The latest installs are no-brainers, and Wine means that Linux will have more applications than Windows (all the Windows apps + all the pre-existing Linux apps).
I beg to differ. Recently, I performed both an upgrade of my Redhat 6.1 installation (to 6.2) and my Windows 98 installation (to Windows 2000). While I would consider myself to be well-skilled in the operation and installation of both, the Windows 2000 installation was by far easier. Windows 2000 easily recognized my current settings, my current programs, and my current hardware and moved everything over the new system. About the only trouble spot during the entire installation was when it detected and changed refresh rates on my monitor, causing the monitor to go blank until I turned it off and on. Redhat, on the other hand, didn't save the majority of my files, opting instead to save them as.rpmorig files, causing me to have to go in and reinstitute many of the changes that I had made to get fix silly problems in their initialization routines specific to my system. By no means was it difficult, but had I been a novice, I might have been screwed.
Wine itself isn't done yet, and the timetable hasn't been established yet for when it will be. They're just now preparing to begin to get ready to be done. That's a really vague idea of where they are. That's like saying, "Hey, we're gonna get to 1.0 sometime, so let's see what we have to do to be ready for it." It's not as if we're talking about a stable beta here that just needs to be tweaked. Wine still needs some major work to be at the level where it will threaten Microsoft.
Linux advocates have a tendency to over-embellish their influence, position, and future. Even if Wine came out tomorrow, it would not be the final nail in Microsoft's coffin. The antitrust suit hasn't even been settled yet, much less made its way through the appeals process (remember AT&T? IBM?). Add to that the fact that businesses are not just going to dump their current corporate infrastructure to run something just like it on another operating system. Why not? Because it takes time to take an NT-based system administrator and convert him to a Unix-based system admin. Or, it takes time to hire. And many companies don't make those sorts of technical decisions beyond the realm of the sysadmin anyway, so is that sysadmin going to replace himself? I think not.
Wine's a good thing, and it means good things for Linux, but I don't think it's threatening Microsoft in any way.
I'd have to disagree. I think you're being a little bit too myopic. Let's go over these again:
1) Yes, we agree. They have a fairly detailed privacy statement. In particular, this statement is nice: If you tell us that you do not wish to have this information used as a basis for further contact with you, we will respect your wishes.
2) I would say, "Yes" here, too. Your choice lies in that most of what Slashdot asks for is completely optional. About the only required information is your e-mail address, and that's only true if you decide to setup an account, which you both don't have to do and don't have to use.
3) You have a preferences control panel. Well, you may not, but I do. And I can read and change the information I've given Slashdot.
4) This one's more iffy. Slashdot says this about your regular password: required but never displayed publicly. It also says this, though, about logging in: This is totally insecure, but very convenient.. I suppose that's an assurance of sorts?
In addition, Andover.Net says that they will notify you when they have intent to use your information. The only specific piece of information that admit to tracking is domain name information, which to me isn't a private thing at all, much more of a public piece of information, like a license plate number or other public unique identifier.
So what is the FTC's 'own agenda'? It's not as if they're trying to control all the private information on the web. It's not as if they're trying to limit e-commerce, or even regulate who can and can't do business on the Internet. Do you even know what their agenda is, cause it sure sounds to me like crackpot conspiracy theories born out of too much government mistrust.
When I read the summary of this article and then the article itself, I thought, "Damn, it's about time," and I was pretty sure that the majority of Slashdotters would feel the same. It seems that one of the things that most people here agree on is that corporations are eroding the privacy of online participants and there's really nothing anyone can seemingly do about it. Along comes a government with the ability to affect at least some change in these corporations and Slashdotters are like, "No! Government regulation will be the death of the Internet. Down with government. Boo. Hiss." What the hell do people want here?
I think it's naive of Slashdot to think that geeks alone are going to be able to convince corporations that they need to maintain the privacy of their customers. I think government intervention on an even more massive scale than the US government (read: international) is going to be required to safely ensure that we have access to what information is being collected, what is going to be done with that information, and who has the right to restrict that information. Corporations just won't do it on their own. I have never been to a corporate web site that would've passed the tests that the FTC used, and the tests were basic. They didn't cover anything about what was done with the information, only about how it's collected.
But Slashdot plays this out like there is no good side. We say, "Oo, corporations are evil," but when someone (read: the government) tries to help us out agains the evil corporations, we say, "Oo, governments are evil," and turn our back on one of our potentially greatest resources. How do you expect to reform the corporate world? By going around door-to-door like some geek Jehovah's Witnesses? The fact that Congress is controlled rather strongly by corporatist lobbiers means that these FTC recommendations have an uphill climb. We should backing them if we want to see any of these suggestions come to bear (and from the slant of past Slashdot stories and posts, I'd say that most in the online community do).
But what do I see when I finally read the posts? I see basically mistrust of the government and a refusal to take help from those who are offering it. Personally, I'll throw my support behind the FTC. I'd rather have a organization that is supposed to work for the people working towards my privacy goals than a corporation with absolutely no ties to me whatsover.
There's a better solution than this, I think, which I've advocated for a while: Let users apply negative moderation to their own posts, whenever they want to, with no karma penalty.
I actually think this is a great idea for 'removing' posts in general, except it fails to solve the only real reason I (for one) would ever want to see a post removed, and that's if it violated some sort of law (again, the example being the Microsoft letter). Moderating it down still allows it to be in the system, which could eventually be a legal hassle. I know there are logical referential reasons why posts can't just *poof*, but allowing the user to replace his post with message (sort of away thing), either a [ this post has been deleted ] or more personalized [ I have been asked by greedy corporate lawyers to remove this post or be sued. Their address is so contact them. ] message could solve both problems as well as inform. Obviously, only registered accounts would qualify; ACs could fall under the jurisdiction of Slashdot. Also, I think this should come with a heavy karma penalty, because self-censorship affects others. Allowing others to mark their posts down without penalty could lead to the removal of some very insightful threads from the common discussion.
Just like you can put up an offensive or illegal sign in a community park, you should also be able to take it down and put a conciliatory or explanatory note back up in its place.
I *am* against copyright, but not against rewarding public goods, even if it means violating some rights. Copyright does some good by encouraging the creation of information, but it also does some harm by reducing the number of people who can access information, and the ways they can access it. They also do harm by restricting the creation of derivative works, and thus resulting in needless duplication of works (the GPL has this same problem, or at least fails to solve it). In my opinion, the harm outweighs the good often enough that another system could be much better overall.
Copyright does not limit who can access information; it limits who can distribute said information. There's a big difference. The whole point of copyright is that it only applies to published works, published meaning accessible. You can't copyright something that no one can view publicly. I know this because I just went through the copyright procedures for our web site, and our lawyers wouldn't let us include anything that was a) a derivative work and b) code that wasn't visible (eg. code that generated code, SSIs, etc.). Copyright is only viewed as limiting when people can't access it the way they want, but copyrighted information is always accessible. It has to be, or it can't be copyrighted.
And while we're at it, there's two different types of rights. There's rights which are deemed 'inalienable' in that they exist because of existence. These include life, speech, individual liberty, decision, and several others. Then there are rights which exist because of laws. These include the right to vote (yes, voting is right for those countries that assign it), copyright (which is a right given to someone to distribute works), right to bear arms, right to privacy, etc. Just because you don't think the law shouldn't make it a right doesn't mean that it's not. Anarchists may not believe in laws, but that doesn't mean that they still don't live under them. You cannot walk into a court of law for a copyright violation and say to the judge, "Artists don't have that right!". The judge will look at you, laugh, slap you with a fine and tell you you have a law-given right to appeal. Then you can exercise your God-given right to decide whether or not to exercise that right.
So, to sum it up, who should we listen to about rights? You, who wants to plant your garden and then make a much-failed copyright example out of it, or the law, under which the rest of our social organization lives and functions? I'll listen the law.. not to a IP thief.
As an example, let's say that someone posts the full text of an entire collection of novels on Usenet. The author of those novels finds the owner of the account who is responsible for posting them and, instead of targetting Usenet and seeking to 'shut it down', takes action against the individual responsible for the distcint criminal act.
I thought Lars addressed this very well. USENET is different because it's a decentralized organization. USENET is just a network, a tool that people use for the transfer of this information and no one really controls it. Napster is different. People at Napster have setup this service which they are making money off of that facilitates the distribution of this stolen material. To take Lars' Suburban example, it's as if someone setup a shop where people could take their stolen cars and give them to other people, sort of a market. If it's a free market and people are doing this there, they go after the people selling, but if it's a specially setup market owned by someone who lets this happen right under their noses and who is fully aware this is happening, they'll go after that owner. Basically, the Napster folks are making money off facilitating a large amount of provably illegal activity.
Napster is not just a provider or tool here, but an actual facilitator, and that's where Lars his making his distinction. Personally, I think it'sp pretty valid.
Here's a few things to bandy about (no need for actual diffs).
Theming Everyone bitches about the colors, especially in the BSD and Apache sections (and, I must say, YRO isn't much better). Why not setup a colors preferences panel? That shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Removal of Comments Given the recent controversy over Microsoft and what not, give users the ability to remove their own comments, maybe with a karma penalty or something. We can moderate our system, but we can't responsibly manage it.
That's just a couple of ideas, and there's tons more, I'm sure. On to Slash 2.0!
As a society, we can try to make cyberspace conform to the rules of physical space. Or we can recognize the extraordinary potential of this new culture, and invest cyberspace with laws and values and properties that are fundamentally different.
Or we can do something real. The Internet is not some separate world that exists freely of the 'real' world. Things that happen in cyberspace affect markets, fortunes, lives, and property. Do you think this isn't the case? Try asking the 14-year-old who was molested by a chat-room junkie. Try asking the businesses that lose money when DDOS attacks strike. Try asking artists (like Metallica) who find their songs posted to and critiqued on the Internet before they're even finished (yes folks, that's the event that prompted Metallica to take action). You can't just treat the Internet as a separate beast. You can't just say, "Well, the Internet's an entirely new beast, so we'll have to make rules for it that are about it." What are you going to do, get rid of copyright for the Internet and not the 'real' world? Are intellectual freedoms only for the Internet (or for the 'real' world, depending on how you view the whole IP issue)?
Maybe people should quit saying, "Oo, the Internet is special and different," and realize that it's an outgrowth of our current society and you can't just separate it. Should copyright law be erased? No. Ideas are free, but work is not, and things that are copyrighted are not ideas, they are the works generated from those ideas. The Internet will change society and society will change the Internet, but we can't choose one over the other. They're inextricably linked, and to say that we should create new laws for a new 'virtual' world shows a deep misunderstanding about how 'virtual' this new world really is.
What happened to the days of Unix-oriented design, where you have many small things that do a certain task very well and you combine them together to do really big jobs? A cell phone that plays MP3 music is going to suck. It's going to have crappy sound and use up some a good deal of battery life. This isn't improving the cell phone or the MP3 player. It's making both worse. What I would rather see is a separate cellphone and MP3 player that, when I want them to be, can be combined together to get my cell/MP3 player (how many times are you going to use that, seriously?) and when I don't want them be combined, will function perfectly well.
According the article, it's option three, John with an 'H' and 'maddog' like a computer person's login name, all lowercase with no spaces. Rob decided that without a 'Hemos the Hamster' answer, though, he was still going to cause trouble and choose both options 2 and 3.
So vote today, and let's see how many new and unique ways we can come up with to torture this poor man's moniker.
BTW, I have nothing but respect for Hall and think that he is a Linux advocacy role model. Not only that, but he's single, so ladies, get in line for that man of your dreams.
Personally, I think there is no 'answer', but I know that individualism isn't the answer. You simply can't have it. Jon, for all your ranting and raving about how bad corporate America is, about how bad Microsoft is, what would you have the alternative be? Oh, rather than everybody living under the tyranny of Microsoft, let's all live under the GPL instead. The GPL is better than Microsoft's licenses, so we should live under that instead. Well, what if I don't want to live under the GPL? What if I want to make up my own license? What if I want to make up my own program that will be enormously successful, but use my own individual protocols, and to make sure they stay individual, I don't want you using them (so I'll just close them off to anything but my programs)? I'm an individual.
I say, "Forget corporate America!" but I also say, "Forget all the hippy free software people!" too. Forget them all. Or don't.
Do what you freakin' want. If you want to use Microsoft, use Microsoft. You're not a sinner because of it. If you want to be a politician and get your money from the NRA, go right ahead. It's your choice. Your live by your decisions. If you want to eschew all wealth and be a hermit out in the West Virginian mountains, then by all means do it. What I really hate, though, more than anything else, is some guy telling me that would should be more like something. That's just as bad to me as the Gap telling me that I should wear khakis to be cool or Microsoft telling me I should use Windows if I want to work with everyone else. It's the same damn thing.
I'll do what I want, cause I don't want to listen to you telling me what to do.
ps. This all reminds me of the scene in Election where the Tracey stands up to give her speech and says, "So vote for me. Or don't!"
If the posts are copyrighted by their authors and the author may well be in violation of copyright, why does the Slashdot have to remove the article (if the article is to be removed)? Oh yeah, that's right, there's no self-management. That's the difference between an ISP and Slashdot. If some user puts up some illegal web page, the company contacts the ISP and the ISP contacts the user and tells the user that they will remove it or have it removed for them and then directs the company to bug the user. Of course, you can't do that at Slashdot because I can't remove my own comments (and believe me, there are times when I've wanted to, but not now).
I realize that such a system causes problems with regards to AC posting (hmm.. no AC posting, that's an idea.. and a flamewar) as well as with nested comments. AC postings generally can't belong to the author since the author is unknown and Slashdot should rightfully take possession of those and manage them, but as for the rest of us users, why not give us the say? Then we can turn to Microsoft and give them either an "okie dokie" or a nice mooning.
All the comments about karma whoring aside, really, Sig, that's an incredibly dumb idea. The public does not need to be educated about what overclocking is. The majority of the public does not need to know that overclocking takes place or how to do it. They just need to know that there are fake Athlon chips out there, and honestly, the 'public' doesn't need to know that either, it's the resellers who need to know. I doubt the shop that sold this chip to this guy realized they were selling a fake chip. The retailers need to run their chips through a test of some sort, some test that doesn't require that they actually boot up a computer with the chip, but maybe a simple electrical or physical test.
Education may be the only defense against exploitation, but you have to be careful who you educate. Educating the public in this case would be futile because half of them wouldn't understand what you were talking about and the other half wouldn't care (not to mention the incredible resources necessary for 'educating the public'). It's better to educate the knowledgable public (ie. the ones selling the stuff) so they can provide good service and abide by the law (which is plenty sufficient, BTW).
If everyone knew everything, that'd be great, but there's no chance that that will ever happen, so make sure you get the right people to know the right things.
What is it with Apple these days (and every other software manufacturer, for that matter)? The screenshots of this program, except for the handle Apple menu bar at the top, look like they could've been taken on any system. Why can't software manufacturers design programs that actually use the interface of the system they're being used on? Why does a Macintosh program have to look like a strange new foreign interface and why does Microsoft's new Media Player have to look like a retarded Pocket PC or something? This is especially disconcerting coming from Apple, which has made great headway in the designs of consisten UIs that make people feel at ease. I do not want to have to learn a whole new set of of UI images, methods, and layouts every time I open up a new program.
Imagine this. You take some voice recognition software (ViaVoice perhaps) and put it into a Palm-size recorder. When the language comes in, it processes it through a translator, either a program or even something rudimentary, like Babelfish. Automatic language detection would be kind of tough, but you could easily tell it what language to expect by the country that you are in. I don't see why all of this can't be done with a Palm-size device and a wireless connection.
Yes, your translations would be rough, but they'd get the job done. I've translated entire articles using Babelfish for research and the main ideas come across. I don't see why something like this can't exist right now.
Today, 3M, the leading seller of clear adhesive strips, announced new Scotch Digital Tape Dispenser. The new dispenser comes complete with LED monitoring systems for the roll of adhesive as well as the ability to connect to the Internet for digital tape refills. The dispenser requires 3M's revolutionary Scotch Digital Tape for full digital effect, enabling it to dispense much clearer and more effective tape. The new tape dispenser will support older tape rolls, but the quality will be on par with those tape's properties. Suggested retail price for the new 3M Scotch Digital Tape Dispenser is US$199.
Seriously, is it just me or is everyone getting wowed by 'digital' this and that? Why make old analog technology digital when you can create better, cheaper, newer digital technology right from scratch? Digital, it seems, is the new marketing buzzword and people are falling for it.
One thing I repeatedly saw in this article is the phrase 'get it', as in certain people (Garbus, hackers, etc.) 'get it' and certain other people (the MPAA) don't 'get it'. I love it when a group of people on either side tell others how things should be and when the other side doesn't agree, they say, "You just don't 'get it', man!" Personally, I think Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and provides links to it. It's not a hard argument to make that he's at least aiding the distribution of the material. It would've been just as easy to let others provide links. God knows there's enough sites, and hell, all you have to do is link to the filed briefs.
The MPAA's a bunch of morons as well. The article points this out as well as they are attacking the author of the DeCSS code when they could be attacking known piraters in Asia who are actually producing illegal material.
As for the argument of free speech, well, hell, I guess I don't 'get it'. I understand why linking as an activity should be considered free speech (possibly, although the court orders people to shut up all the time, and when they break that law they're found in contempt), but DeCSS as free speech? Are you saying that all code should be free speech? If I write a virus that destroys half a hard drive and distribute it and some government or company criminally prosecutes me, can I claim my free speech rights or is it still illegal? I sure as hell hope it's the latter, because code is not the same as speech. Words may hurt feelings, but they can't damage physical property or rights (except in the case of libel or slander). Code has the potential to be much more destructive.
Personally, I think DeCSS is the wrong battle to be fighting for both parties. But then again, I don't claim to 'get it'.
Yeah, but Jon, your articles isn't about my.mp3.com. It's about how the loss the my.mp3.com has dealt a 'crushing blow' to MP3 and Napster and the open-source movement, and it's bullshit on all three accounts. The judge didn't say that MP3 is illegal and the RIAA doesn't think that MP3 inherently is evil. In fact, several record companies and bands that operate under the RIAA already release music in MP3 format. The my.mp3.com lawsuit was about who has the right to distribute music, mainly whether it's the artists (and their agents, the record companies) or someone else. MP3.com copied 80,000 CDs so that anyone could listen to them at any time. Granted, they checked to see if the person actually owned the CD, but the fact of the matter is that the company did the copying and distributing, not the owner. There are plenty of sites out there that are alive and kicking that do the same sort of thing that MP3.com does, except that they require to record and upload their own MP3s. This isn't a crushing blow to MP3, Jon. The judge just said that you can't copy music and then distribute it.
And this is something that I have to say to you every time you write something. If someone were to take a copy of your book, duplicate it verbatim on to the Web, and let people read and download it for free, you and your publisher would sue the bastard to make sure that s/h/it didn't do it. The same holds true for music, whether it be in MP3 or some other format.
So yes, Jon, do some more research next time, and quit blowing what are really sound legal decisions out of proportion and saying that it's the end of the movement as we know it, people's heads are up their asses, blah dee blah blah. MP3 is not a revolution. This case is not a trendsetter or major MP3 precedent. It's just reaffirming copyright laws in protection of the artist, which is what copyright is all about.
This is a typical American response. Why must all problems be solved with a lawsuit? Look at how much we bitch and moan about frivolous lawsuits, and even not so frivolous ones like the DeCSS, Napster, and Microsoft suits. How come the first idea for action has to be a lawsuit? Would a lawsuit even help in this case? Could it prevent the British government from doing anything (especially since it doesn't appear that anyone has an concrete evidence of exactly what they're doing).
A better solution than figuring out someone to put some sort of blame on in an effort to make a little side cash is to encrypt your e-mail using PGP or GPG or some such utility. Britain (or any other country, company, person, or machine for that matter) can look at my encrypted e-mail all the want for all that I care.
Picking a fight is never the best way to solve anything. The best defense is a tactic which renders the opponent's offense useless, not one that fights back.
All right, let's get one thing straight. Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit. The trailer into this article is damn well the most misleading statement ever. I challenge anyone to go into court on a copyright violation charge and try to defend themselves using their first amendment rights.
Let's pose a hypothetical for all the Slashdotters out there. Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider.
I like MP3s. I think they're a great way to preview music. I've even pirated MP3s to try out new music that I've heard was good. But I don't grab a program like Napster, grab all the MP3s I want, and when someone accuses me of theft, claim that the information wants to be free and that I'm being denied my right to download free music. You have no fscking right. You don't even have the privilege because you don't have the permission.
Jon, quit trolling Slashdot. This is a story aimed at getting a large percentage of Slashdot behind you. The fact is, it's illegal, and if someone were to copy your entire book which you make money off of and give it away for free online, you or your publisher would sue the bastards. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
I really appreciate the hard work that these people went through to get this site up. It's an incredible piece of work, and I can imagine it being informative for both space buffs and the curious individual.
but...
I watched their movie about the LK Lunar Lander and, of course, they got it all wrong. There is no sound in space!. Will anyone ever get this one thing right? I mean, they easily could've put on Russian radio communications during landing (that would've been cool) and given the extraordinary detail they went into in this site, you'd think they wouldn't let something like that slip through.
All well, that's just a pet peeve of mine. Please return to your regular reading.
Have you ever noticed how when NASA gets in a funk, it's always the Hubble Telescope that saves the day? I mean, think about it, the first real important mission after the Challenger accident was the launch of the telescope. When the telescope was defective, NASA used it to show just how expertly astronauts can work in outer space (can we say 'space station' anyone?). NASA gets in a bit of trouble with the Mars missions and, whoa, Hubble turns ten (and re-releases some pretty pictures to boot). Hubble has done a wonderful job of generating PR for NASA. In fact, tonight on ABC World News, I saw a report on how the only pictures scientists ever release from Hubble are the really pretty one (they have a gallery at their web site, although I haven't checked it out yet).
Hubble's a PR machine, especially when you consider that the real brunt work is done by other space telescopes like Chandra. In fact, Hubble gets the most attention because its imagery is the most 'real' to the layman (read: Congressman.. or woman.. but not person).
So here's to ten more years of Hubble. Hopefully, it can keep NASA around long enough for it to get the next big PR booster it needs, the space station.
So, if you repeatedly use legacy code in your new code in an attempt to ensure that your new code will support the same sorts of programs and environments as your old code, do you call that software inbreeding?
And if so, does that make Microsoft a bunch of software rednecks?
This means that, with just an Internet connection, I will be able to use the world's best telescopes and do my own research, maybe discover some celestial objects that have always been there but no one's had the (available telescope) time to look at/for them.
Doesn't the search for heavenly bodies require analysis over time, and not simply an image? I mean, for one thing, most of what we're discovering these days aren't visual elements anyway; they're things like extrasolar planets, quasars, and black holes, things that you can't really find with a visual survey of the sky. About the only real visual things you might spot are comets and/or asteroids, but detection of those bodies generally requires a bit more than simply a sky survey, and you'll still need photographs of that area over time.
Don't get me wrong, I think this a great idea. I just don't want to get amateur astronomers' hopes up. A map of the sky is great for learning, but one still needs the tools of the trade to do real research and discovery.
Slashdot Mirror
The latest installs are no-brainers, and Wine means that Linux will have more applications than Windows (all the Windows apps + all the pre-existing Linux apps).
.rpmorig files, causing me to have to go in and reinstitute many of the changes that I had made to get fix silly problems in their initialization routines specific to my system. By no means was it difficult, but had I been a novice, I might have been screwed.
I beg to differ. Recently, I performed both an upgrade of my Redhat 6.1 installation (to 6.2) and my Windows 98 installation (to Windows 2000). While I would consider myself to be well-skilled in the operation and installation of both, the Windows 2000 installation was by far easier. Windows 2000 easily recognized my current settings, my current programs, and my current hardware and moved everything over the new system. About the only trouble spot during the entire installation was when it detected and changed refresh rates on my monitor, causing the monitor to go blank until I turned it off and on. Redhat, on the other hand, didn't save the majority of my files, opting instead to save them as
Wine itself isn't done yet, and the timetable hasn't been established yet for when it will be. They're just now preparing to begin to get ready to be done. That's a really vague idea of where they are. That's like saying, "Hey, we're gonna get to 1.0 sometime, so let's see what we have to do to be ready for it." It's not as if we're talking about a stable beta here that just needs to be tweaked. Wine still needs some major work to be at the level where it will threaten Microsoft.
Linux advocates have a tendency to over-embellish their influence, position, and future. Even if Wine came out tomorrow, it would not be the final nail in Microsoft's coffin. The antitrust suit hasn't even been settled yet, much less made its way through the appeals process (remember AT&T? IBM?). Add to that the fact that businesses are not just going to dump their current corporate infrastructure to run something just like it on another operating system. Why not? Because it takes time to take an NT-based system administrator and convert him to a Unix-based system admin. Or, it takes time to hire. And many companies don't make those sorts of technical decisions beyond the realm of the sysadmin anyway, so is that sysadmin going to replace himself? I think not.
Wine's a good thing, and it means good things for Linux, but I don't think it's threatening Microsoft in any way.
I'd have to disagree. I think you're being a little bit too myopic. Let's go over these again:
1) Yes, we agree. They have a fairly detailed privacy statement. In particular, this statement is nice: If you tell us that you do not wish to have this information used as a basis for further contact with you, we will respect your wishes.
2) I would say, "Yes" here, too. Your choice lies in that most of what Slashdot asks for is completely optional. About the only required information is your e-mail address, and that's only true if you decide to setup an account, which you both don't have to do and don't have to use.
3) You have a preferences control panel. Well, you may not, but I do. And I can read and change the information I've given Slashdot.
4) This one's more iffy. Slashdot says this about your regular password: required but never displayed publicly. It also says this, though, about logging in: This is totally insecure, but very convenient.. I suppose that's an assurance of sorts?
In addition, Andover.Net says that they will notify you when they have intent to use your information. The only specific piece of information that admit to tracking is domain name information, which to me isn't a private thing at all, much more of a public piece of information, like a license plate number or other public unique identifier.
So what is the FTC's 'own agenda'? It's not as if they're trying to control all the private information on the web. It's not as if they're trying to limit e-commerce, or even regulate who can and can't do business on the Internet. Do you even know what their agenda is, cause it sure sounds to me like crackpot conspiracy theories born out of too much government mistrust.
When I read the summary of this article and then the article itself, I thought, "Damn, it's about time," and I was pretty sure that the majority of Slashdotters would feel the same. It seems that one of the things that most people here agree on is that corporations are eroding the privacy of online participants and there's really nothing anyone can seemingly do about it. Along comes a government with the ability to affect at least some change in these corporations and Slashdotters are like, "No! Government regulation will be the death of the Internet. Down with government. Boo. Hiss." What the hell do people want here?
I think it's naive of Slashdot to think that geeks alone are going to be able to convince corporations that they need to maintain the privacy of their customers. I think government intervention on an even more massive scale than the US government (read: international) is going to be required to safely ensure that we have access to what information is being collected, what is going to be done with that information, and who has the right to restrict that information. Corporations just won't do it on their own. I have never been to a corporate web site that would've passed the tests that the FTC used, and the tests were basic. They didn't cover anything about what was done with the information, only about how it's collected.
But Slashdot plays this out like there is no good side. We say, "Oo, corporations are evil," but when someone (read: the government) tries to help us out agains the evil corporations, we say, "Oo, governments are evil," and turn our back on one of our potentially greatest resources. How do you expect to reform the corporate world? By going around door-to-door like some geek Jehovah's Witnesses? The fact that Congress is controlled rather strongly by corporatist lobbiers means that these FTC recommendations have an uphill climb. We should backing them if we want to see any of these suggestions come to bear (and from the slant of past Slashdot stories and posts, I'd say that most in the online community do).
But what do I see when I finally read the posts? I see basically mistrust of the government and a refusal to take help from those who are offering it. Personally, I'll throw my support behind the FTC. I'd rather have a organization that is supposed to work for the people working towards my privacy goals than a corporation with absolutely no ties to me whatsover.
There's a better solution than this, I think, which I've advocated for a while: Let users apply negative moderation to their own posts, whenever they want to, with no karma penalty.
I actually think this is a great idea for 'removing' posts in general, except it fails to solve the only real reason I (for one) would ever want to see a post removed, and that's if it violated some sort of law (again, the example being the Microsoft letter). Moderating it down still allows it to be in the system, which could eventually be a legal hassle. I know there are logical referential reasons why posts can't just *poof*, but allowing the user to replace his post with message (sort of away thing), either a [ this post has been deleted ] or more personalized [ I have been asked by greedy corporate lawyers to remove this post or be sued. Their address is so contact them. ] message could solve both problems as well as inform. Obviously, only registered accounts would qualify; ACs could fall under the jurisdiction of Slashdot. Also, I think this should come with a heavy karma penalty, because self-censorship affects others. Allowing others to mark their posts down without penalty could lead to the removal of some very insightful threads from the common discussion.
Just like you can put up an offensive or illegal sign in a community park, you should also be able to take it down and put a conciliatory or explanatory note back up in its place.
I *am* against copyright, but not against rewarding public goods, even if it means violating some rights. Copyright does some good by encouraging the creation of information, but it also does some harm by reducing the number of people who can access information, and the ways they can access it. They also do harm by restricting the creation of derivative works, and thus resulting in needless duplication of works (the GPL has this same problem, or at least fails to solve it). In my opinion, the harm outweighs the good often enough that another system could be much better overall.
.. not to a IP thief.
Copyright does not limit who can access information; it limits who can distribute said information. There's a big difference. The whole point of copyright is that it only applies to published works, published meaning accessible. You can't copyright something that no one can view publicly. I know this because I just went through the copyright procedures for our web site, and our lawyers wouldn't let us include anything that was a) a derivative work and b) code that wasn't visible (eg. code that generated code, SSIs, etc.). Copyright is only viewed as limiting when people can't access it the way they want, but copyrighted information is always accessible. It has to be, or it can't be copyrighted.
And while we're at it, there's two different types of rights. There's rights which are deemed 'inalienable' in that they exist because of existence. These include life, speech, individual liberty, decision, and several others. Then there are rights which exist because of laws. These include the right to vote (yes, voting is right for those countries that assign it), copyright (which is a right given to someone to distribute works), right to bear arms, right to privacy, etc. Just because you don't think the law shouldn't make it a right doesn't mean that it's not. Anarchists may not believe in laws, but that doesn't mean that they still don't live under them. You cannot walk into a court of law for a copyright violation and say to the judge, "Artists don't have that right!". The judge will look at you, laugh, slap you with a fine and tell you you have a law-given right to appeal. Then you can exercise your God-given right to decide whether or not to exercise that right.
So, to sum it up, who should we listen to about rights? You, who wants to plant your garden and then make a much-failed copyright example out of it, or the law, under which the rest of our social organization lives and functions? I'll listen the law
As an example, let's say that someone posts the full text of an entire collection of novels on Usenet. The author of those novels finds the owner of the account who is responsible for posting them and, instead of targetting Usenet and seeking to 'shut it down', takes action against the individual responsible for the distcint criminal act.
I thought Lars addressed this very well. USENET is different because it's a decentralized organization. USENET is just a network, a tool that people use for the transfer of this information and no one really controls it. Napster is different. People at Napster have setup this service which they are making money off of that facilitates the distribution of this stolen material. To take Lars' Suburban example, it's as if someone setup a shop where people could take their stolen cars and give them to other people, sort of a market. If it's a free market and people are doing this there, they go after the people selling, but if it's a specially setup market owned by someone who lets this happen right under their noses and who is fully aware this is happening, they'll go after that owner. Basically, the Napster folks are making money off facilitating a large amount of provably illegal activity.
Napster is not just a provider or tool here, but an actual facilitator, and that's where Lars his making his distinction. Personally, I think it'sp pretty valid.
Here's a few things to bandy about (no need for actual diffs).
Theming
Everyone bitches about the colors, especially in the BSD and Apache sections (and, I must say, YRO isn't much better). Why not setup a colors preferences panel? That shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Removal of Comments
Given the recent controversy over Microsoft and what not, give users the ability to remove their own comments, maybe with a karma penalty or something. We can moderate our system, but we can't responsibly manage it.
That's just a couple of ideas, and there's tons more, I'm sure. On to Slash 2.0!
As a society, we can try to make cyberspace conform to the rules of physical space. Or we can recognize the extraordinary potential of this new culture, and invest cyberspace with laws and values and properties that are fundamentally different.
Or we can do something real. The Internet is not some separate world that exists freely of the 'real' world. Things that happen in cyberspace affect markets, fortunes, lives, and property. Do you think this isn't the case? Try asking the 14-year-old who was molested by a chat-room junkie. Try asking the businesses that lose money when DDOS attacks strike. Try asking artists (like Metallica) who find their songs posted to and critiqued on the Internet before they're even finished (yes folks, that's the event that prompted Metallica to take action). You can't just treat the Internet as a separate beast. You can't just say, "Well, the Internet's an entirely new beast, so we'll have to make rules for it that are about it." What are you going to do, get rid of copyright for the Internet and not the 'real' world? Are intellectual freedoms only for the Internet (or for the 'real' world, depending on how you view the whole IP issue)?
Maybe people should quit saying, "Oo, the Internet is special and different," and realize that it's an outgrowth of our current society and you can't just separate it. Should copyright law be erased? No. Ideas are free, but work is not, and things that are copyrighted are not ideas, they are the works generated from those ideas. The Internet will change society and society will change the Internet, but we can't choose one over the other. They're inextricably linked, and to say that we should create new laws for a new 'virtual' world shows a deep misunderstanding about how 'virtual' this new world really is.
Exactly.
What happened to the days of Unix-oriented design, where you have many small things that do a certain task very well and you combine them together to do really big jobs? A cell phone that plays MP3 music is going to suck. It's going to have crappy sound and use up some a good deal of battery life. This isn't improving the cell phone or the MP3 player. It's making both worse. What I would rather see is a separate cellphone and MP3 player that, when I want them to be, can be combined together to get my cell/MP3 player (how many times are you going to use that, seriously?) and when I don't want them be combined, will function perfectly well.
According the article, it's option three, John with an 'H' and 'maddog' like a computer person's login name, all lowercase with no spaces. Rob decided that without a 'Hemos the Hamster' answer, though, he was still going to cause trouble and choose both options 2 and 3.
So vote today, and let's see how many new and unique ways we can come up with to torture this poor man's moniker.
BTW, I have nothing but respect for Hall and think that he is a Linux advocacy role model. Not only that, but he's single, so ladies, get in line for that man of your dreams.
Personally, I think there is no 'answer', but I know that individualism isn't the answer. You simply can't have it. Jon, for all your ranting and raving about how bad corporate America is, about how bad Microsoft is, what would you have the alternative be? Oh, rather than everybody living under the tyranny of Microsoft, let's all live under the GPL instead. The GPL is better than Microsoft's licenses, so we should live under that instead. Well, what if I don't want to live under the GPL? What if I want to make up my own license? What if I want to make up my own program that will be enormously successful, but use my own individual protocols, and to make sure they stay individual, I don't want you using them (so I'll just close them off to anything but my programs)? I'm an individual.
I say, "Forget corporate America!" but I also say, "Forget all the hippy free software people!" too. Forget them all. Or don't.
Do what you freakin' want. If you want to use Microsoft, use Microsoft. You're not a sinner because of it. If you want to be a politician and get your money from the NRA, go right ahead. It's your choice. Your live by your decisions. If you want to eschew all wealth and be a hermit out in the West Virginian mountains, then by all means do it. What I really hate, though, more than anything else, is some guy telling me that would should be more like something. That's just as bad to me as the Gap telling me that I should wear khakis to be cool or Microsoft telling me I should use Windows if I want to work with everyone else. It's the same damn thing.
I'll do what I want, cause I don't want to listen to you telling me what to do.
ps. This all reminds me of the scene in Election where the Tracey stands up to give her speech and says, "So vote for me. Or don't!"
If the posts are copyrighted by their authors and the author may well be in violation of copyright, why does the Slashdot have to remove the article (if the article is to be removed)? Oh yeah, that's right, there's no self-management. That's the difference between an ISP and Slashdot. If some user puts up some illegal web page, the company contacts the ISP and the ISP contacts the user and tells the user that they will remove it or have it removed for them and then directs the company to bug the user. Of course, you can't do that at Slashdot because I can't remove my own comments (and believe me, there are times when I've wanted to, but not now).
.. no AC posting, that's an idea .. and a flamewar) as well as with nested comments. AC postings generally can't belong to the author since the author is unknown and Slashdot should rightfully take possession of those and manage them, but as for the rest of us users, why not give us the say? Then we can turn to Microsoft and give them either an "okie dokie" or a nice mooning.
I realize that such a system causes problems with regards to AC posting (hmm
All the comments about karma whoring aside, really, Sig, that's an incredibly dumb idea. The public does not need to be educated about what overclocking is. The majority of the public does not need to know that overclocking takes place or how to do it. They just need to know that there are fake Athlon chips out there, and honestly, the 'public' doesn't need to know that either, it's the resellers who need to know. I doubt the shop that sold this chip to this guy realized they were selling a fake chip. The retailers need to run their chips through a test of some sort, some test that doesn't require that they actually boot up a computer with the chip, but maybe a simple electrical or physical test.
Education may be the only defense against exploitation, but you have to be careful who you educate. Educating the public in this case would be futile because half of them wouldn't understand what you were talking about and the other half wouldn't care (not to mention the incredible resources necessary for 'educating the public'). It's better to educate the knowledgable public (ie. the ones selling the stuff) so they can provide good service and abide by the law (which is plenty sufficient, BTW).
If everyone knew everything, that'd be great, but there's no chance that that will ever happen, so make sure you get the right people to know the right things.
What is it with Apple these days (and every other software manufacturer, for that matter)? The screenshots of this program, except for the handle Apple menu bar at the top, look like they could've been taken on any system. Why can't software manufacturers design programs that actually use the interface of the system they're being used on? Why does a Macintosh program have to look like a strange new foreign interface and why does Microsoft's new Media Player have to look like a retarded Pocket PC or something? This is especially disconcerting coming from Apple, which has made great headway in the designs of consisten UIs that make people feel at ease. I do not want to have to learn a whole new set of of UI images, methods, and layouts every time I open up a new program.
Sheesh.
Imagine this. You take some voice recognition software (ViaVoice perhaps) and put it into a Palm-size recorder. When the language comes in, it processes it through a translator, either a program or even something rudimentary, like Babelfish. Automatic language detection would be kind of tough, but you could easily tell it what language to expect by the country that you are in. I don't see why all of this can't be done with a Palm-size device and a wireless connection.
Yes, your translations would be rough, but they'd get the job done. I've translated entire articles using Babelfish for research and the main ideas come across. I don't see why something like this can't exist right now.
Today, 3M, the leading seller of clear adhesive strips, announced new Scotch Digital Tape Dispenser. The new dispenser comes complete with LED monitoring systems for the roll of adhesive as well as the ability to connect to the Internet for digital tape refills. The dispenser requires 3M's revolutionary Scotch Digital Tape for full digital effect, enabling it to dispense much clearer and more effective tape. The new tape dispenser will support older tape rolls, but the quality will be on par with those tape's properties. Suggested retail price for the new 3M Scotch Digital Tape Dispenser is US$199.
Seriously, is it just me or is everyone getting wowed by 'digital' this and that? Why make old analog technology digital when you can create better, cheaper, newer digital technology right from scratch? Digital, it seems, is the new marketing buzzword and people are falling for it.
One thing I repeatedly saw in this article is the phrase 'get it', as in certain people (Garbus, hackers, etc.) 'get it' and certain other people (the MPAA) don't 'get it'. I love it when a group of people on either side tell others how things should be and when the other side doesn't agree, they say, "You just don't 'get it', man!" Personally, I think Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and provides links to it. It's not a hard argument to make that he's at least aiding the distribution of the material. It would've been just as easy to let others provide links. God knows there's enough sites, and hell, all you have to do is link to the filed briefs.
The MPAA's a bunch of morons as well. The article points this out as well as they are attacking the author of the DeCSS code when they could be attacking known piraters in Asia who are actually producing illegal material.
As for the argument of free speech, well, hell, I guess I don't 'get it'. I understand why linking as an activity should be considered free speech (possibly, although the court orders people to shut up all the time, and when they break that law they're found in contempt), but DeCSS as free speech? Are you saying that all code should be free speech? If I write a virus that destroys half a hard drive and distribute it and some government or company criminally prosecutes me, can I claim my free speech rights or is it still illegal? I sure as hell hope it's the latter, because code is not the same as speech. Words may hurt feelings, but they can't damage physical property or rights (except in the case of libel or slander). Code has the potential to be much more destructive.
Personally, I think DeCSS is the wrong battle to be fighting for both parties. But then again, I don't claim to 'get it'.
Yeah, but Jon, your articles isn't about my.mp3.com. It's about how the loss the my.mp3.com has dealt a 'crushing blow' to MP3 and Napster and the open-source movement, and it's bullshit on all three accounts. The judge didn't say that MP3 is illegal and the RIAA doesn't think that MP3 inherently is evil. In fact, several record companies and bands that operate under the RIAA already release music in MP3 format. The my.mp3.com lawsuit was about who has the right to distribute music, mainly whether it's the artists (and their agents, the record companies) or someone else. MP3.com copied 80,000 CDs so that anyone could listen to them at any time. Granted, they checked to see if the person actually owned the CD, but the fact of the matter is that the company did the copying and distributing, not the owner. There are plenty of sites out there that are alive and kicking that do the same sort of thing that MP3.com does, except that they require to record and upload their own MP3s. This isn't a crushing blow to MP3, Jon. The judge just said that you can't copy music and then distribute it.
And this is something that I have to say to you every time you write something. If someone were to take a copy of your book, duplicate it verbatim on to the Web, and let people read and download it for free, you and your publisher would sue the bastard to make sure that s/h/it didn't do it. The same holds true for music, whether it be in MP3 or some other format.
So yes, Jon, do some more research next time, and quit blowing what are really sound legal decisions out of proportion and saying that it's the end of the movement as we know it, people's heads are up their asses, blah dee blah blah. MP3 is not a revolution. This case is not a trendsetter or major MP3 precedent. It's just reaffirming copyright laws in protection of the artist, which is what copyright is all about.
Can I sue the British government for this?
This is a typical American response. Why must all problems be solved with a lawsuit? Look at how much we bitch and moan about frivolous lawsuits, and even not so frivolous ones like the DeCSS, Napster, and Microsoft suits. How come the first idea for action has to be a lawsuit? Would a lawsuit even help in this case? Could it prevent the British government from doing anything (especially since it doesn't appear that anyone has an concrete evidence of exactly what they're doing).
A better solution than figuring out someone to put some sort of blame on in an effort to make a little side cash is to encrypt your e-mail using PGP or GPG or some such utility. Britain (or any other country, company, person, or machine for that matter) can look at my encrypted e-mail all the want for all that I care.
Picking a fight is never the best way to solve anything. The best defense is a tactic which renders the opponent's offense useless, not one that fights back.
NOTE: I am an American
All right, let's get one thing straight. Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit. The trailer into this article is damn well the most misleading statement ever. I challenge anyone to go into court on a copyright violation charge and try to defend themselves using their first amendment rights.
Let's pose a hypothetical for all the Slashdotters out there. Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider.
I like MP3s. I think they're a great way to preview music. I've even pirated MP3s to try out new music that I've heard was good. But I don't grab a program like Napster, grab all the MP3s I want, and when someone accuses me of theft, claim that the information wants to be free and that I'm being denied my right to download free music. You have no fscking right. You don't even have the privilege because you don't have the permission.
Jon, quit trolling Slashdot. This is a story aimed at getting a large percentage of Slashdot behind you. The fact is, it's illegal, and if someone were to copy your entire book which you make money off of and give it away for free online, you or your publisher would sue the bastards. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
I really appreciate the hard work that these people went through to get this site up. It's an incredible piece of work, and I can imagine it being informative for both space buffs and the curious individual.
but...
I watched their movie about the LK Lunar Lander and, of course, they got it all wrong. There is no sound in space! . Will anyone ever get this one thing right? I mean, they easily could've put on Russian radio communications during landing (that would've been cool) and given the extraordinary detail they went into in this site, you'd think they wouldn't let something like that slip through.
All well, that's just a pet peeve of mine. Please return to your regular reading.
Have you ever noticed how when NASA gets in a funk, it's always the Hubble Telescope that saves the day? I mean, think about it, the first real important mission after the Challenger accident was the launch of the telescope. When the telescope was defective, NASA used it to show just how expertly astronauts can work in outer space (can we say 'space station' anyone?). NASA gets in a bit of trouble with the Mars missions and, whoa, Hubble turns ten (and re-releases some pretty pictures to boot). Hubble has done a wonderful job of generating PR for NASA. In fact, tonight on ABC World News, I saw a report on how the only pictures scientists ever release from Hubble are the really pretty one (they have a gallery at their web site, although I haven't checked it out yet).
.. or woman .. but not person).
Hubble's a PR machine, especially when you consider that the real brunt work is done by other space telescopes like Chandra. In fact, Hubble gets the most attention because its imagery is the most 'real' to the layman (read: Congressman
So here's to ten more years of Hubble. Hopefully, it can keep NASA around long enough for it to get the next big PR booster it needs, the space station.
So, if you repeatedly use legacy code in your new code in an attempt to ensure that your new code will support the same sorts of programs and environments as your old code, do you call that software inbreeding?
And if so, does that make Microsoft a bunch of software rednecks?
This means that, with just an Internet connection, I will be able to use the world's best telescopes and do my own research, maybe discover some celestial objects that have always been there but no one's had the (available telescope) time to look at/for them.
Doesn't the search for heavenly bodies require analysis over time, and not simply an image? I mean, for one thing, most of what we're discovering these days aren't visual elements anyway; they're things like extrasolar planets, quasars, and black holes, things that you can't really find with a visual survey of the sky. About the only real visual things you might spot are comets and/or asteroids, but detection of those bodies generally requires a bit more than simply a sky survey, and you'll still need photographs of that area over time.
Don't get me wrong, I think this a great idea. I just don't want to get amateur astronomers' hopes up. A map of the sky is great for learning, but one still needs the tools of the trade to do real research and discovery.