Actually, giving Ok, or some other state, to "the indian nations" isn't all that unreasonable of an idea. Most likely it would be completely unworkable, but unreasonable? naw.
I know of many companies that use 802.11 for real world telecomm needs. For one thing, I do. I use it for my current backbone link. It saves me about $10,000 a month on the cost of leased lines. Two antennas, some cable, and two APs, and bam, instant highspeed link.
This stuff works in the real world.
Another example is the wireless ISP. There are a few hundred of them around. They provide connections in the burstable-to-1500kBps range, and are generally quite affordable (~$40-50 a month). Very reliable, too.
The DMCA is only dangerous until someone calls its bluff. I think it's time.
While it may (and, indeed, is) time for it to be struck down, I do not feel that you, or I, or anyone save Mr. Sklyarov, has the right in this juncture to make that decision. It's his freedom, not yours. Do not take that away from him. He deserves it, and so do you. We all do. Never take away anyone's freedom.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
There are many roads that will lead you into the development of games. One is the college route where you get a degree and find a job at a games dev company. Another is to write something so fantasically awesome that you get snapped up by a development house.
Another route is through open source game development projects, most notably WorldForge, a group that has been working for over a year on creating framework software for creating massively multiplayer online roleplaying systems. There are several milestone games detailed on the site, and the entirity of the source is available.
Check 'em out -- it got me into the game development scene.:-)
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Direct Sequence!? What are you thinking? That uses one band to send its transmissions on. I suspect that you actually mean FHSS (Frequence Hopping Spread Spectrum), as this is a much more effective way of 1.) ensuring a transmission gets through (much harder to block/jam), and 2.) is more secure -- harder to listen to the whole data stream for later analysis.
I do wireless networking, so I know about this.;-) It's really cool tech.:)
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
You see, what you say is fine. I'm not arguing with that idea at all. My beef/is/ with the people who use the internet as a baby-sitter. I'm arguing against the people who plop their kids in front of the computer, and proceed to go off and watch television or some such without a care in the world for what their kids are doing. Those are the people who I have a problem with.
I'm all for teaching your children proper values - responsibility (being trusted on their own), and the values and, hopefully, insight to see what roads arn't good roads to take.
I have no problem with someone who can act responsibly with something.
My problem is with those who can't.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
she does have a point here, the problem is it applies to the entire internet. Not just AOL. now Kiddies the next question is. How do we stop this crap?
Does she? Or is she simply using the computer as a baby sitter? The problem I see with a lot of this is that no one takes responsibility for their fucking actions. 'Oh, no, I can't be bothered to be pay attention to what my children do.'
The way that we stop this crap is for people to stop fucking using TV and the Internet as a baby sitter, and raise their own fucking children.
But hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Apparently you do have something against christians...you called them stupid.
Actually, I think I agree with what he said. He said "...those stupid christians in office." To me, that means those stupid people who are christian and use it as an excuse for their views of things. Religion is a shitty choice of things to use to justify a view that otherwise might be considered a bit out there.
I am a christian and I have nothing against genetically modified rice or crops or whatever. I don't have a problem with artificial insemenation (sp?), in vitro fertilization, or genetically modified people (clones included). But one should be ready to face the consequences of such actions. A lot of christians believe that damnation is a consequence of some of this stuff. Seems like a pretty harsh consequence... if I knew an action of a friend was going to have some major consequences, I'd probably talk to them about it.
I personally find that the idea of eternal punishment for a finite infraction to be a very intolerant, and very sick idea. What justifies permenent suffering for limited fault? Perhaps murder, but I very much doubt that making a slightly different plant is a valid reason.
Doesn't monsanto or someone have modified corn and grain? I believe, and I could be way off here, that they just use it as livestock feed. But we are still ingesting this indirectly.
AFAIK, their modified corn & grains are eaten by humans, directly.
The thing about genetic engineering is that what is done is that the genes that decide what proteins that a organism produces are changed. It's not that the DNA of the plant (or animal, etc) is ingested in a way that it is incorperated into the DNA of that which eats it.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Just because it's running GNOME doesn't necessarily mean its underlying OS must be Linux. It could just as easily be Solaris, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSD/OS, FreeBSD, HP-UX, or any other platform which GNOME runs on. Claiming it is
Linux just by GNOME is highly erroneous.
While what you said is true, there is more proof on the site that leads towards the idea of it being linux underneath. Specifically, if you look at www.antitrustthemovie.com/special/special.html, you find that they mention linux quite frequently. The would seem to lead to the conclusion that it is, in fact, linux underneath.
Of course, this doesn't prove it, but it does supply fairly strong evidence to that end.
Time is a man-made construct to deal with the effects of motion. Because of this, we record the cycles of motion that we see ("years", "seaons") so that we can *easily* predict when we need to do things. The idea that there is some mystical second millenium when the religious shit will hit the proverbial fan is silly.
People are afraid of large, even numbers. Dates are arbitrary.
And just to bring this back onto track, this is why it's relevent WRT the code rolling over w/ computers: They use the dates. It doesn't matter if these dates are the real dates, we think they are, and that's good enough.
why develop all this code inhouse? i would feel secure with OpenBSD nicely firewalled / services configured correctly. If not a regular distro of UNIX why not simply a heavy mod, apparently they have a full new operating system in place.
Of course, this is from the same people who thought ADA was a good idea:)
It is not that OpenBSD isn't secure, but as the Department of Defense, they are obligated to ensure that any software that they use is secure. Not that someone else says it is secure, but that it has been show through a software audit that is really is secure. Anything less is negligence. I do not want my government to use software that may have a backdoor in it.
ADA is a good idea. It's a very powerful language. I don't like coding it, but it is a good idea.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, giving Ok, or some other state, to "the indian nations" isn't all that unreasonable of an idea. Most likely it would be completely unworkable, but unreasonable? naw.
How is that tHow is that that it's all about the benjamins? I thought it was all about the SOFTWARE!
Naw, it's all about the pentiums!
Actually, many wireless ISPs use FHSS - it allows one to provide access to a larger number of customers in the same chunk of space.
Do you live in the real world?
I know of many companies that use 802.11 for real world telecomm needs. For one thing, I do. I use it for my current backbone link. It saves me about $10,000 a month on the cost of leased lines. Two antennas, some cable, and two APs, and bam, instant highspeed link.
This stuff works in the real world.
Another example is the wireless ISP. There are a few hundred of them around. They provide connections in the burstable-to-1500kBps range, and are generally quite affordable (~$40-50 a month). Very reliable, too.
The DMCA is only dangerous until someone calls its bluff. I think it's time.
While it may (and, indeed, is) time for it to be struck down, I do not feel that you, or I, or anyone save Mr. Sklyarov, has the right in this juncture to make that decision. It's his freedom, not yours. Do not take that away from him. He deserves it, and so do you. We all do. Never take away anyone's freedom.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
We in the logic biz call this a Logical Fallacy.
Specifically, it's an Appeal to Force.
Fun.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
No!
We cannot. Given accountibility or privacy, as a dichotomy, I pick accountablility. Privacy is managed by not giving out your fucking personal info.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
"Does this mean that if a serial killer walks into court showered, shaved, and in a clean suit he gets a lighter sentence?"
Well, often, yes.... :-(
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Very true.
Thanks for that.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
www.gcpud.org
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
rm -- -rf
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
There are many roads that will lead you into the development of games. One is the college route where you get a degree and find a job at a games dev company. Another is to write something so fantasically awesome that you get snapped up by a development house.
Another route is through open source game development projects, most notably WorldForge , a group that has been working for over a year on creating framework software for creating massively multiplayer online roleplaying systems. There are several milestone games detailed on the site, and the entirity of the source is available.
Check 'em out -- it got me into the game development scene. :-)
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Enjoy! :-)
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
I do wireless networking, so I know about this. ;-) It's really cool tech. :)
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Unfortunately, that is a false dichotomy. You can also give up the use of computers. :) (And probably other things that I've not thought of. ;))
:)
Enjoy!
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
No worries, this is slashdot. :P
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Nope, no kids. Doesn't invalidate my point, tho.
You see, what you say is fine. I'm not arguing with that idea at all. My beef /is/ with the people who use the internet as a baby-sitter. I'm arguing against the people who plop their kids in front of the computer, and proceed to go off and watch television or some such without a care in the world for what their kids are doing. Those are the people who I have a problem with.
I'm all for teaching your children proper values - responsibility (being trusted on their own), and the values and, hopefully, insight to see what roads arn't good roads to take.
I have no problem with someone who can act responsibly with something.
My problem is with those who can't.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
she does have a point here, the problem is it applies to the entire internet. Not just AOL. now Kiddies the next question is. How do we stop this crap?
Does she? Or is she simply using the computer as a baby sitter? The problem I see with a lot of this is that no one takes responsibility for their fucking actions. 'Oh, no, I can't be bothered to be pay attention to what my children do.'
The way that we stop this crap is for people to stop fucking using TV and the Internet as a baby sitter, and raise their own fucking children.
But hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
root@localhost# finger @mylove.net
[connection refused]
Poot.
root@localhost# logout
Maybe next year...
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
Or, a clue-by-four.
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
I thought not.
Apparently you do have something against christians...you called them stupid.
Actually, I think I agree with what he said. He said "...those stupid christians in office." To me, that means those stupid people who are christian and use it as an excuse for their views of things. Religion is a shitty choice of things to use to justify a view that otherwise might be considered a bit out there.
I am a christian and I have nothing against genetically modified rice or crops or whatever. I don't have a problem with artificial insemenation (sp?), in vitro fertilization, or genetically modified people (clones included). But one should be ready to face the consequences of such actions. A lot of christians believe that damnation is a consequence of some of this stuff. Seems like a pretty harsh consequence... if I knew an action of a friend was going to have some major consequences, I'd probably talk to them about it.
I personally find that the idea of eternal punishment for a finite infraction to be a very intolerant, and very sick idea. What justifies permenent suffering for limited fault? Perhaps murder, but I very much doubt that making a slightly different plant is a valid reason.
Doesn't monsanto or someone have modified corn and grain? I believe, and I could be way off here, that they just use it as livestock feed. But we are still ingesting this indirectly.
AFAIK, their modified corn & grains are eaten by humans, directly.
The thing about genetic engineering is that what is done is that the genes that decide what proteins that a organism produces are changed. It's not that the DNA of the plant (or animal, etc) is ingested in a way that it is incorperated into the DNA of that which eats it.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Just because it's running GNOME doesn't necessarily mean its underlying OS must be Linux. It could just as easily be Solaris, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSD/OS, FreeBSD, HP-UX, or any other platform which GNOME runs on. Claiming it is Linux just by GNOME is highly erroneous.
While what you said is true, there is more proof on the site that leads towards the idea of it being linux underneath. Specifically, if you look at www.antitrustthemovie.com/special/special.html, you find that they mention linux quite frequently. The would seem to lead to the conclusion that it is, in fact, linux underneath.
Of course, this doesn't prove it, but it does supply fairly strong evidence to that end.
*shrugs* I could be wrong. :P
Here's how things work, so that you're clear.
Time is a man-made construct to deal with the effects of motion. Because of this, we record the cycles of motion that we see ("years", "seaons") so that we can *easily* predict when we need to do things. The idea that there is some mystical second millenium when the religious shit will hit the proverbial fan is silly.
People are afraid of large, even numbers. Dates are arbitrary.
And just to bring this back onto track, this is why it's relevent WRT the code rolling over w/ computers: They use the dates. It doesn't matter if these dates are the real dates, we think they are, and that's good enough.
Everything is made up. :P
why develop all this code inhouse? i would feel secure with OpenBSD nicely firewalled / services configured correctly. If not a regular distro of UNIX why not simply a heavy mod, apparently they have a full new operating system in place. Of course, this is from the same people who thought ADA was a good idea :)
It is not that OpenBSD isn't secure, but as the Department of Defense, they are obligated to ensure that any software that they use is secure. Not that someone else says it is secure, but that it has been show through a software audit that is really is secure. Anything less is negligence. I do not want my government to use software that may have a backdoor in it.
ADA is a good idea. It's a very powerful language. I don't like coding it, but it is a good idea. :)