Not only that, but there is the tendency for all good-faith laws to end up being used for evil purposes.
One could say, "Listen, if we make a.XXX for anyone who wanted to start a porn site, we would help new companies get their names out and merge many of the adult.com sites to a new system."
"Not only that, but as parents, those of us who didn't want our children to view pornography could just block.XXX and fee at least partially safe."
So being the good utilitarian world that we are, we make this law in order to maximize the social good. Some number of years pass and the World TLD Commission is soon made up of members strongly reflecting the rich, old, white men that we should now know from history always end up in power.
Or mayber it won't end up that way. But one thing is for sure, every single one of the members on that Commission will have some status, most likely have worked in the past with some major corporation, and they now have the power of government.
So Joe Smith does his documentary in Africa, puts up a site to promote the airing on Discovery and the head of the TLD Commission has stock in the Nature channel. Boy its going to take a heavy conscience to keep him from popping that documentary full of Africans in the nude to an XXX.
I use the phrase "NAT translation" often when explaining stuff to people because it is simply to describe NAT as an object and not an acronym for a phrase.
For example saying someone is an AFK'r denotes the term "Away From Keyboard" as an object to which someone can be a part of.
By using "NAT translation" I'm (uselessly in some cases) attempting to convince people that NAT is just an object used in routers that does the translation.
It's not perfect English, but neither is saying "DOS is an OS" to someone who knows what DOS stands for.
"Redundancy bores the intelligent, confuses the dumb, and tires the ignorant."
While I had a hard time understanding NAT, I'm beginning to learn that it is extremely versatile and a lot of times people, like the author, don't understand that it can be configurable in a lot of ways.
For our home connection, I set up a port for each of my roommates 4 computers and we use Napster through those.
What is even more interesting is that NAT will soon have unnoticed configuration itself. There has been work done to improve NAT translation so if a port is opened on an inside IP, a client can connect to the router and request that NAT redirect to that port.
I don't think IP masquerading is going to anything but get better over the next few years, and I trust it to be the best security with the most configuration in the future.
I don't believe the author of the article has realized that even with the Cisco 675, used for a large number of DSL connections, changes have been made to NAT such as one-time configuration of addresses.
What this new option allowed over previous versions of the bios was setting an inside NAT port and address and binding it to the routers IP. Before this, users would have to log in every time the routers IP had changed and continually change the NAT translation.
NAT is only going to get better folks. Don't worry about peer-to-peer sharing dying any time soon because of it.
Last I heard, the majority of the Japanese were still fascinated by the English language and use it in their culture to "label" items.
My guess is that the situation would be somewhat the same, with a Japanese coder using English to represent different commands. The name of the commands would probably be different, and could even be shorter, much like Perl is anyway.
I appreciate your help. I have been looking for something of this sort for over a year, and no one has been able to provide me any with any info about something of this nature.
I am impressed and I apologize if I upset you. You do not know how frusturating it is to be on a 486 with a 120 meg HD, and know that you can't fit Linux, "The OS for your 486" on it.
First of all, the biggest threat to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression is government regulation of the Internet.
Yes, it *will* happen at some point in the near future. No, Bush and Gore are only going to speed regulation, not inhibit it.
Which is better, a business censoring a post because it contains negative (in the mind of the.com businesss) comments, or the government preventing the existence of WWWboards due to the fact that they may offend someone?
The only time-tested solution to problems has been to complain to the government when something doesn't go your way, thus limiting business, and then eventually limiting citizens themselves.
For this reason, you might be able to understand the Libertarian approach to topics. That can be found at:
http://www.lp.org/issues/internet.html
I'd provide an actual link, but I only want the seriously concerned voters to go there.
Democrats and Republicans both have incorporated small regulations in each bill they pass for the Internet. This has got to stop.
There are two types of people in this world. Those that say, "Somebody should do something," and those that say, "Nobody should do nothing." Both types fear that "Anybody could do anything."
I don't know how often this happens, but this is the first time I've seen a post actually acknowledge that there is such as a thing as the "slashdot effect".
Since when is it my responsibility as an entity of a seperate state to uphold and obey the laws of another state? I am very interested in the official response from Yahoo.
Yes, they will give in and compromise with the French, and everything will be lovey-dovey with both Yahoo and the government of France. But my question is, "Why?"
Why is compromise the first thing that both business and government (or organization and government, in the case of most special-interest groups) look to when they clash on any particular topic?
Why can't someone of some stature just stand up and say, "Hell no I won't do that, it goes against everything I stand for!"
I'm awaiting the CEO, President, or celebrity that does just such a thing, and planning on backing them 100% despite my opinion of what the situation is.
I would have backed Lars with his stand against Napster if he wouldn't have stood behind the RIAA and requested government action.
I would have backed PETA if they wouldn't have called on the government to make a decision regarding the removal of an offensive website.
I would have backed Netscape, Sun, and even possibly AOL, but they continue to hide behind the judicial system, and promote fear, uncertainity, and doubt about what a world without them would be like.
I'd like to challenge big business, big interest groups, and big people altogether to try something new: Don't take the easy way out. Nowadays, getting the government involved is the wimp's way of handling a problem.
Not to mention how much all this "governement" involvement is making us the piss at the bottom of the gutter. The difference between myself and the rest of the accumulation is that I know I'm nothing.
For the first time in world history, all humans exist under a government in which not a single person reading this message had any involvement in creating.
For United States citizens, it is our money and our troops being used by foreign countries irresponsibily and without reason.
For other countries, it is those damn Yanks with their freaking "pop culture" and liberal views corrupting society.
The only solution is for the US to drop support of the UN.
US: No problem
Other countries: You can't do that!
I would like to see a President who would. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the one who would do it. I'm not an isolationist, just someone who notices that the current situation is getting us nowhere, so we need to rethink it.
And to answer a previous poster's question:
If someone wanted to put a kilo of Mary Jane on Ebay, and it was illegal here, Ebay would be required under US law to stop the auction.
If someone wanted to put a kilo of Mary Jane on an Amsterdam auction, and the US didn't like it, the US can shove it and forget about the whole deal.
I don't see what is so complicated about it. If someone is doing something I don't like, I have the ability to speak, to request, to announce, and to plead.
If after that they still want to do it, I should mind my own fscking business and go about my life.
I'm a little bit confused as to what this question actually is. The author claims to be asking which method is best for open sourcing software, then goes on to explain this is for "Open Source-leery business types".
Is this a question on how to trick the CEO into agreeing to open source a product? If so, I got a great answer.
You explain that the technology is so revolutionary, that if you were to release it without having it be open source, the company would be declared a monopoly and be split up, similar to Microsoft.
Then, while he's got that on his mind, bring up the fact that your competition is going to be rolling out a product that *isn't* open source, so by open sourcing your product, you are expecting flocks and flocks of sheepdotters to try it out.
Now, if this is a legitimate question, the only sensible answer is to wait until you have something that works.
The best way to go about doing this is to hold a meeting and come up with the main things that would make the product profitable and put them into a list. Businesses do this all the time, and with open source it is no different. Explain that the product must be able to do these things before it will be open-sourced.
Then, when code has been written that meets all the requirements on the list, go open source. Then, check for feedback and request info from the customers on new features they would like implemented in future versions.
Check out which features can be implemented in a set timeframe, hold a meeting and come up with another list. Implement all those features and release again at the end of that timeframe.
Depending on the type of product, the timeframe for implementing features will vary. A good idea would be to at least keep everyone up to date with a "State of the Code" address once a month if your release time is a half a year or more, once a weeak if your release time is once a month or once every 3 months.
If you plan on releasing source more than once a month, this model might not work well. You'll have to look at another one, perhaps not marking down features that you want to implement, but keeping track of where you are at on a particular feature.
Wow.. I wish a moderator would moderate this up.. this is like the most interesting, truthful, and downright funny post I've seen regarding open source software yet.
I would like to see TCP/IP work
on
Plex86 Runs DOS
·
· Score: 1
I see little benefit in making a DOS emulator when I have yet to find a good TCP/IP suite for DOS. Is there such a thing? All the "Internet" apps I know of for DOS, Arachne (web browser) imparticular, are pretty much worthless as far as speed and reliability goes.
Not to mention that there is no TCP/IP drivers for DOS. I sure wish there was though.. (If you can prove me wrong, please reply with a link to some legitimate ones. I have packet drivers for my net card, but can't get TCP/IP to work without downloading specific programs that require me to continually fill in IP info)
Umm, am I the only one here that finds it funny that this would be the topic when there are three or for things that immediately come to mind when someone asks this question?
* More users. I can't be for certain, but Apple has always had more people using different version of Mac OS than all the different UNIXes, right? (Not talking Linux or UNIX-clones)
* Price. I've heard UNIX machines cost way past 2500 dollars, which will get you a pretty spiffy G4 right now, with plenty of goodies included.
* Ease. If I read the specs for OS X right, there should be little porting problems involved.
I've always wondered who "script kiddies" are. I mean, hell, I have installed Linux on my machine and ran a few exploits, but didn't every get anything to come out of it.
I *tried* to be a script kiddie once. You just can't do it. Even script kiddies have the knowledge it takes to change C code or write up their own program.
I don't think that the "script kiddie" as we know them, or presume to know them, exists. I believe that they are actually system admins that get tired of the work they are doing and take it out on some other system on the net.
Besides, I've yet to see any credible source *name* someone as being a "script kiddie". And to think that I thought only "script kiddies" got caught?
Did I miss something here or do script kiddies really exist as the 14 year old geek-wannabes we think they are?
I'm sorry.. but this website really doesn't perk my interest at all. What I want to see is a site that has a program I can download and run on my box all day that will send a request every seconds to the RIAA homepage, and will the support of several others, will lead to a DOS if we get enough people.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm advocating DOS attacks, but I could have sworn there was a legitimate program out there that would allow you to keep refreshing a page and was used for legal boycotting.
Does ANYONE know of a program like this?
http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm
In the meantime, goto that URL above and let the RIAA know what you think..
Listen, I know that there isn't a whole lot we can really do to stop this kind of crap from happening.
But guess what, I'm not going to go buy that Filter CD that I was planning on getting this weekend or the next. In fact, I don't think I'm going to buy another CD for a long time.
I know it is tough for people to get outraged in this day and age. There are few things that people can't see both sides of. I would like to see people get outraged at what is happening with Napster now, but I realize it isn't going to happen.
In the meantime, here are some programs to use till Napster gets put back online, if ever:
(I did not include GNUTella because that is the biggest bandwidth hogging, least productive program I have ever used in my entire life.)
Apple reportedly will clothe the system in a new chassis that is more streamlined than the current generation of G3 PowerBooks.
Good god, I was impressed with the iBook size and weight, often weighing less than an iBible. I wonder what the official name will be, iSheet?
Err wait, I just said that out loud and it doesn't sound like an attractive name.
Jam Echelon 2 Day is coming up soon!
on
Inside Echelon
·
· Score: 2
This kind of reminds me of my first Sheepdot article I did, Jam Echelon 2. You can read it at: http://www.sheepdot.org/raize/jamech.htm
I don't provide direct href links since that tends to give the/. effect to my poor little server.
For those of you who didn't already know, Jam Echelon was considered the biggest failure ever set forth by an online community. Not only did it do absolutely nothing favorable, but you had hundreds of people spamming newsgroups with ridiculous postings.
Not to mention the words that were in the hotlist, like the letter "a", "bugs bunny", and other really stupid things.
Think about it folks, if there is a system to monitor *us*, it is going to monitor everything we say in any email, not just particular emails.
Such a system could exist, but in my opinion doesn't. We've got more important everyday loss of freedom on the Internet that doesn't have to be part of a scam that some New Zealand company came up with.
I'm going to be the first to say that it *was* a good read, and I'd like to see more of this. I'm sure that because of this review, someone will take the initiative and review other distros that weren't covered, so you won't hear me complaining like many others on here.
My suggestion for the next person who does this would be to explain exactly why and how you are doing the rating. Also, offer tips for those of us under-geeks that have yet to realize the full potential of Linux.
Security is probably my biggest beef with Linux, and I'm speaking from personal experience, not FUD that MS or any other company fed me. I got hacked within two weeks of an installation, and only one day after using IRC with the box.
I think that a similar review would spark interest for me as well.
Wait a minute now, what does "removal of rights from a minority of society by an ignorant majority" mean?
You had just claimed that Banning DeCSS wasn't about "the right to watch a movie", and then equated it "the right to get a drink of water".
The two are rather different. "Movies" aren't something that the government owns. They don't throw you in jail for watching a DVD on Linux because the government mandated that Linux users can't watch DVDs. The government (or public community in the segregation case) mandated that colored people could not use water fountains.
There's a world of difference between those two.
Let me give you a better analogy. Ford designs a car that uses regular tires. Chevy cars can use those regular tires and some other really fancy tires, called "Super Tires" that they designed and own the IP rights to. Well, before you know it, "Super Tires" have become the standard due to their great performance, and Chevy can still use both types of tires, but only offers support for standard tires. Ford still hasn't come up with a way of using "Super Tires" since noone at Ford wants to shell out the cash to buy usage rights on Chevy's "Super Tires", and Ford doesn't really want to implement anything but standard tires anyway. Meanwhile, the public are demanding that Ford implement "Super Tires" by complaining to the Government, Ford, and Chevy in various ways.
Now, what is *your* view?
1. The government should step in and: a. Require Chevy to give Ford the usage rights even though Chevy is trying to sell them those rights, and Ford doesn't even want to implement "Super Tires". b. Require Ford to implement "Super Tires" and pay Chevy the cash. c. Require Chevy to drop "Super Tires" and go back to standard tires. d. Require Ford and Chevy to meet and hammer out a deal for a new type of tire.
2. The government should just stay the hell out of the situation and see which company comes out on top, then watch as Ford dies and new companies buy "Super Tires" usage rights and implement even better features of their own, eventually setting their own standard and competing heavily with Chevy.
3. I'm too sophmoric of a person to handle this question, I'll just go with what the majority opinion is and check Slashdot to see what other people are saying.
Okay, so maybe the cases aren't exactly the same, but I've found that semi-high to high-profile cases always end up the way everyone expects them to.
I mean, Microsoft is going to be broken up, the Supreme Court isn't going to decide it any other way. Regardless of your opinion, it is going to happen, and the reason why is that "we just can't have it any other way."
Same thing with the DeCSS case, the judge is going to look at it, probably not know a single danged thing about the Internet, other than the fact it is full of pornography and his kid uses it a lot, and figure that this DeCSS must be another one of those "bad" things the Internet does.
The program is highly illegal by current standards of law, and the only way to change those standards is to adapt new law. Public opinion in this case is: "yeah, sure would be great to have DeCCS, but it ain't gonna happen."
So the likelyhood of anything favorable happening is kinda slim. I think Slashdot should start focusing on laws that affect these topics that show up on the site more and more as events take place that put the Internet in the hands of our Governments.
It will be an amazing event to be able to sit and watch them nip away at it here and there and then eventually start to consume it whole. I'm guessing the nipping is just about over and it is time for the meal.
Hey, I want to see the Internet remain free like the rest of us, but it just "ain't gonna happen."
Arnold is a Cyberdyne Systems Model #101, while Robert Patrick is the T-1000. In Terminator 3D at Universal Studios, there is a T-1 million. Get it straight!
I don't mean to get moderated to "redundant", but is anyone even going to watch X-files anymore? I think I lost interest around the time the movie came out (which was nothing suprising, really) and have only watched episodes hoping that I will catch an episode with the 3 slashdot geeks, err Lone Gunmen.
I like the idea of still having the show, but I'm getting tired of being able to predit every episode of the X-files.
Death in first 5 minutes of show, regular wierd stories guessing death by Mulder, another death confirms part of Mulder's story, Mulder and/or Scully almost die, bad thing stopped, Mulder still thinks it happened like he said it did, Scully doesn't know for certain or thinks otherwise. End.
I'm fairly certain that the complaint was more requested on behalf of Linux/MS users, but my real question is, what about for the Macintosh?
I don't know if any of you tried out Netscape 6 preview for the Mac, but it was slllooowww. I'd like to once again not have to use IE on both Macs and PCs. I mean, you'd think that since they can't beat an integrated browser for Windows, they'd at least focus on a different platform or something.
IE continues to work great on a Macintosh, something that Netscape should have never let happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree strongly.
.XXX for anyone who wanted to start a porn site, we would help new companies get their names out and merge many of the adult .com sites to a new system."
.XXX and fee at least partially safe."
Not only that, but there is the tendency for all good-faith laws to end up being used for evil purposes.
One could say, "Listen, if we make a
"Not only that, but as parents, those of us who didn't want our children to view pornography could just block
So being the good utilitarian world that we are, we make this law in order to maximize the social good. Some number of years pass and the World TLD Commission is soon made up of members strongly reflecting the rich, old, white men that we should now know from history always end up in power.
Or mayber it won't end up that way. But one thing is for sure, every single one of the members on that Commission will have some status, most likely have worked in the past with some major corporation, and they now have the power of government.
So Joe Smith does his documentary in Africa, puts up a site to promote the airing on Discovery and the head of the TLD Commission has stock in the Nature channel. Boy its going to take a heavy conscience to keep him from popping that documentary full of Africans in the nude to an XXX.
I use the phrase "NAT translation" often when explaining stuff to people because it is simply to describe NAT as an object and not an acronym for a phrase.
For example saying someone is an AFK'r denotes the term "Away From Keyboard" as an object to which someone can be a part of.
By using "NAT translation" I'm (uselessly in some cases) attempting to convince people that NAT is just an object used in routers that does the translation.
It's not perfect English, but neither is saying "DOS is an OS" to someone who knows what DOS stands for.
"Redundancy bores the intelligent, confuses the dumb, and tires the ignorant."
While I had a hard time understanding NAT, I'm beginning to learn that it is extremely versatile and a lot of times people, like the author, don't understand that it can be configurable in a lot of ways.
For our home connection, I set up a port for each of my roommates 4 computers and we use Napster through those.
What is even more interesting is that NAT will soon have unnoticed configuration itself. There has been work done to improve NAT translation so if a port is opened on an inside IP, a client can connect to the router and request that NAT redirect to that port.
I don't think IP masquerading is going to anything but get better over the next few years, and I trust it to be the best security with the most configuration in the future.
I don't believe the author of the article has realized that even with the Cisco 675, used for a large number of DSL connections, changes have been made to NAT such as one-time configuration of addresses.
What this new option allowed over previous versions of the bios was setting an inside NAT port and address and binding it to the routers IP. Before this, users would have to log in every time the routers IP had changed and continually change the NAT translation.
NAT is only going to get better folks. Don't worry about peer-to-peer sharing dying any time soon because of it.
Last I heard, the majority of the Japanese were still fascinated by the English language and use it in their culture to "label" items.
My guess is that the situation would be somewhat the same, with a Japanese coder using English to represent different commands. The name of the commands would probably be different, and could even be shorter, much like Perl is anyway.
Thanks a LOT!
I appreciate your help. I have been looking for something of this sort for over a year, and no one has been able to provide me any with any info about something of this nature.
I am impressed and I apologize if I upset you. You do not know how frusturating it is to be on a 486 with a 120 meg HD, and know that you can't fit Linux, "The OS for your 486" on it.
Especially when Lynx just doesn't cut it anymore.
Do a custom install off of the Windows95 CD, get rid of all the excess junk you don't need and then check the HD space.
Then after loading, thow away the "Online Services" folder and pitch IE 1.0 or whatever that browser is.
Install Arachne or IE 3.0, Telnet, and the FTP program of your choice.
If done right, this will easily be under 100 meg, which is the smallest size I've ever gotten any Linux distro with X-windows to.
If done even better, it should be under 80 meg as well.
RAM? I'm talking harddrive space.
First of all, the biggest threat to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression is government regulation of the Internet.
.com businesss) comments, or the government preventing the existence of WWWboards due to the fact that they may offend someone?
Yes, it *will* happen at some point in the near future. No, Bush and Gore are only going to speed regulation, not inhibit it.
Which is better, a business censoring a post because it contains negative (in the mind of the
The only time-tested solution to problems has been to complain to the government when something doesn't go your way, thus limiting business, and then eventually limiting citizens themselves.
For this reason, you might be able to understand the Libertarian approach to topics. That can be found at:
http://www.lp.org/issues/internet.html
I'd provide an actual link, but I only want the seriously concerned voters to go there.
Democrats and Republicans both have incorporated small regulations in each bill they pass for the Internet. This has got to stop.
There are two types of people in this world. Those that say, "Somebody should do something," and those that say, "Nobody should do nothing." Both types fear that "Anybody could do anything."
I don't know how often this happens, but this is the first time I've seen a post actually acknowledge that there is such as a thing as the "slashdot effect".
Thanks Hemos, you're OK in my book.
Since when is it my responsibility as an entity of a seperate state to uphold and obey the laws of another state? I am very interested in the official response from Yahoo.
Yes, they will give in and compromise with the French, and everything will be lovey-dovey with both Yahoo and the government of France. But my question is, "Why?"
Why is compromise the first thing that both business and government (or organization and government, in the case of most special-interest groups) look to when they clash on any particular topic?
Why can't someone of some stature just stand up and say, "Hell no I won't do that, it goes against everything I stand for!"
I'm awaiting the CEO, President, or celebrity that does just such a thing, and planning on backing them 100% despite my opinion of what the situation is.
I would have backed Lars with his stand against Napster if he wouldn't have stood behind the RIAA and requested government action.
I would have backed PETA if they wouldn't have called on the government to make a decision regarding the removal of an offensive website.
I would have backed Netscape, Sun, and even possibly AOL, but they continue to hide behind the judicial system, and promote fear, uncertainity, and doubt about what a world without them would be like.
I'd like to challenge big business, big interest groups, and big people altogether to try something new: Don't take the easy way out. Nowadays, getting the government involved is the wimp's way of handling a problem.
Not to mention how much all this "governement" involvement is making us the piss at the bottom of the gutter. The difference between myself and the rest of the accumulation is that I know I'm nothing.
For the first time in world history, all humans exist under a government in which not a single person reading this message had any involvement in creating.
For United States citizens, it is our money and our troops being used by foreign countries irresponsibily and without reason.
For other countries, it is those damn Yanks with their freaking "pop culture" and liberal views corrupting society.
The only solution is for the US to drop support of the UN.
US: No problem
Other countries: You can't do that!
I would like to see a President who would. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the one who would do it. I'm not an isolationist, just someone who notices that the current situation is getting us nowhere, so we need to rethink it.
And to answer a previous poster's question:
If someone wanted to put a kilo of Mary Jane on Ebay, and it was illegal here, Ebay would be required under US law to stop the auction.
If someone wanted to put a kilo of Mary Jane on an Amsterdam auction, and the US didn't like it, the US can shove it and forget about the whole deal.
I don't see what is so complicated about it. If someone is doing something I don't like, I have the ability to speak, to request, to announce, and to plead.
If after that they still want to do it, I should mind my own fscking business and go about my life.
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
I'm a little bit confused as to what this question actually is. The author claims to be asking which method is best for open sourcing software, then goes on to explain this is for "Open Source-leery business types".
Is this a question on how to trick the CEO into agreeing to open source a product? If so, I got a great answer.
You explain that the technology is so revolutionary, that if you were to release it without having it be open source, the company would be declared a monopoly and be split up, similar to Microsoft.
Then, while he's got that on his mind, bring up the fact that your competition is going to be rolling out a product that *isn't* open source, so by open sourcing your product, you are expecting flocks and flocks of sheepdotters to try it out.
Now, if this is a legitimate question, the only sensible answer is to wait until you have something that works.
The best way to go about doing this is to hold a meeting and come up with the main things that would make the product profitable and put them into a list. Businesses do this all the time, and with open source it is no different. Explain that the product must be able to do these things before it will be open-sourced.
Then, when code has been written that meets all the requirements on the list, go open source. Then, check for feedback and request info from the customers on new features they would like implemented in future versions.
Check out which features can be implemented in a set timeframe, hold a meeting and come up with another list. Implement all those features and release again at the end of that timeframe.
Depending on the type of product, the timeframe for implementing features will vary. A good idea would be to at least keep everyone up to date with a "State of the Code" address once a month if your release time is a half a year or more, once a weeak if your release time is once a month or once every 3 months.
If you plan on releasing source more than once a month, this model might not work well. You'll have to look at another one, perhaps not marking down features that you want to implement, but keeping track of where you are at on a particular feature.
Wow.. I wish a moderator would moderate this up.. this is like the most interesting, truthful, and downright funny post I've seen regarding open source software yet.
I see little benefit in making a DOS emulator when I have yet to find a good TCP/IP suite for DOS. Is there such a thing? All the "Internet" apps I know of for DOS, Arachne (web browser) imparticular, are pretty much worthless as far as speed and reliability goes.
Not to mention that there is no TCP/IP drivers for DOS. I sure wish there was though.. (If you can prove me wrong, please reply with a link to some legitimate ones. I have packet drivers for my net card, but can't get TCP/IP to work without downloading specific programs that require me to continually fill in IP info)
Umm, am I the only one here that finds it funny that this would be the topic when there are three or for things that immediately come to mind when someone asks this question?
* More users. I can't be for certain, but Apple has always had more people using different version of Mac OS than all the different UNIXes, right? (Not talking Linux or UNIX-clones)
* Price. I've heard UNIX machines cost way past 2500 dollars, which will get you a pretty spiffy G4 right now, with plenty of goodies included.
* Ease. If I read the specs for OS X right, there should be little porting problems involved.
I've always wondered who "script kiddies" are. I mean, hell, I have installed Linux on my machine and ran a few exploits, but didn't every get anything to come out of it.
I *tried* to be a script kiddie once. You just can't do it. Even script kiddies have the knowledge it takes to change C code or write up their own program.
I don't think that the "script kiddie" as we know them, or presume to know them, exists. I believe that they are actually system admins that get tired of the work they are doing and take it out on some other system on the net.
Besides, I've yet to see any credible source *name* someone as being a "script kiddie". And to think that I thought only "script kiddies" got caught?
Did I miss something here or do script kiddies really exist as the 14 year old geek-wannabes we think they are?
I'm sorry.. but this website really doesn't perk my interest at all. What I want to see is a site that has a program I can download and run on my box all day that will send a request every seconds to the RIAA homepage, and will the support of several others, will lead to a DOS if we get enough people.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm advocating DOS attacks, but I could have sworn there was a legitimate program out there that would allow you to keep refreshing a page and was used for legal boycotting.
Does ANYONE know of a program like this?
http://www.riaa.org/Contact.cfm
In the meantime, goto that URL above and let the RIAA know what you think..
Listen, I know that there isn't a whole lot we can really do to stop this kind of crap from happening.
But guess what, I'm not going to go buy that Filter CD that I was planning on getting this weekend or the next. In fact, I don't think I'm going to buy another CD for a long time.
I know it is tough for people to get outraged in this day and age. There are few things that people can't see both sides of. I would like to see people get outraged at what is happening with Napster now, but I realize it isn't going to happen.
In the meantime, here are some programs to use till Napster gets put back online, if ever:
(I did not include GNUTella because that is the biggest bandwidth hogging, least productive program I have ever used in my entire life.)
Btw, anyone else all of a sudden notice that RIAA Sucks is down?
Good god, I was impressed with the iBook size and weight, often weighing less than an iBible. I wonder what the official name will be, iSheet?
Err wait, I just said that out loud and it doesn't sound like an attractive name.
This kind of reminds me of my first Sheepdot article I did, Jam Echelon 2. You can read it at:
/. effect to my poor little server.
http://www.sheepdot.org/raize/jamech.htm
I don't provide direct href links since that tends to give the
For those of you who didn't already know, Jam Echelon was considered the biggest failure ever set forth by an online community. Not only did it do absolutely nothing favorable, but you had hundreds of people spamming newsgroups with ridiculous postings.
Not to mention the words that were in the hotlist, like the letter "a", "bugs bunny", and other really stupid things.
Think about it folks, if there is a system to monitor *us*, it is going to monitor everything we say in any email, not just particular emails.
Such a system could exist, but in my opinion doesn't. We've got more important everyday loss of freedom on the Internet that doesn't have to be part of a scam that some New Zealand company came up with.
I'm going to be the first to say that it *was* a good read, and I'd like to see more of this. I'm sure that because of this review, someone will take the initiative and review other distros that weren't covered, so you won't hear me complaining like many others on here.
My suggestion for the next person who does this would be to explain exactly why and how you are doing the rating. Also, offer tips for those of us under-geeks that have yet to realize the full potential of Linux.
Security is probably my biggest beef with Linux, and I'm speaking from personal experience, not FUD that MS or any other company fed me. I got hacked within two weeks of an installation, and only one day after using IRC with the box.
I think that a similar review would spark interest for me as well.
Wait a minute now, what does "removal of rights from a minority of society by an ignorant majority" mean?
You had just claimed that Banning DeCSS wasn't about "the right to watch a movie", and then equated it "the right to get a drink of water".
The two are rather different. "Movies" aren't something that the government owns. They don't throw you in jail for watching a DVD on Linux because the government mandated that Linux users can't watch DVDs. The government (or public community in the segregation case) mandated that colored people could not use water fountains.
There's a world of difference between those two.
Let me give you a better analogy. Ford designs a car that uses regular tires. Chevy cars can use those regular tires and some other really fancy tires, called "Super Tires" that they designed and own the IP rights to. Well, before you know it, "Super Tires" have become the standard due to their great performance, and Chevy can still use both types of tires, but only offers support for standard tires. Ford still hasn't come up with a way of using "Super Tires" since noone at Ford wants to shell out the cash to buy usage rights on Chevy's "Super Tires", and Ford doesn't really want to implement anything but standard tires anyway. Meanwhile, the public are demanding that Ford implement "Super Tires" by complaining to the Government, Ford, and Chevy in various ways.
Now, what is *your* view?
1. The government should step in and:
a. Require Chevy to give Ford the usage rights even though Chevy is trying to sell them those rights, and Ford doesn't even want to implement "Super Tires".
b. Require Ford to implement "Super Tires" and pay Chevy the cash.
c. Require Chevy to drop "Super Tires" and go back to standard tires.
d. Require Ford and Chevy to meet and hammer out a deal for a new type of tire.
2. The government should just stay the hell out of the situation and see which company comes out on top, then watch as Ford dies and new companies buy "Super Tires" usage rights and implement even better features of their own, eventually setting their own standard and competing heavily with Chevy.
3. I'm too sophmoric of a person to handle this question, I'll just go with what the majority opinion is and check Slashdot to see what other people are saying.
If you picked #3, You'd love Sheepdot.
Okay, so maybe the cases aren't exactly the same, but I've found that semi-high to high-profile cases always end up the way everyone expects them to.
I mean, Microsoft is going to be broken up, the Supreme Court isn't going to decide it any other way. Regardless of your opinion, it is going to happen, and the reason why is that "we just can't have it any other way."
Same thing with the DeCSS case, the judge is going to look at it, probably not know a single danged thing about the Internet, other than the fact it is full of pornography and his kid uses it a lot, and figure that this DeCSS must be another one of those "bad" things the Internet does.
The program is highly illegal by current standards of law, and the only way to change those standards is to adapt new law. Public opinion in this case is: "yeah, sure would be great to have DeCCS, but it ain't gonna happen."
So the likelyhood of anything favorable happening is kinda slim. I think Slashdot should start focusing on laws that affect these topics that show up on the site more and more as events take place that put the Internet in the hands of our Governments.
It will be an amazing event to be able to sit and watch them nip away at it here and there and then eventually start to consume it whole. I'm guessing the nipping is just about over and it is time for the meal.
Hey, I want to see the Internet remain free like the rest of us, but it just "ain't gonna happen."
Arnold is a Cyberdyne Systems Model #101, while Robert Patrick is the T-1000. In Terminator 3D at Universal Studios, there is a T-1 million. Get it straight!
I don't mean to get moderated to "redundant", but is anyone even going to watch X-files anymore? I think I lost interest around the time the movie came out (which was nothing suprising, really) and have only watched episodes hoping that I will catch an episode with the 3 slashdot geeks, err Lone Gunmen.
I like the idea of still having the show, but I'm getting tired of being able to predit every episode of the X-files.
Death in first 5 minutes of show, regular wierd stories guessing death by Mulder, another death confirms part of Mulder's story, Mulder and/or Scully almost die, bad thing stopped, Mulder still thinks it happened like he said it did, Scully doesn't know for certain or thinks otherwise. End.
It gets old..
I'm fairly certain that the complaint was more requested on behalf of Linux/MS users, but my real question is, what about for the Macintosh?
I don't know if any of you tried out Netscape 6 preview for the Mac, but it was slllooowww. I'd like to once again not have to use IE on both Macs and PCs. I mean, you'd think that since they can't beat an integrated browser for Windows, they'd at least focus on a different platform or something.
IE continues to work great on a Macintosh, something that Netscape should have never let happen.