I've tended to consider it ironic on the few occasions when Gates and RMS have indirectly traded barbs...Namely because the two men actually have far more in common IMHO than I suspect either of them would be comfortable to admit. I'm reminded here of a scene from Spiderman when the Green Goblin tells Spidey, "You and I are not so different."
Both men are ideologues, and both, I believe, are megalomaniacs, despite my anticipation that Stallman in particular would strenuously deny such an accusation. But as ESR has said, Stallman wants to be the figurehead of the entire FOSS movement. His flowery speech at times aside, let there be no misconceptions about it...the man *does* advocate a heirarchy, and most especially he advocates himself as the leader of it.
The other irony is that Stallman himself is guilty of exactly the same kind of hypocrisy with which he accuses Gates here...Namely, with regards to the LGPL. Stallman at one point criticised the XFree86 group for using a BSD-like license, calling them sellouts who were doing such in order to ensure that X gained popularity...and he then turned around later and did exactly the same thing with the creation of the LGPL. He actually cites software popularity as part of the reason for the creation of the LGPL. He might not remember this particular inconsistency...I, however, do.
I am not for one moment trying to lump both Stallman and Gates into the same *moral* category here...or not completely, anywayz. Stallman has done a lot of good...I'm aware of that. However, what I think a lot of *other* people need to be aware of is that he still isn't the being of light they think he is, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be different from Gates morally and ideologically in many ways...but the main things that the two do have in common is that contrary to popular belief, both are guided by their ego, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the desire to dominate others. That might sound paradoxical when said about Stallman in particular...but do some research on the man, have a good long think about it, and see what you come up with...you might be very surprised. For the purposes of Linux users, Stallman can definitely be considered an ally...but personally I think "friend" would be too strong a word. The man has his own agenda...and not one that necessarily coincides with everyone else's best interests.
Usenet needs to die. As I've said before, its only real function is as an online replacement for the conventional mental health system.
There are plenty of other forms of communication online now. Usenet is a relic in the same sense that Ultima Online is to MMORPGs...From the point of view that in UO's heyday, it was the only game of its kind in existence...and so therefore the sorts of brainsick freaks that you customarily encounter on Usenet and those of us who *are* sane were forced to interact with each other...something which ironically made *both* groups unhappy.
The Internet has been slowly moving away from generalised, one-size-(doesn't)-fit-all forms of communication to highly insular, segregated forms classified according to interests and comparitive levels of mental health, among other things. That also is exactly how it ought to be. I'm not saying that I believe any particular group should not be allowed to exist...all should, and all generally serve a purpose. What I *have* always been a very firm believer in however is voluntary segregation. It works, and it's better for everyone concerned.
Just because a lot of other people have done it, that doesn't make it any less wrong. According to your logic, the next time a murderer is brought up on charges, a winning defense argument could be, "Your Honour, why is the court so shocked? Murder is something which happens all the time!"
Although, assuming you're American (probably a fairly safe bet, given this site's known readership) it is true that your country's society in particular probably isn't all that far off the above scenario anyway. Guantanamo Bay has been seen endless times as ample evidence that the American government has grown somewhat blase about atrocities.
In the case of people like yourself, it's just business as long as it happens to someone else...and if you're one of those rare individuals with whom even that isn't the case, you might really want to ask yourself some pointed questions about what your priorities are in life. It pains me that there are so many people walking around on this planet who don't understand that altruism can itself actually be motivated by self interest, because we do all ultimately rely on each other. No single human being lives in a vacuum...nearly all of us exist within a web of dependencies, whether it's family, friends...or customers. Lest corporations forget...if the customer doesn't pay for their product, they don't make money.
This is what corporations and people like the author of the parent post don't understand.
>It's the republican Mantra "If you can't hang >with the big boys, then get out of the way"
Any individual or entity which exists via destroying others eventually destroys itself...it's a mathematical certainty. When they run out of external victims, the chaotic urge to destroy turns inward...which is where it really came from in the first place. It's appropriate that you mention the Republicans being connected with that saying, actually...because over the next few years, they are going to learn about the reality of that particular principle.
And people tell me I'm overly judgemental and I'm being way too hard on poor widdle Bill when I tell them about what a tyrannical, degenerate scumbag he is.
However, Gates being a genuinely evil human being is a fact that we've all been aware of for some time. The thing that I suppose we should be appreciative of when he continues to behave like this is the fact that the more he does it, the larger the number of people who will come to see him for what he truly is...which will in turn bring about Microsoft's decline all that much faster.
So please, Bill. Carry on with the Darth Vader/Al Capone routine, by all means. All you're ultimately doing is digging your own grave...a fact about which the rest of us couldn't be happier.
This is yet another concession. Microsoft needs to be made to continue making concessions. One step back, then another step back, then another, and another...and another...
This is a very large mountain we're hammering away at, here...But all that needs to keep happening is for us to keep chipping away...keep nibbling at their market share in various areas, (even supposedly irrelevant ones like browser space) tie them up in punitive lawsuits in various jurisdictions in order to wear down their cash reserves via settlements...but above all, keep advocating Linux, and keep working on improving it. As well as the primary reason of introducing new people to Linux's technical and philosophical benefits over Windows, every consumer we can cause Microsoft to lose automatically puts another nail in the corporation's coffin.
The 800 pound gorilla is going to make an extremely loud crash when it hits the ground...personally I can't wait. It will take time, but it's going to happen.
I find myself wondering why these people are bothering...but then again, if I stop and think about it for a minute, it's not difficult to figure it out.
I suspect these fans are worried (and probably justifiably so) that if Enterprise is axed, it will finally truly be the end of Trek in general...and so therefore, as much of a twisted abomination as Enterprise surely is, in their minds it's infinitely more desirable than nothing at all.
There's something they're not realising, however...Namely that the entire reason why I think Gene's vision has vanished from the show is because America in particular has been blanketed by such intense, nihilistic darkness at the moment that it can no longer see it. Gene believed in a better future...America now is dominated by old men like Jerry Falwell and others who believe the only thing that lies ahead is Armageddon. Out of the two, I certainly know which scenario I and a number of others prefer...the only problem is that Falwell and the other wingnuts of his ilk outnumber those who want to believe in any kind of optimistic future scenario by a factor of probably a thousand to one.
Then again, maybe these fans do see that...maybe what they're thinking is that that is why it's more important than ever that Trek survive right now...After all, light is never more desperately needed than at those times when you can't see your hand in front of your face...and that is exactly the scenario large parts of the world are in right now.
...Pseudoscience has now arrived on Slashdot. Of course, the convenient element of this I suppose is that when I want to laugh in future, I'll no longer need to visit both here *and* crank.net.
The commencement of covering American politics was in itself a major indication of the intellectual decline of this site, compared with times past...If stories like these begin making their appearance on a regular basis, I find myself wondering how long it will be before Slashdot becomes largely worthless. I suppose I could simply edit my settings to screen out submissions by Zonk, but that isn't really a solution...From what I'm seeing, he's only the latest symptom, rather than the disease itself. And yes, to those of you with modpoints at the moment who *shouldn't* have them on the grounds of your being groupthinking, conformist sheep, mod me troll with my blessing, as I know you will...as you always do when I or anyone else makes a post of this nature.
Right...In other words, remove focus from things Windows can't deal with, and move it to something which (Microsoft claims) it can...something which in 98% of cases is completely irrelevant to Linux anyway.
Mr Nash, it's interesting that you claim Windows is more secure than Linux. Tell me, does Windows have...
1) The ability to have the entire operating system compiled with the propolice buffer overflow protections, as well as libsafe, to guard against stack-smashing attacks?
2) The ability to install the OpenBSD Project's OpenSSL directly into the system for both local and remote system logins, as well as password shadowing even if a person doesn't install OpenSSL as well?
3) Close to a dozen different encryption algorhythms optionally supported by the kernel?
4) The ability, if a person is a software developer or programmer themselves, to personally audit *any* of the source code for security vulnerabilities?
5) An extremely robust multi-user implementation built fundamentally into the operating system?
6) Application configuration files whose format is completely transparent, plain text, rather than an obscure, binary-only database which is a virus-writer's dream with regards to hiding rogue processes, and which grows exponentially to the point where a user is forced to reinstall the entire system?
Of course, I'm being cruel. These questions are rhetorical...I don't need to ask them really, because I already know the answer. Windows does not provide for any of these things. I would *never* personally install any product from Microsoft for use in commercial server-side networking, and I believe very emphatically that nobody else should either. Windows is good for client-side networking, graphical applications, and games...and for those uses, XP is reasonably decent. As far as server side networking and network security are concerned however, ALL of Microsoft's operating systems are critically flawed at a fundamental level. Microsoft initially specialised in developing a single-user operating system, and have, comparitively speaking, virtually no experience with the Internet whatsoever.
Any claim that Windows is more secure at the network level than virtually *any* other operating system on the planet is a complete lie. It's that simple.
Red Hat are a good example here, and the example holds even without the support and other services they offer.
Red Hat released RPM, anaconda, kudzu, and several other things...All of said things are available seperately (some via CVS) under the GPL. Problem is, they're not generally much use as standalone programs. If you're a confident enough programmer, have lots of time, and otherwise feel adventurous, you could eventually figure out how to integrate them into your own system. (I believe White Box Linux is a Red Hat like-setup that's tweaked somewhat)
Most of us however, don't have the time. Corporate users especially want to be able to use great features, but also generally want them yesterday. Red Hat's distribution/s mean that said users can buy a CD with all of the company's unique elements tied neatly together, and be up and running in 30-40 minutes. Yes, that's something Microsoft and the other closed-source vendors are able to do...but that is the point. Red Hat understands that the corporate mind is conservative...and so the only way to get corporations to buy open source is if it also includes a closed source like experience...in terms of support contracts and so on.
In other words, yes, you can make money from open source...you just have to be sufficiently creative about it.
>Would still have existed.. Unix pre-dated >Microsoft, and while they did intermingle over >the years, Unix's existence was not tied to >anyone elses products failure or successes. >So all of the main Unix derivatives would still >be here in one form or another regardless.
Yes, UNIX still would have existed, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is now. UNIX's traditional userbase was a group of autistic elitists who saw themselves as the last bastion of human intelligence (the BSD crowd do still think like that, even though they're probably right;)) but who before Linux, also didn't want to let anyone else play with their toys. 90% of the evangelical work for Linux/the BSDs that I've seen has been done by converted Windows refugees...People who've always used UNIX derivatives don't WANT new users themselves, because they tend to see the rest of the planet as a lot less intelligent.
It is also true however that Gates and Ballmer's total amorality is the primary secret of their success. In the American corporate world, giving in to the Dark Side and surrendering to your hate are probably the main prerequisites for getting anywhere.
I find myself wondering what this will mean for Linux. Will there actually be something of a community split (at least initially) with people going off and trying the HURD? Obviously the "ready for the desktop" lemmings won't be among that crowd, but I'm still guessing there'll be a fair number of adventurous souls wanting to try it out once it's a bit more workable.
True...but although TOS and a number of the others had episodes which were allegorical of real-world events, I never saw the level of jingoism become as blatant as it was with Enterprise...and that's the whole point. One of the things I'd always valued most about Star Trek before that was the nationalistically agnostic atmosphere...and emphasis of that was one of the core elements of Roddenberry's philosophy. The program might have been produced by Americans...but it was probably the only cultural element that the country has ever produced to my mind where that fact was not being made constantly front and centre.
I'm not someone who believes in the idea of global *government* at all...that is an entirely different can of worms...but I do believe that Star Trek's portrayal of the proverbial brotherhood of man was an extremely positive thing...and by that I mean the idea that other people on the planet besides white America just might have some intrinsic value.
To my mind, that is the main reason why Trek's death has been something worth grieving over...not because of the fact that it was a fictitious TV show...but that it was *one* fictitious TV show that tried to show us what the world might be like if humanity was able to grow up. True, whether we manage to grow up before we wipe ourselves out is still an open question...but we're also rapidly running out of time.
>I got turned off by the Xindi arc...because it >reminded me too much of 9/11 and crap.
This is exactly what I got called a nutcase for talking about on here a few weeks back. Part of the reason why Enterprise sucked to the degree that it did for some of us was because real-world politics *didn't* get left out of it. The stuff about Trip Tucker attempting to educate T'Pol in his own allegedly superior, brain-dead Texan behaviour patterns and attitudes was particularly obscene to my mind...as was the indignity of having Scot Bakula, someone who was once a reasonably celebrated actor, playing the character of a thoroughly obnoxious, gung-ho redneck who generally needed things explained to him three or four times in order for him to understand them. (The mind boggles as to where the writers could have found inspiration for such a character. Hint:- Think of the White House)
Trek being creatively barren because of Berman and Braga's personal wells having run dry I can tolerate...Trek on the other hand being converted into the Confederacy Propaganda Hour on the other hand is completely beyond the pale. What is especially ironic about this is the fact that racism in any form is completely the opposite of what Trek originally stood for.
Enterprise has needed to end ever since it first began to air...and I'm glad it now has. Being creatively barren as I said is bad enough...but being xenophobic and ethnocentric is far worse.
This to my mind is bad news. I understand that ESR is controversial...Some people like him, and others definitely don't...but there's one area where he did the geek world a big favour...namely in the sense that from what I saw, he was the real world's answer to Louis Skolnick.
What I mean by that is that geeks traditionally are (to put it in politically correct terminology) "neurologically diverse." We seem to typically be either somewhere on the autistic spectrum (I myself was diagnosed in 1992 with a Nonverbal Learning Disorder, which is an autistic spectrum/PDD condition fairly similar to Asperger's) or to have ADHD. I've always thought that RMS's major problem as far as obtaining genuine (mainstream) relevance is concerned is the fact (at least to my mind) that he is deeply and visibly autistic, which seems to be an enormous hindrance to him when it comes to relating to other people.
ESR by comparison is/was relatively mainstream. I certainly won't say completely...but a lot moreso than RMS, and definitely moreso than is usual for the geek/hacker rank and file. In dealing with the corporate world (*especially* boomer corporates) it's absolutely vital that even if you aren't normal, you can convincingly pretend to be for extensive periods of time...which ESR evidently *is* capable of doing.
The point is that we *do* need someone like that, in order to act as a liason with the rest of the planet. Not only for those of us who genuinely can't do it, but also for those of us like RMS who I suspect probably *could* if they really tried, but who see doing so as tremendously immoral.
I understand some people don't like Raymond, and from what I've read of his writings I think I can at least suspect why that is. I think it's true that he probably *does* have an enormous ego, among other things.
But at the same time, in some ways personally I tend to see him as at least vaguely resembling the sort of person I myself would want to be if I had the courage to become self-actualised. I'm not someone customarily given to hero worship...and I'm not saying I engage in that with Raymond either, exactly...he's written things that I disagree with. But controversy about him aside, I think I have been able to see in him a lot which I admire and consider valuable...and I think as far as FOSS is concerned, he *has* made a difference. I hope that even after stepping down from this position, he'll still be willing and able to keep doing so.
is it going to require him to execute people in plain sight before you finally wake up and see him for the monster that he is? --- is how that should have read...I hit submit by accident.
By that though I also don't mean the usual procedure for capital punishment...I mean martial law and other such things.
>I remember having a conversation with one who
>claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the US
>invented democracy. Hell, democracy isn't even an
>english word.
That's a sick joke...but it is also highly typical. What the US in fact invented is probably the single *least* robust implementation of democratic government in history. The main two reasons for my saying this are a) the Republican model...ergo, that the head of state/figurehead for purpose of sheeple worship and the head of the executive branch are one and the same person...which of course has led to the kind of mindless worship of the presidency that has been at least partially responsible for allowing Bush to get away with his current excesses...and b) the electoral college, which from a genuinely representative point of view is insane...because it still allows someone who is unpopular to win an election on a technicality.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this...but I also know that the people who flame me will a) primarily consist of brainless Texans/Southerners, and b) do so on the basis of purely reactionary emotionalism...and so I'm therefore almost certain to ignore it. The simple fact is that virtually any other *non-republican* democratic model in existence which also does not include the electoral college is going to be far more resistant to coup than the US system...and when the US system finally undeniably crashes and burns completely (which it is currently on the brink of doing, or possibly already has depending on who you ask) you will then see that I'm right about this.
How long are you going to keep crowing to people about how "free" you are, when it becomes more readily apparent to the rest of the planet on a daily basis that the opposite is in fact true? Bush and the Palpatine wannabes in his cabinet are in the final stages of a complete coup/derailment of the democratic system there...is it going to require him to in plain sight before you finally wake up and see him for the monster that he is?
Ah, once again Newsforge calls the faithful to worship. Gather together, O ye who believe. Come forth and bow down before the heathen altar of the great God GNU and its Prophet, the anointed RMS, and receive their blessing.
I will admit I like the GPL for some things. Example: My girlfriend and I were searching high and low for a copy of the book The Science of Getting Rich online the other day. The book of course is 90 odd years old, and we knew it was in the public domain. However, the only place where we were able to find it was on Wikisource where it was licensed under the GFDL. This sort of application is where copyleft really shines...in that it allows people to make derivative works, but simply serves to prevent the original work from being removed from the public domain. In the case of The Science of Getting Rich you might be wondering what I mean...A particular woman has set up a website and is making money selling a number of products based around Wattles' philosophy as espoused in that book. Great, you say. Where's the problem there? The problem is that Wikisource was the only place I could find the book...and it wasn't through lack of searching, either...we scoured both Google and eMule. I strongly suspect that a number of people who were making money from derivative works of the book had taken pains to make sure the original wasn't available online, in order to prevent others from also making money from derivative works in the same way they had. It is highly lamentable that keeping such public domain works available in practice requires legal enforcement...but apparently it does.
Something on the other hand that bothers me about the GPL in particular is the confusion that has arisen apparently in a lot of people's minds about software being free as in speech as opposed to free as in beer. I wouldn't know how many times I've seen someone suggesting the idea of selling GPL licensed software, while being perfectly happy about also making source available, only to have some misinformed fanatic materialise out of the woodwork and begin screeching about how it is supposedly a violation of the license to DARE to try and make money with it, as well as being demonically evil in the process.
If there are any such fanatics reading this comment, immediately go and read this, and educate yourselves. <heavy sarcasm> It flowed from the immaculate keyboard of your spiritual leader himself as well, so you can be comforted that it is authoritative on the subject. It so happens, incidentally, that the Prophet was actually selling copies of Emacs on tape for a few hundred bucks each at some point in the 80s, so I'm assuming he himself obviously isn't opposed to using GPL licensed software to make money, even if you are.</heavy sarcasm>
>One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to >soften its image to become kinder and gentler. >'They don't want people to hate them anymore. >They've learned from their mistakes.' Hmmm."
They might not want people to hate them any more, certainly...but it'll be a very cold day in hell when I believe Microsoft have "learned from their mistakes."
Bill Gates is a raving megalomaniac who wants to take over the world more passionately than most, and his second in command, Dr Evil AKA Steve Ballmer, isn't far behind him on that score either. I will keep using XP for the time being...at least until I can figure out WineX to a greater degree anyway...but I don't trust the evil genius who produces it as far as I could throw him...and neither should anyone else if they know what's good for them.
A quarter is what, three months? In the grand scheme of things, that's a momentary spike. Meanwhile they still have the same problem they've had for the last ten years...Namely, no clue of what to do with themselves in the OS space (their heartland) after NT 4. (XP does NOT count...it's NT 5.x with eye candy) Longhorn has been essentially cancelled, which in a history of mistakes was probably the single dumbest thing MS has ever done. Big picture, Microsoft needs to do three things:-
1. Get a concrete, long-term operating system plan in place...and not one which is implemented one minute and scrapped the next, a la Longhorn. They need to find something and run with it.
2. Get a substantial new OS release out the door ASAP. It's been way too long since the last one...and as anyone who writes software knows, for the most part you're only considered as good as your last release.
3. Do something serious about Ballmer's constant gaffes and idiotic, embarassing behaviour...this ties in with an urgent need for MS to clean up its image in a big way in general.
If Bill can pull off these three things, and also post *sustained* gains, (and instead of one, try eight or so) then I might believe that in a long term sense, he's back in the game. Until then, an isolated decent quarter here and there is so much hollow optimistic hot air, IMNSHO.
As far as the GPL is concerned (Linux's primary license, more or less) it so happens that RMS agrees with you. Check this out, if you're interested...it's an article he's written about that very thing. And of course, this is only something that comes up as a potential question in people's minds with the GPL anyway...if you're talking about software that uses the BSD or virtually any other FOSS license, of which there are several, it generally doesn't need to be mentioned. It seems to be primarily the GPL with which people have the misconception that free ("libre" - liberated or open source) HAS to also mean free as in beer as well. This of course was actually the core reason why ESR started using the term "open source", although I personally probably prefer the term "liberated software" myself, and am not sure why anybody else hasn't come up with that...because it implies freedom in terms of rules, but doesn't necessarily in terms of price.
Unfortunately the fact that one encounters misinformed GPL zealots from time to time (who help spread the misconception about the GPL in particular) doesn't help matters.
> 8 years, 16 hours a day? How does that work? Job, >school, something had to be going on there.
I have Asperger's Syndrome and borderline schizotypal personality disorder...After being in a psychiatric inpatient unit for two months at the beginning of 1994, (I was 17 at the time and living with parents) I was allowed to remain at home for what quickly became a period of years...it more or less just happened. I was then able to get onto a disability support pension, owing to the Asperger's Syndrome and severe depression.
>Besides... if it was that BAD, why the hell did >you keep going back?
Due to the level of abuse in various forms that I experienced while in the education system, I developed the perception of myself as an extreme outcast...along the lines of Quasimodo, basically. I became nocturnal and almost completely solitary, and was mostly active at night, at least until being attacked and nearly strangled at around 3-4 am one morning in 1997. I continued going back to IRC despite it being that bad because at the time I had the perception that, as dysfunctional and negative as those people were, they were largely all I had.
I understand that the reaction of many Americans in particular reading this, particularly those more inclined towards support of George W Bush, is likely to be either apathy and the thought that I should simply get over myself, or hostility and vilification, and the labelling of me as a wimp. I could accept that in the case of myself alone, but what such people do not understand is that it is precisely that kind of attitude that contributes to their being so many people similar to themselves in their midst. Although I am not American myself, virtually all of the individuals I associated with on IRC were. They were as I have said, incredibly damaged people, attempting to exist within the cracks of a society in which the rest of its members were apathetic and selfish, not caring about anyone other than themselves. As long as that kind of attitude is the guiding attitude of Western society, places like the Undernet and Usenet will continue to exist. Human beings need to begin to regain a sense of community and reach out to those who are currently outcasts...it's the only way you can start to heal both the outcasts and yourselves.
IRC in itself is merely a protocol. Just as a gun in itself isn't inherently good or bad, but rather the person who fires it, the same can be said of IRC. However...
I spent close to eight years (September 1995 to July 2003) inhabiting IRC, primarily on the Undernet network, but also DALnet as well. For most of that time, I literally spent all of my waking hours on IRC...My bed was located about two feet behind the computer, and I would get up, sign on...and sixteen-eighteen hours later, sign off, and lie down.
In my experience, the Undernet in particular exists primarily (as does Usenet) as a haven for the socially disenfranchised, chronically mentally ill...it is literally a human rubbish tip, and is the closest thing in physical existence that I have known to the concept of Catholic concept of Purgatory...not even so much in the level of torment that exists there, but more because it exists mainly as a gathering point for those who, because of mental disease and deformity or extreme sexual deviancy and perversion, are unable to associate with the rest of the offline human population. In short, quoting the words of Egon Spengler from the Real Ghostbusters, "This is where the worst ghosts of the lot get stuck, because they're too awful for anyone to see." Outside of the institutionalised mental health or penal systems, I can with confidence state that in Western society, IRC is as bad as it gets.
During my time on the network, I literally encountered examples of virtually every psychiatric disease or ailment known to man. I knew paranoid and hallucinatory schizophrenics/schizotypals, people with MPD, OCD, and nymphomania, various forms of autism, extreme drug addiction, and nihilistic and perverted occultism related interests.
As far as sexual deviancy is concerned, DALnet is probably worse than the Undernet, but there again, I was privy to learning about the existence of a huge number of different forms of dysfunctional sexuality...Paedophilia, beastiality, scatology, BDSM, various types of oral fixations, group sex, fetishism is countless other different forms, transsexuality, etc etc. It had an enormous, and extremely detrimental psychological effect on me, which two years later I am still attempting to recover from. I have also had a formal diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder due to my experiences.
I personally believe that the Internet is one of the single most positive...bordering on miraculous...inventions in human history that I know of. However, with that said, there are parts of it that urgently need to be avoided. If parents are worried about their children using the net, the Web to a large degree can be ok, as is MSN...but when it comes to Usenet and IRC in particular, their concern is justified.
I know it will never happen, but my fondest wish would be for the global psychiatric community to mobilise and send some of its members into a number of channels on the Undernet...#scripture, #submission, and #thelema probably primarily among them. Those channels contain extremely sick, damaged people...who need help.
Slashdot Mirror
>'alt.sacred.format.preserve.obey.defendc red.format.continue.go-on.!endt ive.write.post.sendx .blend
>alt.sa
>alt.single.adjec
>alt.ensuing.noun.stir-in.mi
>alt.triple.verbs.add.finish.append!'
"Your Honour, the case for the prosecution rests."
I've tended to consider it ironic on the few occasions when Gates and RMS have indirectly traded barbs...Namely because the two men actually have far more in common IMHO than I suspect either of them would be comfortable to admit. I'm reminded here of a scene from Spiderman when the Green Goblin tells Spidey, "You and I are not so different."
Both men are ideologues, and both, I believe, are megalomaniacs, despite my anticipation that Stallman in particular would strenuously deny such an accusation. But as ESR has said, Stallman wants to be the figurehead of the entire FOSS movement. His flowery speech at times aside, let there be no misconceptions about it...the man *does* advocate a heirarchy, and most especially he advocates himself as the leader of it.
The other irony is that Stallman himself is guilty of exactly the same kind of hypocrisy with which he accuses Gates here...Namely, with regards to the LGPL. Stallman at one point criticised the XFree86 group for using a BSD-like license, calling them sellouts who were doing such in order to ensure that X gained popularity...and he then turned around later and did exactly the same thing with the creation of the LGPL. He actually cites software popularity as part of the reason for the creation of the LGPL. He might not remember this particular inconsistency...I, however, do.
I am not for one moment trying to lump both Stallman and Gates into the same *moral* category here...or not completely, anywayz. Stallman has done a lot of good...I'm aware of that. However, what I think a lot of *other* people need to be aware of is that he still isn't the being of light they think he is, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be different from Gates morally and ideologically in many ways...but the main things that the two do have in common is that contrary to popular belief, both are guided by their ego, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the desire to dominate others. That might sound paradoxical when said about Stallman in particular...but do some research on the man, have a good long think about it, and see what you come up with...you might be very surprised. For the purposes of Linux users, Stallman can definitely be considered an ally...but personally I think "friend" would be too strong a word. The man has his own agenda...and not one that necessarily coincides with everyone else's best interests.
Usenet needs to die. As I've said before, its only real function is as an online replacement for the conventional mental health system.
There are plenty of other forms of communication online now. Usenet is a relic in the same sense that Ultima Online is to MMORPGs...From the point of view that in UO's heyday, it was the only game of its kind in existence...and so therefore the sorts of brainsick freaks that you customarily encounter on Usenet and those of us who *are* sane were forced to interact with each other...something which ironically made *both* groups unhappy.
The Internet has been slowly moving away from generalised, one-size-(doesn't)-fit-all forms of communication to highly insular, segregated forms classified according to interests and comparitive levels of mental health, among other things. That also is exactly how it ought to be. I'm not saying that I believe any particular group should not be allowed to exist...all should, and all generally serve a purpose. What I *have* always been a very firm believer in however is voluntary segregation. It works, and it's better for everyone concerned.
Just because a lot of other people have done it, that doesn't make it any less wrong. According to your logic, the next time a murderer is brought up on charges, a winning defense argument could be, "Your Honour, why is the court so shocked? Murder is something which happens all the time!"
Although, assuming you're American (probably a fairly safe bet, given this site's known readership) it is true that your country's society in particular probably isn't all that far off the above scenario anyway. Guantanamo Bay has been seen endless times as ample evidence that the American government has grown somewhat blase about atrocities.
This is what corporations and people like the author of the parent post don't understand.
This may be highly instructive.
>It's the republican Mantra "If you can't hang
>with the big boys, then get out of the way"
Any individual or entity which exists via destroying others eventually destroys itself...it's a mathematical certainty. When they run out of external victims, the chaotic urge to destroy turns inward...which is where it really came from in the first place. It's appropriate that you mention the Republicans being connected with that saying, actually...because over the next few years, they are going to learn about the reality of that particular principle.
And people tell me I'm overly judgemental and I'm being way too hard on poor widdle Bill when I tell them about what a tyrannical, degenerate scumbag he is.
However, Gates being a genuinely evil human being is a fact that we've all been aware of for some time. The thing that I suppose we should be appreciative of when he continues to behave like this is the fact that the more he does it, the larger the number of people who will come to see him for what he truly is...which will in turn bring about Microsoft's decline all that much faster.
So please, Bill. Carry on with the Darth Vader/Al Capone routine, by all means. All you're ultimately doing is digging your own grave...a fact about which the rest of us couldn't be happier.
This is yet another concession. Microsoft needs to be made to continue making concessions. One step back, then another step back, then another, and another...and another...
This is a very large mountain we're hammering away at, here...But all that needs to keep happening is for us to keep chipping away...keep nibbling at their market share in various areas, (even supposedly irrelevant ones like browser space) tie them up in punitive lawsuits in various jurisdictions in order to wear down their cash reserves via settlements...but above all, keep advocating Linux, and keep working on improving it. As well as the primary reason of introducing new people to Linux's technical and philosophical benefits over Windows, every consumer we can cause Microsoft to lose automatically puts another nail in the corporation's coffin.
The 800 pound gorilla is going to make an extremely loud crash when it hits the ground...personally I can't wait. It will take time, but it's going to happen.
I find myself wondering why these people are bothering...but then again, if I stop and think about it for a minute, it's not difficult to figure it out.
I suspect these fans are worried (and probably justifiably so) that if Enterprise is axed, it will finally truly be the end of Trek in general...and so therefore, as much of a twisted abomination as Enterprise surely is, in their minds it's infinitely more desirable than nothing at all.
There's something they're not realising, however...Namely that the entire reason why I think Gene's vision has vanished from the show is because America in particular has been blanketed by such intense, nihilistic darkness at the moment that it can no longer see it. Gene believed in a better future...America now is dominated by old men like Jerry Falwell and others who believe the only thing that lies ahead is Armageddon.
Out of the two, I certainly know which scenario I and a number of others prefer...the only problem is that Falwell and the other wingnuts of his ilk outnumber those who want to believe in any kind of optimistic future scenario by a factor of probably a thousand to one.
Then again, maybe these fans do see that...maybe what they're thinking is that that is why it's more important than ever that Trek survive right now...After all, light is never more desperately needed than at those times when you can't see your hand in front of your face...and that is exactly the scenario large parts of the world are in right now.
...Pseudoscience has now arrived on Slashdot. Of course, the convenient element of this I suppose is that when I want to laugh in future, I'll no longer need to visit both here *and* crank.net.
The commencement of covering American politics was in itself a major indication of the intellectual decline of this site, compared with times past...If stories like these begin making their appearance on a regular basis, I find myself wondering how long it will be before Slashdot becomes largely worthless. I suppose I could simply edit my settings to screen out submissions by Zonk, but that isn't really a solution...From what I'm seeing, he's only the latest symptom, rather than the disease itself. And yes, to those of you with modpoints at the moment who *shouldn't* have them on the grounds of your being groupthinking, conformist sheep, mod me troll with my blessing, as I know you will...as you always do when I or anyone else makes a post of this nature.
Right...In other words, remove focus from things Windows can't deal with, and move it to something which (Microsoft claims) it can...something which in 98% of cases is completely irrelevant to Linux anyway.
You're a good little minion, aren't you?
Mr Nash, it's interesting that you claim Windows is more secure than Linux. Tell me, does Windows have...
1) The ability to have the entire operating system compiled with the propolice buffer overflow protections, as well as libsafe, to guard against stack-smashing attacks?
2) The ability to install the OpenBSD Project's OpenSSL directly into the system for both local and remote system logins, as well as password shadowing even if a person doesn't install OpenSSL as well?
3) Close to a dozen different encryption algorhythms optionally supported by the kernel?
4) The ability, if a person is a software developer or programmer themselves, to personally audit *any* of the source code for security vulnerabilities?
5) An extremely robust multi-user implementation built fundamentally into the operating system?
6) Application configuration files whose format is completely transparent, plain text, rather than an obscure, binary-only database which is a virus-writer's dream with regards to hiding rogue processes, and which grows exponentially to the point where a user is forced to reinstall the entire system?
Of course, I'm being cruel. These questions are rhetorical...I don't need to ask them really, because I already know the answer. Windows does not provide for any of these things. I would *never* personally install any product from Microsoft for use in commercial server-side networking, and I believe very emphatically that nobody else should either. Windows is good for client-side networking, graphical applications, and games...and for those uses, XP is reasonably decent. As far as server side networking and network security are concerned however, ALL of Microsoft's operating systems are critically flawed at a fundamental level. Microsoft initially specialised in developing a single-user operating system, and have, comparitively speaking, virtually no experience with the Internet whatsoever.
Any claim that Windows is more secure at the network level than virtually *any* other operating system on the planet is a complete lie. It's that simple.
Red Hat are a good example here, and the example holds even without the support and other services they offer.
Red Hat released RPM, anaconda, kudzu, and several other things...All of said things are available seperately (some via CVS) under the GPL. Problem is, they're not generally much use as standalone programs. If you're a confident enough programmer, have lots of time, and otherwise feel adventurous, you could eventually figure out how to integrate them into your own system. (I believe White Box Linux is a Red Hat like-setup that's tweaked somewhat)
Most of us however, don't have the time. Corporate users especially want to be able to use great features, but also generally want them yesterday. Red Hat's distribution/s mean that said users can buy a CD with all of the company's unique elements tied neatly together, and be up and running in 30-40 minutes. Yes, that's something Microsoft and the other closed-source vendors are able to do...but that is the point. Red Hat understands that the corporate mind is conservative...and so the only way to get corporations to buy open source is if it also includes a closed source like experience...in terms of support contracts and so on.
In other words, yes, you can make money from open source...you just have to be sufficiently creative about it.
>Would still have existed.. Unix pre-dated
;)) but who before Linux, also didn't want to let anyone else play with their toys. 90% of the evangelical work for Linux/the BSDs that I've seen has been done by converted Windows refugees...People who've always used UNIX derivatives don't WANT new users themselves, because they tend to see the rest of the planet as a lot less intelligent.
>Microsoft, and while they did intermingle over >the years, Unix's existence was not tied to
>anyone elses products failure or successes.
>So all of the main Unix derivatives would still
>be here in one form or another regardless.
Yes, UNIX still would have existed, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is now. UNIX's traditional userbase was a group of autistic elitists who saw themselves as the last bastion of human intelligence (the BSD crowd do still think like that, even though they're probably right
It is also true however that Gates and Ballmer's total amorality is the primary secret of their success. In the American corporate world, giving in to the Dark Side and surrendering to your hate are probably the main prerequisites for getting anywhere.
I find myself wondering what this will mean for Linux. Will there actually be something of a community split (at least initially) with people going off and trying the HURD? Obviously the "ready for the desktop" lemmings won't be among that crowd, but I'm still guessing there'll be a fair number of adventurous souls wanting to try it out once it's a bit more workable.
True...but although TOS and a number of the others had episodes which were allegorical of real-world events, I never saw the level of jingoism become as blatant as it was with Enterprise...and that's the whole point. One of the things I'd always valued most about Star Trek before that was the nationalistically agnostic atmosphere...and emphasis of that was one of the core elements of Roddenberry's philosophy. The program might have been produced by Americans...but it was probably the only cultural element that the country has ever produced to my mind where that fact was not being made constantly front and centre.
I'm not someone who believes in the idea of global *government* at all...that is an entirely different can of worms...but I do believe that Star Trek's portrayal of the proverbial brotherhood of man was an extremely positive thing...and by that I mean the idea that other people on the planet besides white America just might have some intrinsic value.
To my mind, that is the main reason why Trek's death has been something worth grieving over...not because of the fact that it was a fictitious TV show...but that it was *one* fictitious TV show that tried to show us what the world might be like if humanity was able to grow up. True, whether we manage to grow up before we wipe ourselves out is still an open question...but we're also rapidly running out of time.
>I got turned off by the Xindi arc...because it
>reminded me too much of 9/11 and crap.
This is exactly what I got called a nutcase for talking about on here a few weeks back. Part of the reason why Enterprise sucked to the degree that it did for some of us was because real-world politics *didn't* get left out of it. The stuff about Trip Tucker attempting to educate T'Pol in his own allegedly superior, brain-dead Texan behaviour patterns and attitudes was particularly obscene to my mind...as was the indignity of having Scot Bakula, someone who was once a reasonably celebrated actor, playing the character of a thoroughly obnoxious, gung-ho redneck who generally needed things explained to him three or four times in order for him to understand them. (The mind boggles as to where the writers could have found inspiration for such a character. Hint:- Think of the White House)
Trek being creatively barren because of Berman and Braga's personal wells having run dry I can tolerate...Trek on the other hand being converted into the Confederacy Propaganda Hour on the other hand is completely beyond the pale. What is especially ironic about this is the fact that racism in any form is completely the opposite of what Trek originally stood for.
Enterprise has needed to end ever since it first began to air...and I'm glad it now has. Being creatively barren as I said is bad enough...but being xenophobic and ethnocentric is far worse.
This to my mind is bad news. I understand that ESR is controversial...Some people like him, and others definitely don't...but there's one area where he did the geek world a big favour...namely in the sense that from what I saw, he was the real world's answer to Louis Skolnick.
What I mean by that is that geeks traditionally are (to put it in politically correct terminology) "neurologically diverse." We seem to typically be either somewhere on the autistic spectrum (I myself was diagnosed in 1992 with a Nonverbal Learning Disorder, which is an autistic spectrum/PDD condition fairly similar to Asperger's) or to have ADHD. I've always thought that RMS's major problem as far as obtaining genuine (mainstream) relevance is concerned is the fact (at least to my mind) that he is deeply and visibly autistic, which seems to be an enormous hindrance to him when it comes to relating to other people.
ESR by comparison is/was relatively mainstream. I certainly won't say completely...but a lot moreso than RMS, and definitely moreso than is usual for the geek/hacker rank and file. In dealing with the corporate world (*especially* boomer corporates) it's absolutely vital that even if you aren't normal, you can convincingly pretend to be for extensive periods of time...which ESR evidently *is* capable of doing.
The point is that we *do* need someone like that, in order to act as a liason with the rest of the planet. Not only for those of us who genuinely can't do it, but also for those of us like RMS who I suspect probably *could* if they really tried, but who see doing so as tremendously immoral.
I understand some people don't like Raymond, and from what I've read of his writings I think I can at least suspect why that is. I think it's true that he probably *does* have an enormous ego, among other things.
But at the same time, in some ways personally I tend to see him as at least vaguely resembling the sort of person I myself would want to be if I had the courage to become self-actualised. I'm not someone customarily given to hero worship...and I'm not saying I engage in that with Raymond either, exactly...he's written things that I disagree with. But controversy about him aside, I think I have been able to see in him a lot which I admire and consider valuable...and I think as far as FOSS is concerned, he *has* made a difference. I hope that even after stepping down from this position, he'll still be willing and able to keep doing so.
is it going to require him to execute people in plain sight before you finally wake up and see him for the monster that he is? --- is how that should have read...I hit submit by accident.
By that though I also don't mean the usual procedure for capital punishment...I mean martial law and other such things.
That's a sick joke...but it is also highly typical. What the US in fact invented is probably the single *least* robust implementation of democratic government in history. The main two reasons for my saying this are a) the Republican model...ergo, that the head of state/figurehead for purpose of sheeple worship and the head of the executive branch are one and the same person...which of course has led to the kind of mindless worship of the presidency that has been at least partially responsible for allowing Bush to get away with his current excesses...and b) the electoral college, which from a genuinely representative point of view is insane...because it still allows someone who is unpopular to win an election on a technicality.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this...but I also know that the people who flame me will a) primarily consist of brainless Texans/Southerners, and b) do so on the basis of purely reactionary emotionalism...and so I'm therefore almost certain to ignore it. The simple fact is that virtually any other *non-republican* democratic model in existence which also does not include the electoral college is going to be far more resistant to coup than the US system...and when the US system finally undeniably crashes and burns completely (which it is currently on the brink of doing, or possibly already has depending on who you ask) you will then see that I'm right about this.
How long are you going to keep crowing to people about how "free" you are, when it becomes more readily apparent to the rest of the planet on a daily basis that the opposite is in fact true? Bush and the Palpatine wannabes in his cabinet are in the final stages of a complete coup/derailment of the democratic system there...is it going to require him to in plain sight before you finally wake up and see him for the monster that he is?
I will admit I like the GPL for some things. Example: My girlfriend and I were searching high and low for a copy of the book The Science of Getting Rich online the other day. The book of course is 90 odd years old, and we knew it was in the public domain. However, the only place where we were able to find it was on Wikisource where it was licensed under the GFDL. This sort of application is where copyleft really shines...in that it allows people to make derivative works, but simply serves to prevent the original work from being removed from the public domain. In the case of The Science of Getting Rich you might be wondering what I mean...A particular woman has set up a website and is making money selling a number of products based around Wattles' philosophy as espoused in that book. Great, you say. Where's the problem there? The problem is that Wikisource was the only place I could find the book...and it wasn't through lack of searching, either...we scoured both Google and eMule. I strongly suspect that a number of people who were making money from derivative works of the book had taken pains to make sure the original wasn't available online, in order to prevent others from also making money from derivative works in the same way they had. It is highly lamentable that keeping such public domain works available in practice requires legal enforcement...but apparently it does.
Something on the other hand that bothers me about the GPL in particular is the confusion that has arisen apparently in a lot of people's minds about software being free as in speech as opposed to free as in beer. I wouldn't know how many times I've seen someone suggesting the idea of selling GPL licensed software, while being perfectly happy about also making source available, only to have some misinformed fanatic materialise out of the woodwork and begin screeching about how it is supposedly a violation of the license to DARE to try and make money with it, as well as being demonically evil in the process.
If there are any such fanatics reading this comment, immediately go and read this, and educate yourselves. <heavy sarcasm> It flowed from the immaculate keyboard of your spiritual leader himself as well, so you can be comforted that it is authoritative on the subject. It so happens, incidentally, that the Prophet was actually selling copies of Emacs on tape for a few hundred bucks each at some point in the 80s, so I'm assuming he himself obviously isn't opposed to using GPL licensed software to make money, even if you are.</heavy sarcasm>
>One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to
>soften its image to become kinder and gentler.
>'They don't want people to hate them anymore.
>They've learned from their mistakes.' Hmmm."
They might not want people to hate them any more, certainly...but it'll be a very cold day in hell when I believe Microsoft have "learned from their mistakes."
Bill Gates is a raving megalomaniac who wants to take over the world more passionately than most, and his second in command, Dr Evil AKA Steve Ballmer, isn't far behind him on that score either. I will keep using XP for the time being...at least until I can figure out WineX to a greater degree anyway...but I don't trust the evil genius who produces it as far as I could throw him...and neither should anyone else if they know what's good for them.
A quarter is what, three months? In the grand scheme of things, that's a momentary spike. Meanwhile they still have the same problem they've had for the last ten years...Namely, no clue of what to do with themselves in the OS space (their heartland) after NT 4. (XP does NOT count...it's NT 5.x with eye candy) Longhorn has been essentially cancelled, which in a history of mistakes was probably the single dumbest thing MS has ever done.
Big picture, Microsoft needs to do three things:-
1. Get a concrete, long-term operating system plan in place...and not one which is implemented one minute and scrapped the next, a la Longhorn. They need to find something and run with it.
2. Get a substantial new OS release out the door ASAP. It's been way too long since the last one...and as anyone who writes software knows, for the most part you're only considered as good as your last release.
3. Do something serious about Ballmer's constant gaffes and idiotic, embarassing behaviour...this ties in with an urgent need for MS to clean up its image in a big way in general.
If Bill can pull off these three things, and also post *sustained* gains, (and instead of one, try eight or so) then I might believe that in a long term sense, he's back in the game. Until then, an isolated decent quarter here and there is so much hollow optimistic hot air, IMNSHO.
As far as the GPL is concerned (Linux's primary license, more or less) it so happens that RMS agrees with you. Check this out, if you're interested...it's an article he's written about that very thing.
And of course, this is only something that comes up as a potential question in people's minds with the GPL anyway...if you're talking about software that uses the BSD or virtually any other FOSS license, of which there are several, it generally doesn't need to be mentioned. It seems to be primarily the GPL with which people have the misconception that free ("libre" - liberated or open source) HAS to also mean free as in beer as well. This of course was actually the core reason why ESR started using the term "open source", although I personally probably prefer the term "liberated software" myself, and am not sure why anybody else hasn't come up with that...because it implies freedom in terms of rules, but doesn't necessarily in terms of price.
Unfortunately the fact that one encounters misinformed GPL zealots from time to time (who help spread the misconception about the GPL in particular) doesn't help matters.
> 8 years, 16 hours a day? How does that work? Job,
>school, something had to be going on there.
I have Asperger's Syndrome and borderline schizotypal personality disorder...After being in a psychiatric inpatient unit for two months at the beginning of 1994, (I was 17 at the time and living with parents) I was allowed to remain at home for what quickly became a period of years...it more or less just happened. I was then able to get onto a disability support pension, owing to the Asperger's Syndrome and severe depression.
>Besides... if it was that BAD, why the hell did
>you keep going back?
Due to the level of abuse in various forms that I experienced while in the education system, I developed the perception of myself as an extreme outcast...along the lines of Quasimodo, basically. I became nocturnal and almost completely solitary, and was mostly active at night, at least until being attacked and nearly strangled at around 3-4 am one morning in 1997. I continued going back to IRC despite it being that bad because at the time I had the perception that, as dysfunctional and negative as those people were, they were largely all I had.
I understand that the reaction of many Americans in particular reading this, particularly those more inclined towards support of George W Bush, is likely to be either apathy and the thought that I should simply get over myself, or hostility and vilification, and the labelling of me as a wimp. I could accept that in the case of myself alone, but what such people do not understand is that it is precisely that kind of attitude that contributes to their being so many people similar to themselves in their midst. Although I am not American myself, virtually all of the individuals I associated with on IRC were. They were as I have said, incredibly damaged people, attempting to exist within the cracks of a society in which the rest of its members were apathetic and selfish, not caring about anyone other than themselves. As long as that kind of attitude is the guiding attitude of Western society, places like the Undernet and Usenet will continue to exist. Human beings need to begin to regain a sense of community and reach out to those who are currently outcasts...it's the only way you can start to heal both the outcasts and yourselves.
IRC in itself is merely a protocol. Just as a gun in itself isn't inherently good or bad, but rather the person who fires it, the same can be said of IRC. However...
I spent close to eight years (September 1995 to July 2003) inhabiting IRC, primarily on the Undernet network, but also DALnet as well. For most of that time, I literally spent all of my waking hours on IRC...My bed was located about two feet behind the computer, and I would get up, sign on...and sixteen-eighteen hours later, sign off, and lie down.
In my experience, the Undernet in particular exists primarily (as does Usenet) as a haven for the socially disenfranchised, chronically mentally ill...it is literally a human rubbish tip, and is the closest thing in physical existence that I have known to the concept of Catholic concept of Purgatory...not even so much in the level of torment that exists there, but more because it exists mainly as a gathering point for those who, because of mental disease and deformity or extreme sexual deviancy and perversion, are unable to associate with the rest of the offline human population. In short, quoting the words of Egon Spengler from the Real Ghostbusters, "This is where the worst ghosts of the lot get stuck, because they're too awful for anyone to see." Outside of the institutionalised mental health or penal systems, I can with confidence state that in Western society, IRC is as bad as it gets.
During my time on the network, I literally encountered examples of virtually every psychiatric disease or ailment known to man. I knew paranoid and hallucinatory schizophrenics/schizotypals, people with MPD, OCD, and nymphomania, various forms of autism, extreme drug addiction, and nihilistic and perverted occultism related interests.
As far as sexual deviancy is concerned, DALnet is probably worse than the Undernet, but there again, I was privy to learning about the existence of a huge number of different forms of dysfunctional sexuality...Paedophilia, beastiality, scatology, BDSM, various types of oral fixations, group sex, fetishism is countless other different forms, transsexuality, etc etc. It had an enormous, and extremely detrimental psychological effect on me, which two years later I am still attempting to recover from. I have also had a formal diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder due to my experiences.
I personally believe that the Internet is one of the single most positive...bordering on miraculous...inventions in human history that I know of. However, with that said, there are parts of it that urgently need to be avoided. If parents are worried about their children using the net, the Web to a large degree can be ok, as is MSN...but when it comes to Usenet and IRC in particular, their concern is justified.
I know it will never happen, but my fondest wish would be for the global psychiatric community to mobilise and send some of its members into a number of channels on the Undernet...#scripture, #submission, and #thelema probably primarily among them. Those channels contain extremely sick, damaged people...who need help.