If the NSA were to develop this in-house, which they have every right to do, then I wouldn't think they are contractually obligated to release any of the updated source code to the general public. However, if they're commissioning another company to do this, then that company is essentially selling the new version of Linux to the NSA and then, by the GPL, aren't they required to make that source code somehow available for free? My understanding of the GPL may be fuzzy, but if I remember correctly, they have to make kernel changes (which I would assume that this would probably require) available. Does anyone have details on exactly how 'Type Enforcement' works, and whether it takes any kernel changes to implement?
Of course, if they can do it without kernel changes, the point's moot.
Of course, XMMS already supports playing ShoutCAST/Icecast streams, although I find on my P120 that it plays the streams much too slowly. I'm not sure whether this is because of my processor or because of a flaw in XMMS.
As for a streamer for XMMS (similar to the ShoutCAST plugin in for WinAmp) which would enable you to send your playing output to a *cast server, there isn't one. That is the one plugin I'm disappointed that I didn't see. It'd be great to be able to stream directly from XMMS and take advantage of everything that XMMS has to offer (perl modules, ease-of-use, etc.)
I've getting very sick of hearing this arguement. Do you know why it's been ruled that a library can refuse to carry certain printed matrials? Because printed materials take shelf space, and cost money to obtain. These are a physical resource that can be easily used up, so any library has to pick and choose just what will be carried.
Bull. I've seen empty space on magazine racks. Ask a library why they're not carrying Hustler and they're not going to tell you 'shelf space'. I asked the librarian at my public school library once if they had a Playboy because I found, on the Internet, an article reference. She said that wasn't the type of magazine they carried. That is why those magazines aren't carried. The government is not going to pay for materials that communities have deemed objectionable, as they have the right to do.
The Internet is a different matter. It does not take up any more space on the computer to allow access to porn sites. It doesn't cost any more [public] money to get Internet-with-porn. In fact, it takes more hard drive space, processor time, RAM, and money to use filters to block them! "But wait, what about people tying up the terminals lookin at porn?" you ask? Software isn't needed to solve this problem, just an AUP and a librarian to go over and tell Sir to get off the computer, people need it for real work.
This idea of the Internet costing absolutely nothing is a load as well. Electricity, at least in America, costs money. Bandwidth costs a lot of money. The difference in bandwidth between a kid looking at porn and a kid looking at research papers is amazing. AUP monitors need to get paid. And isn't the monitor herself a censor? Why pay a person an hourly wage, when you can install a filter and only pay for it once? The Internet costs money, too, and the government, once again, isn't going to pay for things that communities deem objectionable.
They came for the Jews, and I did not speak out for them, for I was not Jewish. And then they came for the blacks, and I did not speak out for them because I was not Black. And they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. And then they came for me, and when they took me away, there was no one left to speak out for me.
No offense, but that quote is the biggest cop-out on Slashdot. Many, many things happen daily that people neither need nor want to care about. My point is that whether or not Holland, MI, gets censorware on their computers is for Holland, MI, to debate and decide, not the Slashdot community in general. A lot of other communities have gone through this discussion already. Some have voted in favor of it. Some have voted against it. None of them have become case studies on how this thing should be handled, and Holland, MI, is not about to become one. And do you know why? Because the definition of pornography and how it should be regulated in America has always been left up to the community to decide for itself. Not the state. Not the nation. Not the world. Not the Internet. The physical community. We are not talking about the slaughtering of Jews. Nor are we even talking about censorship. We're talking about how one community in this country wants to govern itself. And frankly, that doesn't apply to me, for I am not a part of that community.
It is okay for community decisions to not be important to the rest of the world. It is okay for government institutions to say, "We're going to regulate how our systems are used, and it's going to be based on what the community wants." Communities have a right to police themselves, and no one's civil rights are being violated here. No one is being told, "You can't look at porn." They're just saying that you can't do it at the library. Guess what. They've been saying that for years.
When this debate reaches the state or national (or even international) level, then I'll consider it important, but right now, it's important to Holland, MI, and Holland, MI, isn't about to set a precedent that other communities haven't already followed or broken.
No offense, but when I think of Slashdot, I don't think of Holland, MI, and the position you're bringing up isn't exactly unique in America. Many small communities have already initiated censorware projects, and many more already have public petition ballot laws.
I know Slashdot likes to take on the Causes of the Geek(tm), but I think there comes a time when one has to step back and take a look at exactly what is going on. We have a small community in America, typical of many, I'll assume. Through the workings of democracy, they manage to get a controversial issue on the ballot. A large group of people think this is an initiative that should be enacted. Another large group of people think this is an initiative that shouldn't even be considered. We're not talking about anything groundbreaking here. Moreover, this whole issue isn't even being determined by lawmakers; it's being determined by the people. That's the way it should be.
The United States Supreme Court has been very consistent in its decisions that pornography and how to regulate it should be determined by the local community, and not by the state or Federal governments. If the US elections had this initiative on the ballot, I would say that this article would be entirely appropriate because a) it affects a large percentage of Slashdot readers and b) it's not being determined by a community, but by a nation.
But let's get back to Holland, MI. Does you library carry Hustler? Can any adult go into the adult section and pick up a copy of Hustler? Or maybe Penthouse? Has anyone ever asked the library to carry these magazines? I know my local library doesn't carry these, despite their very large circulation. If you want some porn, get it at a newsstand. Same with the library. If you expect unrestricted Internet access at a public library, you're expecting the wrong thing. Get Internet access at home and you can have it. When you get it for free from the government, you play by their rules. Their rules, of course, you can help make, but if the people are going to vote it in, then that's what they want, or they think they want, which is just as valid, IMHO. Censorship is alive and well in American communities. Just like Slashdot, though, it's community censorship, especially when the people get to vote.
So my kneejerk reacion? I don't give a rat's ass what happens in Holland, MI. If the local library here tries to censor Internet access, I'll take up whatever cause I feel is right. I'll vote. I'll play whatever political games I feel to to support my cause. What I won't do is complain to Slashdot, write up an article that won't apply to 99% of the readers. I won't say that even deciding this issue is wrong. I won't complain about the date of the ballot.
If the people are deciding this issue on a public ballot, that is certainly the absolute right way to handle the issue. I don't care which side is the best side, it's being done the absolute right way. Just like any other vote, the word about the ballot will have to be disseminated. This article makes it sound like this is a Bad Thing(tm), but I would rather see more of this, of communities putting this issue to a vote, rather than having some state legislature passing a law that makes it mandatory.
Holland, MI is not Slashdot and a library's computer is not my computer. Let the community decide.
As a Linux systems retailer, you're in the unique position of actually being able to foster development of the operating system that you sell with your systems.
What areas of Linux do you see as needing the most attention? As a company, what would be the best change(s)/addition(s) to Linux and/or it's distributions to help you market your systems?
What's wrong with having Bill Gates for a hero? He did do some pretty impressive computer work before Microsoft became the huge rousing success that it is today, and he did manage to build one of the most influential monopolies in the latter half of the twentieth century.
I mean, you may not agree with the guy's business tactics, but don't take away from the fact that he had some very visionary ideas and some pretty important code.
Does this article really give us any more information about why the DVD isn't being released, or is it really just a load of horse poopoo?
Personally, what does Lucas have to do with the Phantom Menace to release it on DVD? Does it need some fancy interface that he needs to be personally involved in? Does he have to do yet another cheesy interview with Leonard Maltin (yes, I realize that the videos may have needed something more humorous, but honestly, I can only laugh at the fakeness of the interviews for so long)? Does he need to add more footage to it (how so?). Does something need to be done to make it fully digital? Hell, it was already filmed digitally. They released digital copies in the theatres. You can push that straight to DVD. Slap some nice GUI on it that Lucas' companies have been producing for years in their games.
Slashdotters are suckers if they think that Lucas doesn't have the time to devote to a DVD. He doesn't need to. And if, for some reason he has something really special in mind, well hell, release a regular DVD, and then release a Special Edition DVD a few years later when you get some free time. It worked once before, and I personally won't mind paying some more for it. I'm stupid like that. I'm a consumer.
Lucas doesn't need time to make a DVD, and neither does LucasFilm. This article does nothing except give us another worthless quote and absolutely no answers at all.
Yeah, trademark namespace is filling up. What ICANN needs to do is start a new 'Trademark Name' service. This would generate seemingly random names that people could use for their products (e.g. Pentium, Itanium) that could then be registered as domains.
NOTE: This post not for the humor (or humour) impaired.
Usually, when John Carmack says that he's going to do something, he sets about doing it, and he already has plenty of experience with network optimization coding (e.g. Quakeworld). I would give this a bit more credit than a 'rumor'.
Blue's News went into a bit more detail about why this quote means what it means. Yesterday, Cisco, Valve, and others mentioned a new concept called PowerPlay which is something that will involve ISPs, equipment, and software code. Epic is already coding PowerPlay information into the Unreal Tournament engine so that they and others will be able to take advantage of it. Basically, PowerPlay is a ISP-side enhancement to improve the quality of dial-up gameplay.
The reason Carmack is quoted here is because id wasn't on the list of companies officially supporting PowerPlay. As you can well guess, this raised many eyebrows in the gaming world, and the reason is simply that Carmack didn't want to be involved with the implementation of it. No doubt, id will put code in their upcoming products, but Carmack himself doesn't want to do work. Why? Other projects.
Also, Gabe Newell is pretty well respected in the gaming community, so these words probably aren't meant to give rise to any rumor mills. They're probably the truth.
So as a 'rumor', it's a very well-founded one. Carmack is familiar with Linux program, so I'm sure the concerns about Carmack possibly interfering with the work of others will turn out to be baseless. It'll all work itself, and if we get any code out of Carmack, it's bound to be very good code.
But what makes a WinModem bad? Is it the modem itself or is it the code that handles it? I tend to think that it's more of the code than the actual parts themselves. There are definitely benefits to owning a real modem, but if the code is significantly improved, who says a WinModem can't work as well as a real modem?
And I never have a problem finding a real modem now. What problems are you having finding a real modem? Almost any computer parts dealer, online or not, carries regular modems in plenty of stock.
Carmack wields a lot of power in the PC world. When he publicly came out saying that id would develop games for the MacOS, Apple's prestige rose significantly. When Carmack said he liked MacOS X, Apple's prestige again rose. One of the major barriers to leaving Windows has been the superior gaming support. Tied in with Carmack's OpenGL coding, he is working hard to make Linux a viable gaming platform. When a programmer as respected and as good as Carmack says that something is flawed and he is going to fix it, people like Microsoft listen. They may not do anything, but they certainly listen. If Microsoft were to lose a chunk of the gaming market to Linux (and many gamers have the technical and 'Net experience to jump ship to Linux pretty easily), they would definitely feel it.
That's not quite how an open-source project works. I can't download this page, make changes, and upload them back to the server and have them be incorporated into the framework.
No, this is a 'closed-source' parody, a funny one to boot. I wish people would quit tacking on 'open-source' to everything just because it sounds cool.
Is it really? There is, at least statistically, a bell curve against women participating in the sorts of activity that males generally participate in. That doesn't mean that they can't or they won't, they just don't, or they don't well. But statistics don't determine the person.
Then you look at how to get people into it. I think a lot of it comes down to lack of role models. I mean, think of it, how many female geek heroes do you have? I'm not talking about dead pioneers or women who helped with ancient inventions, I'm talking about people in the programming community who are famous, who get mentioned on Slashdot with reverence, like an RMS or an Alan Cox or even maybe someone less well known, like Miguel de Icaza or Alfred Kojima. There are probably a few (I can't think of any off the top of my head), but not many. Who do the women look up to? The men, right? But what's that say?
Technology, I will agree, seems like an equal opportunity workplace, but then again, so does secretary. So why aren't more men secretaries and more women geeks? History, tradition, culture. Maybe that will change. I don't know, but just because the field is open doesn't mean it works that way.
The same way you tax a person who drives from Texas to Oklahoma to purchase some fancy Oklahoma thing. You just add the tax in. You say, "All right, you purchase $10 worth of crap, the sales tax here is 8.25%, so you owe us $10.83, what's your VISA number?" The real problem isn't doing the taxing, it's how the taxes get distributed. The whole point of a sales tax is that it benefits the community in which the business resides, but if the majority of the business isn't conducted in that community, is it right for those people to have to pay for things in that community? Most Americans would say no.
Taxation without representation was one of the ideas that defined our Revolution.
Do you think that the government governs you individually? Government is all about abstraction. If it weren't, my President would be ruling me, and you could have your own President. Individuals don't elect the President, the People do. That's why a candidate can get all electorate votes for a state, even if the majority of the people in your entire district voted for some other guy.
Right, and you'd get a completely total lack of faith in the Libertarian party, because nothing, good or bad would get done. When Joe and Susie Public ask why they didn't get any tax relief and why their police didn't get anymore money, the Congressmen will point to the President and say, "Look, he vetoed everything!" and they'll be right.
The President can't cause change without a Congress that helps him. The veto and pardon powers only help him prevent wrong things from happening, not from fostering the right things. Congress, as the body of the people, has that power, but they also can't actually implement them.
That's why I think a Harry Browne, as President, can't do much to affect change (unless by change you mean 'no change'). But a Harry Browne with a Libertarian Congress; that would cause some change.
Your analogy between a choice between helping a victim and a criminal is not idea. The better analogy - and not as much as anology as one might think, is a choice between helping two criminals or walking away.
Fine, you have two criminals. I don't care how many criminals you have. The fact is that you don't do anything to help the situation. By not voting, you are doing just as much harm as if you did vote. JUST AS MUCH!
An enlightened individual would realize that he can have an effect on the system. Anyone who is a part of the system can. Yes, those who vote for one or the other are ignorant as well, but you are just as ignorant for not helping. Rather than sit on your ass, you can take an active part in change. It's not going to happen on its own, and it sure as hell isn't going to happen at the hands of the current politicians.
Until either a candidate that I trust who wants to change things too comes along (not likely) or things change for the better, my point of view is not going to change.
If the issues are important to you (and in my previous post, I quoted you as saying that they are), go out and find a person that wants to change things. Do some research. There are politicians in this election, right now, who want to do the very things that you want to do.
Really, the issue with libraries and terminals isn't about whether we should filter information, but how we should filter information. Right now, we do it strictly by content. My mother's hospital does something similar to this. When she needs to get articles on the breast or something similar, she generally needs to go to the sysadmin and get the site punched through because the filter blocks out 'breast'. This would suck for a library as well (imagine not being able to get an online version of Gray's Anatomy).
What we need is a third-party group that people can opt into, similar to the e-mail blocking groups that keep track of things like open-relays, etc. Different groups could operate different ones, and they would keep track of whether or not the sites were moral by their rules. Libraries could then choose one or more to filter by.
As for privacy, we don't have a constitutional right to privacy. The great thing is, though, that our Constitution can be changed, and I think you'll see an amendment within 20 years that will make this a reality.
You have issues you want dealt with. It is not because I don't care whether the net is regulated or not. That is important. Your words, not mine. Who do you thinks makes these determinations? Do you think it's you, sitting at your computer, saying, "I don't care," watching the world work around you, thinking you are separate from it.
If you really think the issues are important, perhaps you'll do a little research and find someone who is not a politician and vote for them. Maybe you'll encourage other people to vote for them. That's affecting change. By not voting, you are allowing the very things you hate to persist.
A man robs a criminal. You can help the victim. You can help the robber. Or you can do nothing. By helping the victim, you help. Pick either of the others, and you have just done harm. That's what you do by not voting. You do harm. You allow a system that is harmful to persist. All these people that say, "Well, if enough people don't vote, maybe they'll get the message," that says nothing. That says, "I'm apathetic." The man who says, "I want this person to lead me," that man says, "I want this, and you don't have it."
The fact that your post was moderated up as 'Insightful' makes me wonder what truly is insightful on Slashdot. Maybe if Americans would quit whining about how bad the system is and start making it a better one, we could have a government that we trust.
The real question is, if he was elected, could Harry Browne really do what he's talking about?
Exactly. Voting isn't just about whether the candidate has the best statements or ideas, but whether he is the best person for the job. I have the feeling that if Harry Browne were elected to office, he couldn't do anything, simply because he wouldn't have the support of Congress. Look at how little Clinton was able to achieve with a majority Republican Congress.
Just because you have a group of Chinese or Indians at your office does not mean that all of the Chinese or Indians are like that. You may be dealing with a cream of the crop there, some of the best to come out of those countries. America still generally leads in terms of programming and computer output, but other countries certainly have the capabilities we have. To stay competitive, we need to make sure we foster our not-so-elite.
Honestly, I don't think that the major political candidates (sorry Browne, but I'm speaking about Bradley, McCain, Gore, Bush, etc.) aren't targeting the Slashdot crowd. They're probably targeting people more like my mother who do use the Internet and take part in e-commerce and try to raise families with an Internet capable computer in their household, but who don't understand all the intricacies of the network they're on and how laws affect that network. Their targets don't know the history of the Internet. They don't know all about open-source software. We wouldn't call them geeks. These people read Salon, maybe. They don't read Slashdot.
And these people are either Democrats or Republicans. They are not likely to be on the fringe. Which is why (see my post below, or maybe above if the moderation gods smile upon me (note: not for the humor impaired) we're not seeing real geek issues. We're seeing normal American issues, like taxes and security, not anything really targeting specifically the Internet.
I'm non-affiliated, by the way. I believe in voting for the candidate that will best serve the country, both as a person and as a politician (and that last part is important).
And imagine where those geeks in China and India would be now if the first time they had seen and used a computer was at age 5 rather than at age 15 or 20 or whenever they first had it?
My dad thinks just as logically as I do (at least with computers; we won't get into issues of things like my life). Yet, he started using around 1984 at age 41 when he got his first Macintosh. I started using the computer at the same time, when I was age 7. My brother started at age 4. Guess what? I was stimulated. My dad was stimulated. My brother wasn't. My brother knows about as much as my dad. I know as much as what I would call a typical Slashdot geek. My dad and I, by your definition, should be equal, except that I started earlier, I got training classes in school, I didn't have to adjust my life to using computers; I grew up with it.
You can have all the brains in the world, but if you aren't stimulated, you won't use them. And if we can stimulate those brains early, when they're even fresher, the results will most likely be greater than if we don't. And since most kids go to school, let's start that exposure there, making it both worthwhile and fun.
Slashdot Mirror
If the NSA were to develop this in-house, which they have every right to do, then I wouldn't think they are contractually obligated to release any of the updated source code to the general public. However, if they're commissioning another company to do this, then that company is essentially selling the new version of Linux to the NSA and then, by the GPL, aren't they required to make that source code somehow available for free? My understanding of the GPL may be fuzzy, but if I remember correctly, they have to make kernel changes (which I would assume that this would probably require) available. Does anyone have details on exactly how 'Type Enforcement' works, and whether it takes any kernel changes to implement?
Of course, if they can do it without kernel changes, the point's moot.
Of course, XMMS already supports playing ShoutCAST/Icecast streams, although I find on my P120 that it plays the streams much too slowly. I'm not sure whether this is because of my processor or because of a flaw in XMMS.
As for a streamer for XMMS (similar to the ShoutCAST plugin in for WinAmp) which would enable you to send your playing output to a *cast server, there isn't one. That is the one plugin I'm disappointed that I didn't see. It'd be great to be able to stream directly from XMMS and take advantage of everything that XMMS has to offer (perl modules, ease-of-use, etc.)
I've getting very sick of hearing this arguement. Do you know why it's been ruled that a library can refuse to carry certain printed matrials? Because printed materials take shelf space, and cost money to obtain. These are a physical resource that can be easily used up, so any library has to pick and choose just what will be carried.
Bull. I've seen empty space on magazine racks. Ask a library why they're not carrying Hustler and they're not going to tell you 'shelf space'. I asked the librarian at my public school library once if they had a Playboy because I found, on the Internet, an article reference. She said that wasn't the type of magazine they carried. That is why those magazines aren't carried. The government is not going to pay for materials that communities have deemed objectionable, as they have the right to do.
The Internet is a different matter. It does not take up any more space on the computer to allow access to porn sites. It doesn't cost any more [public] money to get Internet-with-porn. In fact, it takes more hard drive space, processor time, RAM, and money to use filters to block them! "But wait, what about people tying up the terminals lookin at porn?" you ask? Software isn't needed to solve this problem, just an AUP and a librarian to go over and tell Sir to get off the computer, people need it for real work.
This idea of the Internet costing absolutely nothing is a load as well. Electricity, at least in America, costs money. Bandwidth costs a lot of money. The difference in bandwidth between a kid looking at porn and a kid looking at research papers is amazing. AUP monitors need to get paid. And isn't the monitor herself a censor? Why pay a person an hourly wage, when you can install a filter and only pay for it once? The Internet costs money, too, and the government, once again, isn't going to pay for things that communities deem objectionable.
They came for the Jews, and I did not speak out for them, for I was not Jewish.
And then they came for the blacks, and I did not speak out for them because I was not Black.
And they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
And then they came for me, and when they took me away, there was no one left to speak out for me.
No offense, but that quote is the biggest cop-out on Slashdot. Many, many things happen daily that people neither need nor want to care about. My point is that whether or not Holland, MI, gets censorware on their computers is for Holland, MI, to debate and decide, not the Slashdot community in general. A lot of other communities have gone through this discussion already. Some have voted in favor of it. Some have voted against it. None of them have become case studies on how this thing should be handled, and Holland, MI, is not about to become one. And do you know why? Because the definition of pornography and how it should be regulated in America has always been left up to the community to decide for itself. Not the state. Not the nation. Not the world. Not the Internet. The physical community. We are not talking about the slaughtering of Jews. Nor are we even talking about censorship. We're talking about how one community in this country wants to govern itself. And frankly, that doesn't apply to me, for I am not a part of that community.
It is okay for community decisions to not be important to the rest of the world. It is okay for government institutions to say, "We're going to regulate how our systems are used, and it's going to be based on what the community wants." Communities have a right to police themselves, and no one's civil rights are being violated here. No one is being told, "You can't look at porn." They're just saying that you can't do it at the library. Guess what. They've been saying that for years.
When this debate reaches the state or national (or even international) level, then I'll consider it important, but right now, it's important to Holland, MI, and Holland, MI, isn't about to set a precedent that other communities haven't already followed or broken.
No offense, but when I think of Slashdot, I don't think of Holland, MI, and the position you're bringing up isn't exactly unique in America. Many small communities have already initiated censorware projects, and many more already have public petition ballot laws.
I know Slashdot likes to take on the Causes of the Geek(tm), but I think there comes a time when one has to step back and take a look at exactly what is going on. We have a small community in America, typical of many, I'll assume. Through the workings of democracy, they manage to get a controversial issue on the ballot. A large group of people think this is an initiative that should be enacted. Another large group of people think this is an initiative that shouldn't even be considered. We're not talking about anything groundbreaking here. Moreover, this whole issue isn't even being determined by lawmakers; it's being determined by the people. That's the way it should be.
The United States Supreme Court has been very consistent in its decisions that pornography and how to regulate it should be determined by the local community, and not by the state or Federal governments. If the US elections had this initiative on the ballot, I would say that this article would be entirely appropriate because a) it affects a large percentage of Slashdot readers and b) it's not being determined by a community, but by a nation.
But let's get back to Holland, MI. Does you library carry Hustler? Can any adult go into the adult section and pick up a copy of Hustler? Or maybe Penthouse? Has anyone ever asked the library to carry these magazines? I know my local library doesn't carry these, despite their very large circulation. If you want some porn, get it at a newsstand. Same with the library. If you expect unrestricted Internet access at a public library, you're expecting the wrong thing. Get Internet access at home and you can have it. When you get it for free from the government, you play by their rules. Their rules, of course, you can help make, but if the people are going to vote it in, then that's what they want, or they think they want, which is just as valid, IMHO. Censorship is alive and well in American communities. Just like Slashdot, though, it's community censorship, especially when the people get to vote.
So my kneejerk reacion? I don't give a rat's ass what happens in Holland, MI. If the local library here tries to censor Internet access, I'll take up whatever cause I feel is right. I'll vote. I'll play whatever political games I feel to to support my cause. What I won't do is complain to Slashdot, write up an article that won't apply to 99% of the readers. I won't say that even deciding this issue is wrong. I won't complain about the date of the ballot.
If the people are deciding this issue on a public ballot, that is certainly the absolute right way to handle the issue. I don't care which side is the best side, it's being done the absolute right way. Just like any other vote, the word about the ballot will have to be disseminated. This article makes it sound like this is a Bad Thing(tm), but I would rather see more of this, of communities putting this issue to a vote, rather than having some state legislature passing a law that makes it mandatory.
Holland, MI is not Slashdot and a library's computer is not my computer. Let the community decide.
As a Linux systems retailer, you're in the unique position of actually being able to foster development of the operating system that you sell with your systems.
What areas of Linux do you see as needing the most attention? As a company, what would be the best change(s)/addition(s) to Linux and/or it's distributions to help you market your systems?
What's wrong with having Bill Gates for a hero? He did do some pretty impressive computer work before Microsoft became the huge rousing success that it is today, and he did manage to build one of the most influential monopolies in the latter half of the twentieth century.
I mean, you may not agree with the guy's business tactics, but don't take away from the fact that he had some very visionary ideas and some pretty important code.
Does this article really give us any more information about why the DVD isn't being released, or is it really just a load of horse poopoo?
Personally, what does Lucas have to do with the Phantom Menace to release it on DVD? Does it need some fancy interface that he needs to be personally involved in? Does he have to do yet another cheesy interview with Leonard Maltin (yes, I realize that the videos may have needed something more humorous, but honestly, I can only laugh at the fakeness of the interviews for so long)? Does he need to add more footage to it (how so?). Does something need to be done to make it fully digital? Hell, it was already filmed digitally. They released digital copies in the theatres. You can push that straight to DVD. Slap some nice GUI on it that Lucas' companies have been producing for years in their games.
Slashdotters are suckers if they think that Lucas doesn't have the time to devote to a DVD. He doesn't need to. And if, for some reason he has something really special in mind, well hell, release a regular DVD, and then release a Special Edition DVD a few years later when you get some free time. It worked once before, and I personally won't mind paying some more for it. I'm stupid like that. I'm a consumer.
Lucas doesn't need time to make a DVD, and neither does LucasFilm. This article does nothing except give us another worthless quote and absolutely no answers at all.
Yeah, trademark namespace is filling up. What ICANN needs to do is start a new 'Trademark Name' service. This would generate seemingly random names that people could use for their products (e.g. Pentium, Itanium) that could then be registered as domains.
NOTE: This post not for the humor (or humour) impaired.
Usually, when John Carmack says that he's going to do something, he sets about doing it, and he already has plenty of experience with network optimization coding (e.g. Quakeworld). I would give this a bit more credit than a 'rumor'.
Blue's News went into a bit more detail about why this quote means what it means. Yesterday, Cisco, Valve, and others mentioned a new concept called PowerPlay which is something that will involve ISPs, equipment, and software code. Epic is already coding PowerPlay information into the Unreal Tournament engine so that they and others will be able to take advantage of it. Basically, PowerPlay is a ISP-side enhancement to improve the quality of dial-up gameplay.
The reason Carmack is quoted here is because id wasn't on the list of companies officially supporting PowerPlay. As you can well guess, this raised many eyebrows in the gaming world, and the reason is simply that Carmack didn't want to be involved with the implementation of it. No doubt, id will put code in their upcoming products, but Carmack himself doesn't want to do work. Why? Other projects.
Also, Gabe Newell is pretty well respected in the gaming community, so these words probably aren't meant to give rise to any rumor mills. They're probably the truth.
So as a 'rumor', it's a very well-founded one. Carmack is familiar with Linux program, so I'm sure the concerns about Carmack possibly interfering with the work of others will turn out to be baseless. It'll all work itself, and if we get any code out of Carmack, it's bound to be very good code.
But what makes a WinModem bad? Is it the modem itself or is it the code that handles it? I tend to think that it's more of the code than the actual parts themselves. There are definitely benefits to owning a real modem, but if the code is significantly improved, who says a WinModem can't work as well as a real modem?
And I never have a problem finding a real modem now. What problems are you having finding a real modem? Almost any computer parts dealer, online or not, carries regular modems in plenty of stock.
Carmack wields a lot of power in the PC world. When he publicly came out saying that id would develop games for the MacOS, Apple's prestige rose significantly. When Carmack said he liked MacOS X, Apple's prestige again rose. One of the major barriers to leaving Windows has been the superior gaming support. Tied in with Carmack's OpenGL coding, he is working hard to make Linux a viable gaming platform. When a programmer as respected and as good as Carmack says that something is flawed and he is going to fix it, people like Microsoft listen. They may not do anything, but they certainly listen. If Microsoft were to lose a chunk of the gaming market to Linux (and many gamers have the technical and 'Net experience to jump ship to Linux pretty easily), they would definitely feel it.
That's not quite how an open-source project works. I can't download this page, make changes, and upload them back to the server and have them be incorporated into the framework.
No, this is a 'closed-source' parody, a funny one to boot. I wish people would quit tacking on 'open-source' to everything just because it sounds cool.
Is it really? There is, at least statistically, a bell curve against women participating in the sorts of activity that males generally participate in. That doesn't mean that they can't or they won't, they just don't, or they don't well. But statistics don't determine the person.
Then you look at how to get people into it. I think a lot of it comes down to lack of role models. I mean, think of it, how many female geek heroes do you have? I'm not talking about dead pioneers or women who helped with ancient inventions, I'm talking about people in the programming community who are famous, who get mentioned on Slashdot with reverence, like an RMS or an Alan Cox or even maybe someone less well known, like Miguel de Icaza or Alfred Kojima. There are probably a few (I can't think of any off the top of my head), but not many. Who do the women look up to? The men, right? But what's that say?
Technology, I will agree, seems like an equal opportunity workplace, but then again, so does secretary. So why aren't more men secretaries and more women geeks? History, tradition, culture. Maybe that will change. I don't know, but just because the field is open doesn't mean it works that way.
We can barely get women to like us! Now you want us to get them to be us?!
Note: this post not for the humor (or humour) impaired
The same way you tax a person who drives from Texas to Oklahoma to purchase some fancy Oklahoma thing. You just add the tax in. You say, "All right, you purchase $10 worth of crap, the sales tax here is 8.25%, so you owe us $10.83, what's your VISA number?" The real problem isn't doing the taxing, it's how the taxes get distributed. The whole point of a sales tax is that it benefits the community in which the business resides, but if the majority of the business isn't conducted in that community, is it right for those people to have to pay for things in that community? Most Americans would say no.
Taxation without representation was one of the ideas that defined our Revolution.
Do you think that the government governs you individually? Government is all about abstraction. If it weren't, my President would be ruling me, and you could have your own President. Individuals don't elect the President, the People do. That's why a candidate can get all electorate votes for a state, even if the majority of the people in your entire district voted for some other guy.
Right, and you'd get a completely total lack of faith in the Libertarian party, because nothing, good or bad would get done. When Joe and Susie Public ask why they didn't get any tax relief and why their police didn't get anymore money, the Congressmen will point to the President and say, "Look, he vetoed everything!" and they'll be right.
The President can't cause change without a Congress that helps him. The veto and pardon powers only help him prevent wrong things from happening, not from fostering the right things. Congress, as the body of the people, has that power, but they also can't actually implement them.
That's why I think a Harry Browne, as President, can't do much to affect change (unless by change you mean 'no change'). But a Harry Browne with a Libertarian Congress; that would cause some change.
Your analogy between a choice between helping a victim and a criminal is not idea. The better analogy - and not as much as anology as one might think, is a choice between helping two criminals or walking away.
Fine, you have two criminals. I don't care how many criminals you have. The fact is that you don't do anything to help the situation. By not voting, you are doing just as much harm as if you did vote. JUST AS MUCH!
An enlightened individual would realize that he can have an effect on the system. Anyone who is a part of the system can. Yes, those who vote for one or the other are ignorant as well, but you are just as ignorant for not helping. Rather than sit on your ass, you can take an active part in change. It's not going to happen on its own, and it sure as hell isn't going to happen at the hands of the current politicians.
Until either a candidate that I trust who wants to change things too comes along (not likely) or things change for the better, my point of view is not going to change.
If the issues are important to you (and in my previous post, I quoted you as saying that they are), go out and find a person that wants to change things. Do some research. There are politicians in this election, right now, who want to do the very things that you want to do.
Or are you just too enlightened to realize this?
Really, the issue with libraries and terminals isn't about whether we should filter information, but how we should filter information. Right now, we do it strictly by content. My mother's hospital does something similar to this. When she needs to get articles on the breast or something similar, she generally needs to go to the sysadmin and get the site punched through because the filter blocks out 'breast'. This would suck for a library as well (imagine not being able to get an online version of Gray's Anatomy).
What we need is a third-party group that people can opt into, similar to the e-mail blocking groups that keep track of things like open-relays, etc. Different groups could operate different ones, and they would keep track of whether or not the sites were moral by their rules. Libraries could then choose one or more to filter by.
As for privacy, we don't have a constitutional right to privacy. The great thing is, though, that our Constitution can be changed, and I think you'll see an amendment within 20 years that will make this a reality.
You are ignorant.
You have issues you want dealt with. It is not because I don't care whether the net is regulated or not. That is important. Your words, not mine. Who do you thinks makes these determinations? Do you think it's you, sitting at your computer, saying, "I don't care," watching the world work around you, thinking you are separate from it.
If you really think the issues are important, perhaps you'll do a little research and find someone who is not a politician and vote for them. Maybe you'll encourage other people to vote for them. That's affecting change. By not voting, you are allowing the very things you hate to persist.
A man robs a criminal. You can help the victim. You can help the robber. Or you can do nothing. By helping the victim, you help. Pick either of the others, and you have just done harm. That's what you do by not voting. You do harm. You allow a system that is harmful to persist. All these people that say, "Well, if enough people don't vote, maybe they'll get the message," that says nothing. That says, "I'm apathetic." The man who says, "I want this person to lead me," that man says, "I want this, and you don't have it."
The fact that your post was moderated up as 'Insightful' makes me wonder what truly is insightful on Slashdot. Maybe if Americans would quit whining about how bad the system is and start making it a better one, we could have a government that we trust.
Or do you not care about that, either?
The real question is, if he was elected, could Harry Browne really do what he's talking about?
Exactly. Voting isn't just about whether the candidate has the best statements or ideas, but whether he is the best person for the job. I have the feeling that if Harry Browne were elected to office, he couldn't do anything, simply because he wouldn't have the support of Congress. Look at how little Clinton was able to achieve with a majority Republican Congress.
Just because you have a group of Chinese or Indians at your office does not mean that all of the Chinese or Indians are like that. You may be dealing with a cream of the crop there, some of the best to come out of those countries. America still generally leads in terms of programming and computer output, but other countries certainly have the capabilities we have. To stay competitive, we need to make sure we foster our not-so-elite.
Or we may end up like your friends from school.
Honestly, I don't think that the major political candidates (sorry Browne, but I'm speaking about Bradley, McCain, Gore, Bush, etc.) aren't targeting the Slashdot crowd. They're probably targeting people more like my mother who do use the Internet and take part in e-commerce and try to raise families with an Internet capable computer in their household, but who don't understand all the intricacies of the network they're on and how laws affect that network. Their targets don't know the history of the Internet. They don't know all about open-source software. We wouldn't call them geeks. These people read Salon, maybe. They don't read Slashdot.
And these people are either Democrats or Republicans. They are not likely to be on the fringe. Which is why (see my post below, or maybe above if the moderation gods smile upon me (note: not for the humor impaired) we're not seeing real geek issues. We're seeing normal American issues, like taxes and security, not anything really targeting specifically the Internet.
I'm non-affiliated, by the way. I believe in voting for the candidate that will best serve the country, both as a person and as a politician (and that last part is important).
And imagine where those geeks in China and India would be now if the first time they had seen and used a computer was at age 5 rather than at age 15 or 20 or whenever they first had it?
My dad thinks just as logically as I do (at least with computers; we won't get into issues of things like my life). Yet, he started using around 1984 at age 41 when he got his first Macintosh. I started using the computer at the same time, when I was age 7. My brother started at age 4. Guess what? I was stimulated. My dad was stimulated. My brother wasn't. My brother knows about as much as my dad. I know as much as what I would call a typical Slashdot geek. My dad and I, by your definition, should be equal, except that I started earlier, I got training classes in school, I didn't have to adjust my life to using computers; I grew up with it.
You can have all the brains in the world, but if you aren't stimulated, you won't use them. And if we can stimulate those brains early, when they're even fresher, the results will most likely be greater than if we don't. And since most kids go to school, let's start that exposure there, making it both worthwhile and fun.