Total, utter, unadulterated bullshit. Microsoft built its' monopoly on the back of Michael Dell and others like him, and even if there was no other reason why I will never purchase a computer from his company, that reason remains.
Dell are a convenience company for the mindless sheep who feel helpless without getting a prefab package, as well as being fed, burped, and having their nappies changed. If more people bought parts and either paid for assembly or (*gasp*!) assembled it themselves, not only would they save a ton of money, Microsoft would not have its' monopoly, since the only way it has been able to enforce default installation of Windows on systems is because companies like Dell make whole, prepackaged systems.
If you Linux users want a world in which no operating system is installed on a new system by default, you need to convince people not to buy systems at all, but to buy parts from small, local businesses and then get them to assemble it if you're not confident doing it yourself.
I have a local hardware supplier near where I live, and I get markdowns from him because of repeat business. I only just recently upgraded my system, (last November) and got a Celeron 2.6 processor, 512mb DRAM, an Intel motherboard, (with a really awesome onboard soundcard, among other things), a combo DVD/CD burner, and a black Premiere case for $420 AUD. (I already had a hard drive, seperate video card, keyboard and mouse)
For me, Mr. Dell and his ilk are neither wanted, nor needed.
Real have been obnoxious in one way or another ever since I can remember. These days, good luck finding a link on their site to the downloadable player in amongst all the ads for the paid stuff. On top of that, when you do find it, in order to get a download link, they want you to fill out a form detailing everything about yourself, almost up to and including how often you have a bowel movement in a given 24 hour period.
Also, for some reason they feel a need to install a memory resident (thus, additionally memory consuming) tray loader. Why the double click association for RA/RAM files isn't good enough for them is beyond me.
I've generally given them a wide berth since the mid 90s, since that was when the last halfway sane version of the player was released. 5, I think it was, and from memory it's on oldversion.com, for those who want minimal real playability without all the other crap.
For them to issue moronic statements such as this however, on top of all their other annoyances, is just one more reason to stay well away from them in my book. Most media streams I come across are either Windows Media or ogg anywayz, so real aren't even really necessary.
...on whether Negreponte is a novice or not. If he is, then yes, he's very possibly out of luck, since software designed for novices needs more functions by definition, and thus, has to be bigger.
If on the other hand he already knows a thing or two, (or isn't afraid of learning) then he will find that minimalistic systems are actually one of Linux's primary strengths, at least in my observation. He could probably use this as a base, and then for X use apt-get to install ROX Filer, metacity, (as a background for ROX) and fbpanel as his start menu. Or, if he wants most of that done for him, he could install FVWM instead of metacity and fbpanel, and still use ROX as an explorer clone. Mind you, this is only one possible option, and most people reading this would probably think I'm insane and ask why I don't simply advocate fluxbox/xfce etc. This is a problem with myriad possible solutions.
He'd probably also need to install gtk for Abiword etc, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. There are also any number of lightweight image viewers around as well...he should check freshmeat. For web browsing, there's also dillo.
Hence, what he wants is more than possible. He might have to do a bit of surfing, but then again, with the magic of apt-get, he probably doesn't even need to do that.
I've played around with A.L.I.C.E and a few similar chatbots.
They do not constitute what I anyway consider genuine artificial intelligence. (At least not the ones based on AIML anywayz)
AIML isn't capable of producing emergent/non-predictable responses; it simply works from a predefined database of keyword/response pairs. Some of the Prolog scripts in particular that I've seen are a bit better than that, (in the sense that you can use that to create an expert system which is closer to being genuinely deserving of the name) but probably not by much; you could do the same thing in a Makefile for the most part.
If they're going to try and produce something which actually tries to adaptively develop a vocabulary, that would be one thing, but all an AIML bot does is respond to keywords by regurgitating strings from a static text file.
If that's AI, then so are Google, postgresql, and any flatfile database that's ever been written with awk...In other words, it ain't. I wish I understood why people try and claim that it is.
I have a D-Link DSL-200B ADSL modem, and it's a shameless piece of junk. The only reason why I use it at all is because it came free with my ADSL account, and I don't have the money to replace it with something decent. It was also the main thing which forced me entirely back to XP, since even though I believe there are Linux drivers for it, with all the added crap I'd have to do installing USB, it'd be even more work than my Lucent winmodem was on dialup.
The modem will also commonly take me 3-4 attempts to connect, isn't "always-on" like most ADSL connections apparently are, and usually doesn't stay connected for more than 48 hours at a stretch, either. The drivers for XP are also truly attrocious...I had to upgrade to service pack 2 I think it was because of USB problems, but the modem drivers still manage to crash my system on occasion. I'm talking a hard crash, too...it's the only time I still see the blue screen of death these days.
So, yeah...I wouldn't recommend D-Link stuff to anybody. The only reason why they're what ISPs give away as a free modem with accounts is because they're so cheap, and I'm assuming that that is because the company already has a reputation as vendors of rubbish hardware.
Three things, first. a) Monitor your RAM use. b) Monitor your CPU use. c) Monitor your bandwidth use.
If I get weird spikes in any/all of the above, my first step is usually to either run task manager or this if it's something which task manager can't detect. If there's something running which I don't recognise, (and yes, I *do* know my system that well, and so should you) my next step is to run msconfig and check the startup section there. 99% of bugs will show up there as having some kind of startup entry, and from there it's a simple process of deleting the bug executable and its' registry entries. One other thing which people might not know about though is to also scan the prefetch directory, (c:\windows\prefetch) as backup copies of bugs generally land in there as well.
If, and only if, that process does not work, (and again, in 99.5% of cases it will) I then head onto the Web and look for answers.
Generally speaking if the above process doesn't work, what you're looking for is an alien dll which is being injected into a system executable. (Ususually svchost.exe because of how opaque that generally is anywayz.) I'm not good enough to be able to do manual stack traces, but what I can do is watch the CPU usage meter in procexp.exe (mentioned above) and the process shown as using the large amount of CPU time/ram will be the one the dll is hiding in. From there, the only thing you really need from the web is the specific name of the dll that's being injected, and once you've got that, you're clean.
The other big thing is, don't use Internet Explorer. Yes, I have it installed, but I generally only use it as a backup for very limited periods if I'm wanting to look at a single page that Firefox isn't rendering correctly. (Doesn't happen all the time, but more often than you'd think.)
XP is surprisingly easy to keep clean, IMHO. The main reason being that, despite what people claim, there really only are a few different ways in which a bug can operate on the system. They all need startup access, (and there are only really two ways that they can get that, one being a standard location in the registry) and they're all going to leave a RAM/CPU footprint.
So I don't buy what people say about XP being indefensible. You have to be proactive, and you have to know your box on an intuitive level...but it's completely doable.
The worst thing about all of this is that not only does it inconvenience a huge number of people, it does so for absolutely no good reason.
Microsoft have done a lot of stupid things in their time, but Aero really takes the cake as far as I'm concerned. A 3D interface (at least in terms of how they're implementing it from the screenshots) is purely cosmetic...it doesn't offer anything in the area of usability whatsoever. For what therefore is a purely visual touch-up, a lot of people are going to have to shell out large amounts of money if they want to be able to upgrade. Great for the hardware manufacturers; a distaster for the rest of us.
Just look at P2P now, it's hard enough to find some files without 100s of corrupted or fake versions.
This is only difficult because it is not known in advance which files are fake and which aren't. As far as eMule/Kad are concerned, services like DonkeyFakes have existed, but they've generally ceased operations because of fears of a lawsuit.
That in essence however is what we would need...some type of verification mechanism which can tell people in advance which hashes represent genuine files, and which don't. If it were possible to verify that, it would actually make phishing/etc a lot more difficult, as file hashes are/can be as unique as fingerprints.
In terms of whether you understand me or not...if you've seen eDonkey search sites on the web, the hash of a file itself is a part of the link. That is what I'm advocating using as a link address...the idea that files potentially exist in an entirely distributed manner, (i.e., with multiple sources/not isolated necessarily to any one physical machine) but that the user can go to a particular page by using the page's file hash as a direct address.
Maybe this couldn't be used as the basis for something similar to the web as such. You might be right in saying that it only works for p2p filesharing, and not for things which require the kind of live interactivity that the web often has. For static pages it could work though, and people are doing amazing things with Ajax. There is a lot that would need to be worked out with it in order to produce something workable.
...in his recent interview, but I don't think he went far enough. He said that DNS is the Achilles' heel of the Web. I believe it's the primary vulnerability of the Internet in general. Virtually all the "who governs the net" garbage would be a non-issue if it wasn't for the name heirarchy.
What we need is an entirely peer to peer adaptation of the Web using DHT as an addressing system, where the hash of the file itself serves as its' address. That would solve (at least) two major problems:-
a) It'd get rid of the abovementioned "Internet governance" BS as mentioned above. I believe we could still have an entirely hyperlinked/relational/semantic Web using a DHT system...it just initially might require some more work. The reason why this would eliminate the TLD issue though is because the naming system itself would become irrelevant. It's worth remembering that DNS was originally developed by scientists/academics. If they'd remained the only people using it, it would have worked acceptably. Unfortunately however, the commercialists came along later and fucked it up, which they tend to do to everything they get their hands on. If the commercialists still want the old DNS/TLD system, let them keep it. The DHT system could be implemented for those of us interested in more productive uses of the network.
b) It would at least go a long way towards putting a final nail in the coffin of the {RI,MP}AA's ability to track/identify (and therefore sue) anybody using p2p filesharing. No DNS means no named websites, and no named websites means no centre of gravity/vulnerability to make the {RI,MP}AA's lives easier.
For those of you who think I'm insane, realise that to a degree it's already been done with the Kad p2p network. Anyone connecting to Kad is only able to view (to the untrained or non-mechanical eye, at least) a totally incomprehensible array of numerical strings and file hashes. It might be traceable to individual users, but not easily. What we need to do is figure out how to create an adapted version of HTTP that is able to rely on a machanism similar to Kad as its' trasit/addressing system.
In terms of coding this, I'd have no idea even where to begin myself...so I guess all I can hopefor is that someone else out there who could is sufficiently interested in the idea to try it.
...that Microsoft aren't used to building things in a non-monolithic way.
If, with IE, they'd adopt the approach of not only putting strong barriers between it and the core of the operating system, but also making the rest of it modular as well, it would be a lot more secure.
Another thing that'd be a really big help would be to get rid of the registry. The Windows registry is by far the single worst idea I've ever seen implemented in any operating system anywhere...it completely sucks. It doesn't make life for users substantially easier than using ini files in any respect that I've observed. The only people whose lives it seems to make easier are virus writers...since they're able to store data needed for a virus to run without me being able to find it in some cases, given what a non-discoverable, semi-binary jungle the registry is.
The population of the known universe were in shock today with the revelation that the US Supreme Court was observed behaving in something vaguely resembling a genuinely judicial manner. In response to these developments, a statement was received by us from the zoning co-ordination staff of the infernal regions, which informed us that they have plans to establish a ski resort later this year.
Some of the people who want this technology (most of them in fact, I'd guess) are people who do literally value money more than life itself. They're the type who haven't learned what Cal Hockley did when he tried to buy a place on one of the lifeboats during the sinking of the Titanic; namely, that money isn't some kind of miraculous cure-all that can make them completely impervious to problems.
So yeah...Money to them is more important than anything else. More important than longevity, more important than having edible food or breathable air, more important than people. (Including, if they were honest, their own loved ones)
Reminds me of a businessman I heard about once who was interviewed about the cancer risk from mobile phone use. He said that even if there was a risk of brain cancer from using a mobile phone, he still would, because it was too important for, you guessed it, making money.
That's the type of mentality we're dealing with here...the type that thinks that having money is literally more important than being alive to spend it.
>People vote for him because they perceive him to be "just like them"
To me, Bob Hawke was a lot better at portraying the common man. That is not to say that I considered Hawke a great Prime Minister either, but he played the yobbo far more effectively...probably because before entering politics, by all accounts he genuinely was one.
Howard to me comes across overwhelmingly as an (aspiring, anyway) elitist and fascist. I don't think any "common man" element that he might have is so much deliberate as it is a simple side effect of his being utterly devoid of charisma.
The Liberals will probably stay in power the same way they have always managed to. Their primary strength is a historically verified (in my observation) aptitude for managing the Australian economy; they use this to hold the electorate hostage by threatening that if Labour are allowed to return to power, the economy will go through the floorboards around five minutes after Labour winning the election, which it inevitably does. The demise of Communism has not helped the fortunes of any left-wing political party in the world either, and Labour are no exception in that regard.
I used to be very much an advocate of the Liberal party in this country, but that was a long time ago. I now find myself wishing that Labour would shed their traditional image of a ragtag group of unionists and Marxist bogans, and actually come up with a coherent economic and social policy...something which actually makes sense.
Labour need to do something that they've never done before...Namely, get serious. Australian politics has never been in this kind of deadly earnest before, at least not within my lifetime. (I was born in 1977, after the Gough Whitlam incident)
Even then however...Gough was our Nixon. Like with Nixon in the US, Gough was nowhere near as serious a problem from all accounts as Howard and Bush are now. These two men are a very serious threat to the freedom of both of our countries...as is Blair in England...and we need somehow to find alternatives, and quickly.
I have been reading the pdf of the speech. It is open, honest, and vulnerable, and it is to Howard's shame that he had not in fact actually given it, and in public.
Yes, to a degree it would have constituted falling on his sword, but that after all is the only thing that is really left for Bush and his supporters to do.
As an Australian myself, I have never had a high level of respect for John Howard; the Australian Liberal Party's customary economic ability notwithstanding, I do not consider Howard to be a great orator, a great statesman, or really a great man in any respect. I have a cousin who has met with him and holds quite a large degree of admiration for him, and this cousin and I have had debates on that subject on a few occasions.
If he was to honestly give a speech such as this one, it would go a long way towards reversing that opinion. That however, I know will never happen, as probably the single main component of greatness that Howard lacks, above all the others, is courage.
An idea for the aspiring mad scientists among us:- Combine these sound files with this, and the techniques contained here for a potentially highly effective, DNI free software mind control device.
Good for corporate politicians, dissenting family members, etc. They'll end up craving Linux without even knowing why!
Linus isn't an activist. He's just a programmer. Sure, he made a wonderful kernel, but it's the GPL that made his kernel popular and freely-downloadable.
In hindsight, I'm trying to figure out whether you made it to my foes list because of the sickeningly trite/condescending tone of the above, or because of the almost frightening level of ignorance that motivated you to write it.
IMHO, the issue isn't primarily about software patents, DRM, or any specific technology. The issue in my own mind is, what gives Stallman/the FSF the right to issue edicts on how people should think and/or behave?
Stallman has developed a massively over-inflated opinion of his own importance.
The guy is simply the bedrock of everything Free and (allegedly) Open Source software stand for.
Is that a purely emotional statement, or do you actually have reasons for thinking that?
The reason why I ask is because there are a number of FOSS licenses in particular which Stallman disagrees with, and whose creation he didn't have anything to do with. Hence, I find myself questioning the factual accuracy of your above statement.
Pretty much sums it up. I'm sure RMS doesn't like talking to lawyers either, he just has Beliefs and convictions that force him to. (No offense Mr MOGLEN)
Linus believes individuals should have the right to think and act as they choose. He doesn't try and define freedom as paradoxically containing restrictions on people's thoughts and actions.
I will adopt GPL v3 as soon as finalized. I have much more faith in the "Ramblings" of RMS than the casual "Who Cares" of Linus. Great as the kernel might be.
What I've repeatedly seen among RMS's advocates is a desire to allow him to do their thinking for them, rather than trying to think for themselves. You've compared two other people's different perspectives here...but you've been silent on something else that I'm curious about.
...and I'll say it again. Stallman has been given a length of rope, and is currently well into the process of hanging himself.
There doesn't need to be any rebuttal made to anything here either way. The "troll" and "flamebait" tags attached to this article entirely speak for themselves, and again illustrate the easily observable fact that Stallman's followers hold zero tolerance for any dissent with or criticism of their leader's perspectives.
Whenever I've been modded down as a troll to the point where nobody can read what I've written because I've dared to criticise Stallman in the past, that in itself has told me everything I need to know about the genuine moral fibre of the FSF's supporters, and what Stallman's version of freedom really means.
His followers are so totally secure in their own perspectives that they can't tolerate a single word of dissent being uttered. I can think of a couple of historical figures that such behaviour brings to mind...but none of them are individuals which I in any way would want to associate with.
Q. What's one of the most effective known ways of determining whether or not a given software application, Linux distribution, or other form of technology or philosophy is unusually useful, valid, or valuable?
A. If said item does have an abnormally high degree of worth, (but such worth is not immediately apparent to nanoscopic minds) chances are it will be derided by some conformist, karma-chasing dipshit on Slashdot. It is safe to assume in many cases (particularly when relating to Linux distributions) that the degree of merit of the subject of derision is actually inversely proportional to the amount of derision received.
Given how much derision Gentoo and the BSDs receive on this site, using the above formula it should be easy to ascertain these systems' actual worth.
Especially since I know the person I am describing above, and spending five minutes with them will make you question your own reality of computers and OSes, and yet they see Windows NT as the 'revolution' of OS computing architecture, not the weak bastard that the average slashbot sees it as.
Another important thing to realise about Slashdot is that denigration and criticism of Microsoft and its' offerings is a very deep seated element of the groupthink, and is engaged in on that basis...and not, I suspect, because that is how the majority here genuinely feel.
It's true that this site used to be a lot more genuinely *nix centric, but such was a long time ago. These days it's a lot more the case of around 90% or so of the readership using Windows, (at least commercially) while still trying to impress the 10% (or so) FSF/Debian bots who occasionally poke their heads out of the woodwork.
Slashdot Mirror
Total, utter, unadulterated bullshit. Microsoft built its' monopoly on the back of Michael Dell and others like him, and even if there was no other reason why I will never purchase a computer from his company, that reason remains.
Dell are a convenience company for the mindless sheep who feel helpless without getting a prefab package, as well as being fed, burped, and having their nappies changed. If more people bought parts and either paid for assembly or (*gasp*!) assembled it themselves, not only would they save a ton of money, Microsoft would not have its' monopoly, since the only way it has been able to enforce default installation of Windows on systems is because companies like Dell make whole, prepackaged systems.
If you Linux users want a world in which no operating system is installed on a new system by default, you need to convince people not to buy systems at all, but to buy parts from small, local businesses and then get them to assemble it if you're not confident doing it yourself.
I have a local hardware supplier near where I live, and I get markdowns from him because of repeat business. I only just recently upgraded my system, (last November) and got a Celeron 2.6 processor, 512mb DRAM, an Intel motherboard, (with a really awesome onboard soundcard, among other things), a combo DVD/CD burner, and a black Premiere case for $420 AUD. (I already had a hard drive, seperate video card, keyboard and mouse)
For me, Mr. Dell and his ilk are neither wanted, nor needed.
Real have been obnoxious in one way or another ever since I can remember. These days, good luck finding a link on their site to the downloadable player in amongst all the ads for the paid stuff. On top of that, when you do find it, in order to get a download link, they want you to fill out a form detailing everything about yourself, almost up to and including how often you have a bowel movement in a given 24 hour period.
Also, for some reason they feel a need to install a memory resident (thus, additionally memory consuming) tray loader. Why the double click association for RA/RAM files isn't good enough for them is beyond me.
I've generally given them a wide berth since the mid 90s, since that was when the last halfway sane version of the player was released. 5, I think it was, and from memory it's on oldversion.com, for those who want minimal real playability without all the other crap.
For them to issue moronic statements such as this however, on top of all their other annoyances, is just one more reason to stay well away from them in my book. Most media streams I come across are either Windows Media or ogg anywayz, so real aren't even really necessary.
...on whether Negreponte is a novice or not. If he is, then yes, he's very possibly out of luck, since software designed for novices needs more functions by definition, and thus, has to be bigger.
If on the other hand he already knows a thing or two, (or isn't afraid of learning) then he will find that minimalistic systems are actually one of Linux's primary strengths, at least in my observation. He could probably use this as a base, and then for X use apt-get to install ROX Filer, metacity, (as a background for ROX) and fbpanel as his start menu. Or, if he wants most of that done for him, he could install FVWM instead of metacity and fbpanel, and still use ROX as an explorer clone. Mind you, this is only one possible option, and most people reading this would probably think I'm insane and ask why I don't simply advocate fluxbox/xfce etc. This is a problem with myriad possible solutions.
He'd probably also need to install gtk for Abiword etc, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. There are also any number of lightweight image viewers around as well...he should check freshmeat. For web browsing, there's also dillo.
Hence, what he wants is more than possible. He might have to do a bit of surfing, but then again, with the magic of apt-get, he probably doesn't even need to do that.
I've played around with A.L.I.C.E and a few similar chatbots.
They do not constitute what I anyway consider genuine artificial intelligence. (At least not the ones based on AIML anywayz)
AIML isn't capable of producing emergent/non-predictable responses; it simply works from a predefined database of keyword/response pairs. Some of the Prolog scripts in particular that I've seen are a bit better than that, (in the sense that you can use that to create an expert system which is closer to being genuinely deserving of the name) but probably not by much; you could do the same thing in a Makefile for the most part.
If they're going to try and produce something which actually tries to adaptively develop a vocabulary, that would be one thing, but all an AIML bot does is respond to keywords by regurgitating strings from a static text file.
If that's AI, then so are Google, postgresql, and any flatfile database that's ever been written with awk...In other words, it ain't. I wish I understood why people try and claim that it is.
I have a D-Link DSL-200B ADSL modem, and it's a shameless piece of junk. The only reason why I use it at all is because it came free with my ADSL account, and I don't have the money to replace it with something decent. It was also the main thing which forced me entirely back to XP, since even though I believe there are Linux drivers for it, with all the added crap I'd have to do installing USB, it'd be even more work than my Lucent winmodem was on dialup.
The modem will also commonly take me 3-4 attempts to connect, isn't "always-on" like most ADSL connections apparently are, and usually doesn't stay connected for more than 48 hours at a stretch, either. The drivers for XP are also truly attrocious...I had to upgrade to service pack 2 I think it was because of USB problems, but the modem drivers still manage to crash my system on occasion. I'm talking a hard crash, too...it's the only time I still see the blue screen of death these days.
So, yeah...I wouldn't recommend D-Link stuff to anybody. The only reason why they're what ISPs give away as a free modem with accounts is because they're so cheap, and I'm assuming that that is because the company already has a reputation as vendors of rubbish hardware.
You do need to know your system, but...
Three things, first.
a) Monitor your RAM use.
b) Monitor your CPU use.
c) Monitor your bandwidth use.
If I get weird spikes in any/all of the above, my first step is usually to either run task manager or this if it's something which task manager can't detect. If there's something running which I don't recognise, (and yes, I *do* know my system that well, and so should you) my next step is to run msconfig and check the startup section there. 99% of bugs will show up there as having some kind of startup entry, and from there it's a simple process of deleting the bug executable and its' registry entries. One other thing which people might not know about though is to also scan the prefetch directory, (c:\windows\prefetch) as backup copies of bugs generally land in there as well.
If, and only if, that process does not work, (and again, in 99.5% of cases it will) I then head onto the Web and look for answers.
Generally speaking if the above process doesn't work, what you're looking for is an alien dll which is being injected into a system executable. (Ususually svchost.exe because of how opaque that generally is anywayz.) I'm not good enough to be able to do manual stack traces, but what I can do is watch the CPU usage meter in procexp.exe (mentioned above) and the process shown as using the large amount of CPU time/ram will be the one the dll is hiding in. From there, the only thing you really need from the web is the specific name of the dll that's being injected, and once you've got that, you're clean.
The other big thing is, don't use Internet Explorer. Yes, I have it installed, but I generally only use it as a backup for very limited periods if I'm wanting to look at a single page that Firefox isn't rendering correctly. (Doesn't happen all the time, but more often than you'd think.)
XP is surprisingly easy to keep clean, IMHO. The main reason being that, despite what people claim, there really only are a few different ways in which a bug can operate on the system. They all need startup access, (and there are only really two ways that they can get that, one being a standard location in the registry) and they're all going to leave a RAM/CPU footprint.
So I don't buy what people say about XP being indefensible. You have to be proactive, and you have to know your box on an intuitive level...but it's completely doable.
The worst thing about all of this is that not only does it inconvenience a huge number of people, it does so for absolutely no good reason.
Microsoft have done a lot of stupid things in their time, but Aero really takes the cake as far as I'm concerned. A 3D interface (at least in terms of how they're implementing it from the screenshots) is purely cosmetic...it doesn't offer anything in the area of usability whatsoever. For what therefore is a purely visual touch-up, a lot of people are going to have to shell out large amounts of money if they want to be able to upgrade. Great for the hardware manufacturers; a distaster for the rest of us.
Thanks a bundle, Microsoft.
Just look at P2P now, it's hard enough to find some files without 100s of corrupted or fake versions.
This is only difficult because it is not known in advance which files are fake and which aren't. As far as eMule/Kad are concerned, services like DonkeyFakes have existed, but they've generally ceased operations because of fears of a lawsuit.
That in essence however is what we would need...some type of verification mechanism which can tell people in advance which hashes represent genuine files, and which don't. If it were possible to verify that, it would actually make phishing/etc a lot more difficult, as file hashes are/can be as unique as fingerprints.
In terms of whether you understand me or not...if you've seen eDonkey search sites on the web, the hash of a file itself is a part of the link. That is what I'm advocating using as a link address...the idea that files potentially exist in an entirely distributed manner, (i.e., with multiple sources/not isolated necessarily to any one physical machine) but that the user can go to a particular page by using the page's file hash as a direct address.
Maybe this couldn't be used as the basis for something similar to the web as such. You might be right in saying that it only works for p2p filesharing, and not for things which require the kind of live interactivity that the web often has. For static pages it could work though, and people are doing amazing things with Ajax. There is a lot that would need to be worked out with it in order to produce something workable.
...in his recent interview, but I don't think he went far enough. He said that DNS is the Achilles' heel of the Web. I believe it's the primary vulnerability of the Internet in general. Virtually all the "who governs the net" garbage would be a non-issue if it wasn't for the name heirarchy.
What we need is an entirely peer to peer adaptation of the Web using DHT as an addressing system, where the hash of the file itself serves as its' address. That would solve (at least) two major problems:-
a) It'd get rid of the abovementioned "Internet governance" BS as mentioned above. I believe we could still have an entirely hyperlinked/relational/semantic Web using a DHT system...it just initially might require some more work. The reason why this would eliminate the TLD issue though is because the naming system itself would become irrelevant. It's worth remembering that DNS was originally developed by scientists/academics. If they'd remained the only people using it, it would have worked acceptably. Unfortunately however, the commercialists came along later and fucked it up, which they tend to do to everything they get their hands on. If the commercialists still want the old DNS/TLD system, let them keep it. The DHT system could be implemented for those of us interested in more productive uses of the network.
b) It would at least go a long way towards putting a final nail in the coffin of the {RI,MP}AA's ability to track/identify (and therefore sue) anybody using p2p filesharing. No DNS means no named websites, and no named websites means no centre of gravity/vulnerability to make the {RI,MP}AA's lives easier.
For those of you who think I'm insane, realise that to a degree it's already been done with the Kad p2p network. Anyone connecting to Kad is only able to view (to the untrained or non-mechanical eye, at least) a totally incomprehensible array of numerical strings and file hashes. It might be traceable to individual users, but not easily. What we need to do is figure out how to create an adapted version of HTTP that is able to rely on a machanism similar to Kad as its' trasit/addressing system.
In terms of coding this, I'd have no idea even where to begin myself...so I guess all I can hopefor is that someone else out there who could is sufficiently interested in the idea to try it.
...that Microsoft aren't used to building things in a non-monolithic way.
If, with IE, they'd adopt the approach of not only putting strong barriers between it and the core of the operating system, but also making the rest of it modular as well, it would be a lot more secure.
Another thing that'd be a really big help would be to get rid of the registry. The Windows registry is by far the single worst idea I've ever seen implemented in any operating system anywhere...it completely sucks. It doesn't make life for users substantially easier than using ini files in any respect that I've observed. The only people whose lives it seems to make easier are virus writers...since they're able to store data needed for a virus to run without me being able to find it in some cases, given what a non-discoverable, semi-binary jungle the registry is.
The population of the known universe were in shock today with the revelation that the US Supreme Court was observed behaving in something vaguely resembling a genuinely judicial manner. In response to these developments, a statement was received by us from the zoning co-ordination staff of the infernal regions, which informed us that they have plans to establish a ski resort later this year.
More on this as it develops.
Some of the people who want this technology (most of them in fact, I'd guess) are people who do literally value money more than life itself. They're the type who haven't learned what Cal Hockley did when he tried to buy a place on one of the lifeboats during the sinking of the Titanic; namely, that money isn't some kind of miraculous cure-all that can make them completely impervious to problems.
So yeah...Money to them is more important than anything else. More important than longevity, more important than having edible food or breathable air, more important than people. (Including, if they were honest, their own loved ones)
Reminds me of a businessman I heard about once who was interviewed about the cancer risk from mobile phone use. He said that even if there was a risk of brain cancer from using a mobile phone, he still would, because it was too important for, you guessed it, making money.
That's the type of mentality we're dealing with here...the type that thinks that having money is literally more important than being alive to spend it.
>People vote for him because they perceive him to be "just like them"
To me, Bob Hawke was a lot better at portraying the common man. That is not to say that I considered Hawke a great Prime Minister either, but he played the yobbo far more effectively...probably because before entering politics, by all accounts he genuinely was one.
Howard to me comes across overwhelmingly as an (aspiring, anyway) elitist and fascist. I don't think any "common man" element that he might have is so much deliberate as it is a simple side effect of his being utterly devoid of charisma.
The Liberals will probably stay in power the same way they have always managed to. Their primary strength is a historically verified (in my observation) aptitude for managing the Australian economy; they use this to hold the electorate hostage by threatening that if Labour are allowed to return to power, the economy will go through the floorboards around five minutes after Labour winning the election, which it inevitably does. The demise of Communism has not helped the fortunes of any left-wing political party in the world either, and Labour are no exception in that regard.
I used to be very much an advocate of the Liberal party in this country, but that was a long time ago. I now find myself wishing that Labour would shed their traditional image of a ragtag group of unionists and Marxist bogans, and actually come up with a coherent economic and social policy...something which actually makes sense.
Labour need to do something that they've never done before...Namely, get serious. Australian politics has never been in this kind of deadly earnest before, at least not within my lifetime. (I was born in 1977, after the Gough Whitlam incident)
Even then however...Gough was our Nixon. Like with Nixon in the US, Gough was nowhere near as serious a problem from all accounts as Howard and Bush are now. These two men are a very serious threat to the freedom of both of our countries...as is Blair in England...and we need somehow to find alternatives, and quickly.
I have been reading the pdf of the speech. It is open, honest, and vulnerable, and it is to Howard's shame that he had not in fact actually given it, and in public.
Yes, to a degree it would have constituted falling on his sword, but that after all is the only thing that is really left for Bush and his supporters to do.
As an Australian myself, I have never had a high level of respect for John Howard; the Australian Liberal Party's customary economic ability notwithstanding, I do not consider Howard to be a great orator, a great statesman, or really a great man in any respect. I have a cousin who has met with him and holds quite a large degree of admiration for him, and this cousin and I have had debates on that subject on a few occasions.
If he was to honestly give a speech such as this one, it would go a long way towards reversing that opinion. That however, I know will never happen, as probably the single main component of greatness that Howard lacks, above all the others, is courage.
Postgres uses the BSD license rather than the GPL. I expect that causes a lot of Linux users in particular to avoid it, unfortunately.
An idea for the aspiring mad scientists among us:- Combine these sound files with this, and the techniques contained here for a potentially highly effective, DNI free software mind control device.
Good for corporate politicians, dissenting family members, etc. They'll end up craving Linux without even knowing why!
Linus isn't an activist. He's just a programmer. Sure, he made a wonderful kernel, but it's the GPL that made his kernel popular and freely-downloadable.
In hindsight, I'm trying to figure out whether you made it to my foes list because of the sickeningly trite/condescending tone of the above, or because of the almost frightening level of ignorance that motivated you to write it.
IMHO, the issue isn't primarily about software patents, DRM, or any specific technology. The issue in my own mind is, what gives Stallman/the FSF the right to issue edicts on how people should think and/or behave?
Stallman has developed a massively over-inflated opinion of his own importance.
Morally, Linus is on the wrong side of the DRM battle, since he supports it (and is willing to be used as a PR pawn by Forbes), however
Whose definition of morality are we talking about, here? Yours, or Stallman's?
Can you also elaborate a little more on that statement in general?
The guy is simply the bedrock of everything Free and (allegedly) Open Source software stand for.
Is that a purely emotional statement, or do you actually have reasons for thinking that?
The reason why I ask is because there are a number of FOSS licenses in particular which Stallman disagrees with, and whose creation he didn't have anything to do with. Hence, I find myself questioning the factual accuracy of your above statement.
Pretty much sums it up. I'm sure RMS doesn't like talking to lawyers either, he just has Beliefs and convictions that force him to. (No offense Mr MOGLEN)
Linus believes individuals should have the right to think and act as they choose. He doesn't try and define freedom as paradoxically containing restrictions on people's thoughts and actions.
I will adopt GPL v3 as soon as finalized. I have much more faith in the "Ramblings" of RMS than the casual "Who Cares" of Linus. Great as the kernel might be.
What I've repeatedly seen among RMS's advocates is a desire to allow him to do their thinking for them, rather than trying to think for themselves. You've compared two other people's different perspectives here...but you've been silent on something else that I'm curious about.
What's *your* opinion?
...and I'll say it again. Stallman has been given a length of rope, and is currently well into the process of hanging himself.
There doesn't need to be any rebuttal made to anything here either way. The "troll" and "flamebait" tags attached to this article entirely speak for themselves, and again illustrate the easily observable fact that Stallman's followers hold zero tolerance for any dissent with or criticism of their leader's perspectives.
Whenever I've been modded down as a troll to the point where nobody can read what I've written because I've dared to criticise Stallman in the past, that in itself has told me everything I need to know about the genuine moral fibre of the FSF's supporters, and what Stallman's version of freedom really means.
His followers are so totally secure in their own perspectives that they can't tolerate a single word of dissent being uttered. I can think of a couple of historical figures that such behaviour brings to mind...but none of them are individuals which I in any way would want to associate with.
I've seen too many Star Wars fan films with great effects and lousy acting and stories, for instance.
;)
Sounds like they probably would have been difficult to distinguish from Lucas' originals.
Q. What's one of the most effective known ways of determining whether or not a given software application, Linux distribution, or other form of technology or philosophy is unusually useful, valid, or valuable?
A. If said item does have an abnormally high degree of worth, (but such worth is not immediately apparent to nanoscopic minds) chances are it will be derided by some conformist, karma-chasing dipshit on Slashdot. It is safe to assume in many cases (particularly when relating to Linux distributions) that the degree of merit of the subject of derision is actually inversely proportional to the amount of derision received.
Given how much derision Gentoo and the BSDs receive on this site, using the above formula it should be easy to ascertain these systems' actual worth.
Especially since I know the person I am describing above, and spending five minutes with them will make you question your own reality of computers and OSes, and yet they see Windows NT as the 'revolution' of OS computing architecture, not the weak bastard that the average slashbot sees it as.
Another important thing to realise about Slashdot is that denigration and criticism of Microsoft and its' offerings is a very deep seated element of the groupthink, and is engaged in on that basis...and not, I suspect, because that is how the majority here genuinely feel.
It's true that this site used to be a lot more genuinely *nix centric, but such was a long time ago. These days it's a lot more the case of around 90% or so of the readership using Windows, (at least commercially) while still trying to impress the 10% (or so) FSF/Debian bots who occasionally poke their heads out of the woodwork.