If this is the case, why don't they start with offering a name of *.gnu.org, for example, linux.gnu.org? It'd be much easier to convince ICANN of the usefuleness of the.gnu domain if there's already a lot of *.gnu.org domains, and they could all be switched over immediately.
I think that the Free Software Foundation is a little late on the ball in supporting the community - they needed to have something like this years before. Unfortunately, most FSF software is done cathedral-style, and that's why Open Source is a stronger idea - because it builds a community. I can get *.sourceforge.net, but GNU has up until now made no moves towards supporting the Free Software community - which is why there isn't one.
I'll support the community that supports me, thank you. In the mean time, push for a.oss for open source software.
Actually, one of the things that the pro-DeCSS movement cites is congressional records of (among others) Orrin Hatch describing what their intent of the DMCA is - which is not what it ended up being. As the article says, Hatch intended to use the DMCA to encourage record labels to embrace electronic distribution. Hatch has always been on the good side of the DMCA debate.
First of all, I think it's horridly bad practice that slashdot will include the first paragaph of the article linked as the entire summary - it should be an actual summary, not just a copy of the article.
Now that I've said that, what Sen. Hatch was saying was that if there is no digital content distrobution by any major record label, there might be antitrust proceedings (he said in a thinly veiled threat). This is a good thing - the industry should not be allowed to conspire to keep major artists off of digital content distrobution.
I'm gonna pick up one of the MP-Trip models - I need something cheap with a capacity greater than a CD - 650 MB with 128 kbit per second is about 10 cds of music - woo hoo!
However, it'd be reaally great if they played multisession CD's (which I don't see listed as an ability) so I can add MP3's at any time - better yet, it'd be great if they supported UDF so I can just drag-and-drop arrange/take off/add files at any time. Sadly, that isn't here yet... in the meantime, I'm just going to enjoy what I get.
Expect this law to be modified soon: within the next few years, traditional casinos will want to jump on the internet bandwagon. We all know how much money in $state_capital and Washington comes from gambling, so expect the law to be modified to allow internet gambling of sites that are licensed to provide gambling in meatspace. That way, the traditional casinos can get in on the act without having that nasty competition.
My question is, does the law say "Internet" or just "computer network"? A lot of casinos have computer networks that they use to hook up the slot machines... maybe those are illegal? Either that, or can we just change the name of the Internet and avoid all this $#@$ restriction?
This argument reduces to an "adversity breeds genius" type argument - except for the fact that we would have been perfectly happy if SSH just kept its free license! Can you now defend Windows because of... oh... watiminit...
Unfortunately, we need some commercial software to exist (like Windows) because they need to compete with free software. Competition spurs innovation (that's a dirty word now, isn't it?), and non-free software is in many instances, better suited to compete then free software. Whether or not you like Windows, it's got a leg up in ease-of-use to KDE 1/GNOME, and KDE2 is the result.
Competition is good. Changing free software to non-free is bad.
What type of window manager system does the NIC use? X-Window 3.6+
Are they just confused, or are they spewing misinformation? Here's another example: What resolutions does the video support? The NIC displays at 800 x 600 resolution with 65,536 million colors.
Wow, 65,536 million colors... that's an amazing color depth!
I think the link it should be is here, though he answered a bunch of questions in that story. If you browse through his user-info, you'll be able to see all of the informative posts he's made recently...
You mentioned in the second Linux Today article that you intend to integrate TUX with Apache. However, Apache has always been a cross-platform server and is heavily used on *BSD and Solaris. Do you feel that this integration will undermine the portability work of the Apache team, or will it simply provide an incentive for web servers to be running Linux? If you intend to encourage people to move to Linux, can a similar idea as TUX be applied to an SQL server to make up for the speed deficit between Linux SQL servers and Microsoft SQL?
One problem with the Carnivore system is that we can't trust the FBI to only do selective filtering - they need to intercept all messages and then sort out the ones that apply - except we can't trust them not to take my messages with them! The solution is to have your email users use an encrypted mail transport system so that when the FBI requests a wiretap, they are only given the key to decrypt the messages of the account they're looking for. There are a few (but not widely deployed) systems that do this already, but a better one could be possible now that RSA will be expiring soon.
BTW, how does wiretapping interact with encrypted data? What if they tap the email and discover that it's all PGP'ed? Can they brute-force it?
What distinguishes Linux NOW from a simple NFS/NIS based network? For instance, my employer runs a network of Sun Solaris computers, with users authenticated through NIS and home directories mounted on NFS. I can log in at any desktop, from a cheesy SPARCStation Classic to an Ultra 5, and it will appear the same. What functionality does Linux NOW provide that this does not?
Here at XYZ Insurance Corporation, we're proud to announce our new Hacking Insurance - protecting your business interests against hackers!
Hackers have been known to attempt to undermine your business interests with subversive activities like replacing IIS with Apache, and porting your product to Linux. Here's what we offer for protection:
Instant Apache uninstall - we keep secured backup tapes that let you go back to your secure, responsive IIS environment instantly!
Linux replacement - with proprietary tools we can search out Linux computers connected to your network and replace them with secured NT workstations!
Source code security - we offer to help you write Windows-specific code so your developers can never switch to Linux if their hacker instincts flair up! As you can see, hacker insurance has many benifits. Protect your business investments today!
Well, slashdot seems to have permanently removed the article I was looking for (something along the lines of "Napster, Gnutella, et. al. security hole") but one poster in that article detailed a system exactly like this. D'you think they read slashdot?
OT: Why does slashdot remove some articles and never keep them up on the site?
The reason Apples are shown is that one can really see how absolutely ugly and cluttered the Windows user interface is on TV. It's true - there was an article about this a while back - Windows looks ugly and cluttered on-screen, which distracts people from paying attention from what the computer is doing - the point of showing the computer.
Part of the problem is web-sites that use a 0-second refresh. For instance, go to this microsoft site and then try to hit the back button - it won't let you out! So Microsoft.com should also be on that list.
The reason? People are too lazy to return a 302 Moved (like Google does for the I'm Feeling Lucky button) and instead use a meta refresh. Well, it's wrong!
Browser writers (and Mozilla team): Could you let the back button disable the meta-refresh if you accidentaly back onto a meta-refresh page?
Amen - I was just going to suggest that, but you beat me to it. Kurzwiel's Age of Spiritual Machines is an absolutely brilliant piece of work. Brilliant in the rare sense you get when you look at something and you think, "Yeah, that's absolutely correct, I can see it, why didn't I have any clue that that's where things are going before I read this book - it's all so very clear now!" type of thing.
To those that haven't read it, pick up a copy today. (I've got a signed edition from Borders - hehe)
This site needs to get a damn speelchecker. I don't type very well.
Secondly, I'm not a hopeless BeOS weenie. I use Linux just as much. It's just that I'm a programmer, and programmers tend to fall in love with BeOS's elegant design.
This article is definitely flamebait. The whole of the suggestions don't look like they're being serious, but rather being contraversial.
But I'll bite. That's an interesting concept of interacting with information - but a horrible concept of interacting with a computer. Why? A computer is not an object-centered idea. Remember the big push a while ago for "OLE" and "Objectification"-style ideas, where everything turned into an object? Note where they are today - nowhere, and here's why:
A computer is a device that runs programs.
That's an important axiom. It doesn't modify documents, etc. It runs programs. And there's currently no way to create such a document-centered beast out of modern computer technology, because the computer is (at its core) still a device that runs programs. And folders, names, alphabetical orderings, etc. are a perfect metaphor for programming. He states that the current idea is great for programmers - well, that's because the programs they write need to interact with a system - and through our carefully-designed structure, they do it.
It's impossible to throw out the current orginizational concept of computers because any new concept of computing will still function in the same way. It may have abstraction layers hiding the functionality, but it will still function in the same way. What you end up with if you try to create a document-centered model is a system that falls apart, programmaticaly. It doesn't work, because it leaves no room to run the programs. Where do I put Quake III in the document-centered model? It's fine for one application, but what about when I've got fifty, all with their own data files?
When Be, Inc. first started to design their system, they had a flat filesystem, almost exactly as described. No folders. Instead, everything lived in the database. They abandoned that approach because it's almost impossible to build a large-scale device that way. (My Palm Pilot, however, works fine). Instead, they came up with a database system for the filesystem that doesn't throw out the approaches that have been carefully designed to deal with running programs. I can build a query and store it on the desktop that lists all of my BeOS-related bookmarks, and another that lists my Linux-related bookmarks. But they still exist on the filesystem as an item.
Aah, but the politicians and the media won't attend an "on-line event" - this isn't for our own benifit, but for the benifit of others who wouldn't find out on the internet.
This event isn't for ourselves - that'd be preaching to the choir. Rather, it's to try to get attention from the outside world, because they're the people who would go to a meatspace event like this.
Slashdot Mirror
The FSF mandates that to avoid horrable confusion, one should always pronounce the G, as in Guh-New.
That was a joke along the lines of "all of a sudden he's espousing our party line". I guess it was a little obtuse. Sorry.
I think that the Free Software Foundation is a little late on the ball in supporting the community - they needed to have something like this years before. Unfortunately, most FSF software is done cathedral-style, and that's why Open Source is a stronger idea - because it builds a community. I can get *.sourceforge.net, but GNU has up until now made no moves towards supporting the Free Software community - which is why there isn't one.
I'll support the community that supports me, thank you. In the mean time, push for a .oss for open source software.
Actually, one of the things that the pro-DeCSS movement cites is congressional records of (among others) Orrin Hatch describing what their intent of the DMCA is - which is not what it ended up being. As the article says, Hatch intended to use the DMCA to encourage record labels to embrace electronic distribution. Hatch has always been on the good side of the DMCA debate.
Now that I've said that, what Sen. Hatch was saying was that if there is no digital content distrobution by any major record label, there might be antitrust proceedings (he said in a thinly veiled threat). This is a good thing - the industry should not be allowed to conspire to keep major artists off of digital content distrobution.
Check out ZDTV's informative review of the MPTrip player - it'll give you some more information on the device. I would say the MPTrip is more than worth the money myself...
However, it'd be reaally great if they played multisession CD's (which I don't see listed as an ability) so I can add MP3's at any time - better yet, it'd be great if they supported UDF so I can just drag-and-drop arrange/take off/add files at any time. Sadly, that isn't here yet... in the meantime, I'm just going to enjoy what I get.
My question is, does the law say "Internet" or just "computer network"? A lot of casinos have computer networks that they use to hook up the slot machines... maybe those are illegal? Either that, or can we just change the name of the Internet and avoid all this $#@$ restriction?
*groan*
If that's the case, I've just got one simple phrase to remind you of:
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Haven't you people gotten burned by these films more than enough times?
Unfortunately, we need some commercial software to exist (like Windows) because they need to compete with free software. Competition spurs innovation (that's a dirty word now, isn't it?), and non-free software is in many instances, better suited to compete then free software. Whether or not you like Windows, it's got a leg up in ease-of-use to KDE 1/GNOME, and KDE2 is the result.
Competition is good. Changing free software to non-free is bad.
X-Window 3.6+
Are they just confused, or are they spewing misinformation? Here's another example: What resolutions does the video support?
The NIC displays at 800 x 600 resolution with 65,536 million colors.
Wow, 65,536 million colors... that's an amazing color depth!
I think the link it should be is here, though he answered a bunch of questions in that story. If you browse through his user-info, you'll be able to see all of the informative posts he's made recently...
You mentioned in the second Linux Today article that you intend to integrate TUX with Apache. However, Apache has always been a cross-platform server and is heavily used on *BSD and Solaris. Do you feel that this integration will undermine the portability work of the Apache team, or will it simply provide an incentive for web servers to be running Linux? If you intend to encourage people to move to Linux, can a similar idea as TUX be applied to an SQL server to make up for the speed deficit between Linux SQL servers and Microsoft SQL?
BTW, how does wiretapping interact with encrypted data? What if they tap the email and discover that it's all PGP'ed? Can they brute-force it?
Ding - Hit the nail right on the head. It's the More's Law phenomenon - it makes us work harder to sustain the exponential growth of the economy.
What distinguishes Linux NOW from a simple NFS/NIS based network? For instance, my employer runs a network of Sun Solaris computers, with users authenticated through NIS and home directories mounted on NFS. I can log in at any desktop, from a cheesy SPARCStation Classic to an Ultra 5, and it will appear the same. What functionality does Linux NOW provide that this does not?
Hackers have been known to attempt to undermine your business interests with subversive activities like replacing IIS with Apache, and porting your product to Linux. Here's what we offer for protection:
OT: Why does slashdot remove some articles and never keep them up on the site?
The reason Apples are shown is that one can really see how absolutely ugly and cluttered the Windows user interface is on TV. It's true - there was an article about this a while back - Windows looks ugly and cluttered on-screen, which distracts people from paying attention from what the computer is doing - the point of showing the computer.
Apples actually look presentable on-screen.
The reason? People are too lazy to return a 302 Moved (like Google does for the I'm Feeling Lucky button) and instead use a meta refresh. Well, it's wrong!
Browser writers (and Mozilla team): Could you let the back button disable the meta-refresh if you accidentaly back onto a meta-refresh page?
To those that haven't read it, pick up a copy today. (I've got a signed edition from Borders - hehe)
Secondly, I'm not a hopeless BeOS weenie. I use Linux just as much. It's just that I'm a programmer, and programmers tend to fall in love with BeOS's elegant design.
But I'll bite. That's an interesting concept of interacting with information - but a horrible concept of interacting with a computer. Why? A computer is not an object-centered idea. Remember the big push a while ago for "OLE" and "Objectification"-style ideas, where everything turned into an object? Note where they are today - nowhere, and here's why:
A computer is a device that runs programs.
That's an important axiom. It doesn't modify documents, etc. It runs programs. And there's currently no way to create such a document-centered beast out of modern computer technology, because the computer is (at its core) still a device that runs programs. And folders, names, alphabetical orderings, etc. are a perfect metaphor for programming. He states that the current idea is great for programmers - well, that's because the programs they write need to interact with a system - and through our carefully-designed structure, they do it.
It's impossible to throw out the current orginizational concept of computers because any new concept of computing will still function in the same way. It may have abstraction layers hiding the functionality, but it will still function in the same way. What you end up with if you try to create a document-centered model is a system that falls apart, programmaticaly. It doesn't work, because it leaves no room to run the programs. Where do I put Quake III in the document-centered model? It's fine for one application, but what about when I've got fifty, all with their own data files?
When Be, Inc. first started to design their system, they had a flat filesystem, almost exactly as described. No folders. Instead, everything lived in the database. They abandoned that approach because it's almost impossible to build a large-scale device that way. (My Palm Pilot, however, works fine). Instead, they came up with a database system for the filesystem that doesn't throw out the approaches that have been carefully designed to deal with running programs. I can build a query and store it on the desktop that lists all of my BeOS-related bookmarks, and another that lists my Linux-related bookmarks. But they still exist on the filesystem as an item.
This event isn't for ourselves - that'd be preaching to the choir. Rather, it's to try to get attention from the outside world, because they're the people who would go to a meatspace event like this.