take a man to Mars for 4 billion bucks, but realize they can only get
1 billion dollars in revenue, and thus find the venture unprofitable. Same thing for high energy physics; it's useful but not economical for the private sector. Government agencies have no such constraints, and thus can investigate new technologies that are not yet ready for commercial
application. Once the megabucks have been invested
by the National Labs (at great financial loss) any marketable new technologies can then be developed by the commercial sector and mass produced.
Do you have statistics to back that up? More specifically, do you think things would have been better without welfare? How? Just curious.....
WILL THEY RUN LINUX?
Coz if they don't they are Totally Useless(tm);)
Hehehehehe..........
I have not found anything wrong with his selections so far, I mean even Taco and Hemos post some wierd stories.
However, I found the best stories got posted by CowBoyNeal when the GeekComplex shut down. Maybe we should regularly cut Taco and Hemos' power supply?
Yeah, I guess the "bad ass" quality thing has its downside. Still I'll never call myself a member of the "digerati". That sounds positively puerile.
I disagree, the fact that they misunderstand us will only add to our hipness. Furthermore it will give us a certain "bad ass" quality (those all powerful, dark, menacing hackers - you don't wanna mess with them!) that is not to be dismissed. Otherwise we'll just be a bunch of guys who sit in front of terminals way too much. No, we will remain the somewhat mysterious and misunderstood brotherhood/sisterhood of HACKERS .
Ok I just checked now at 5:24pm EST and the official page is back. Now a very embarrassed/upset sysadmin has to restore the system from backup (to make sure security has not been compromised). This may be funny to us, but lets spare a thought for the guy who has to do all the work;)
http://www.ipv6.inner.net/ipv6
I couldn't access it of course.
If more sites like this emerge, demand for ipv6 will increase correspondingly.
I don't think there's anything interesting there, but I wanna know for sure dammit!
Maybe all the SETI guys are at the beach. (California + Independece Day)
Or maybe the Melmacs want to make sure we find and return Alf.....
Thanks Aron, I knew I had mixed up copyrights, patents and trademarks terribly. Ok, so all of the above cover "specific" instances and not the "general" case of the "idea."
Thats better, but I still think it should be limited somehow, for the overall benefit of society.
And yes, the money should go to the inventor/creator not some money hungry distributor who benefits from an artificial monopoly.
New proposal:different time limits on patents depending on the industry involved. e.g 1 year for tech(computer), 5 years for drugs etc. This could/should encourage faster innovation.
1. OK, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) but I believe that copyright law will have to be seriously adjusted in this digital age. Simply put, copying and transmitting most information is now WAY too easy. Its hard to regulate it and any attempt to do so causes major inconvenience.
2.I think a solution is reducing some of the rights of copyright holders and then rigidly enforcing those rights that remain. I think the whole concept of "owning" ideas is pretty strange anyway. So if I think up a cure to cancer that means I "own" this idea? And people can die left and right if I don't feel like letting them use "my" idea?
3. Certainly you should be allowed to profit from your idea, but I propose copyrights should be limited to 1 year. After that all bets are off. This will be a much cleaner implementation and during that year the copyright can be rigidly enforced and stiff fines levied.
4. OK, this idea probably has a lot of holes in it, but the concept of anyone owning an idea "forever" is deeply troublesome. I mean even if you are the creator, if you didn't want to share you could have taken your idea with you to the grave. Lets see how much profit you would have gotten then...
1.I don't need their damn "guidance." I can form a better opinion scrolling through 20 +2 comments on slashdot than in reading a 8 page opinion in wired. I will get every point of view, some NEW information (possibly from the people actually involved), and eventually form my own opinion.
2. As far as the TRUTH what is the TRUTH? IMHO all we have is evidence (with different degrees of reliability) and different opinions about it. Just because Bob Metcalfe thinks something doesn't make it true. No one is an oracle and if you made a good call in the past that does not mean you are going to do it again.
3. To sum it up, I don't need or want your OPINION. How many times has main stream opinion been totally clueless about things? Just give me the HARD DATA thank you, and then I can actually THINK.
4. This also ties in with some ideas about fault - tolerance (why should I rely on one "voice of reason" when I can sample from millions of minds? -what are the respective chances of failure?)and the postmodern fractured society we live in (what makes your TRUTH more important than any other TRUTH? -The fact that you're CNN?).
5. I think there will be a big explosion in weblogs in the next few years on every subject conceivable. Thats what the people want, give them
the information and they will find what they want.
Not some precanned editorials.
----- END OF RANT --------