Most schools can't afford to pay for the bandwith being devoted to napster, so they're happy for an excuse to ban it. A few like Harvard, whose endowment is up $5 billion for the year to over $19 billion, can afford the bandwith and so allow themselves the luxury of not getting pushed around. But as you can tell if you read most schools' statements on the subject, most are primarily banning it because of network and bandwith issues, and only a few are specifically citing the legal issues.
And don't forget about how many speech codes exist at these universities and colleges. While they may pay lip service to free speech, they've always been quick to ban "objectionable" speech. It'd be entirely consistent in their view to ban napster as "objectionable" speech.
ISPs are really just logical extensions of BBSes, except that most ISPs (with the notable exception of "online services" like AOL or MSN) don't have their own local content.
And that's exactly why ISPs are not teh logical extensions of BBSes. ISPs (except for some temporary local caching) don't store copies of data being trafficked in. They're merely the conduit, much like public highways or phone companies (like you said at the end, common carriers). A BBS is more like a bazaar, actually physically containing all the wares.
As you may have heard, computer programs like Napster and computer networks have made copying copyrighted material including music and videos easier than ever. ...
The scans suggest that some students may be making extensive use of Napster and other programs that can facilitate illegal copying of copyrighted material that belongs to another person, group, or company.
As you can see, the network tests suggest that some students are making extensive use of computer networks, and as we all know from the preamble to this letter, computer networks facilitate copying copyrighted works.
Any attempt to create some assurance of quality would undermine the GPL's explicit clause relating to warranties (that none is implied). You can't simultaneously imply there's no warranty and imply that certain environments are perfect. Any court of law in the US would see through this and declare an implied warranty to exist, and cause endless legal hassles for RMS and the FSF. (I can't speak for other countries; maybe Canada is more sensible, but I doubt it.)
Reread my comment, because I think you didn't catch my gist. As the subject explicitly indicates, I was saying, "Good for them", as in "Good job, guys, keep up the hard work." Debian is a wonderful linux distribution, and people should be told so if they don't already know. And if their political tactics are obnoxious or objectionable, then who are we to condemn? Either they are, or they aren't, and we should all look for ourselves and find out. That's one of the prime tenets of western enlightened thought, and I try to live by it.
I'm quite serious, and by labeling me 'funny', you've completely misunderstood my intent and purpose in sharing my insight. This act of mismoderation, though, does provide a lovely opportunity to discuss a matter that recently came to my attention and which I found quite interesting, indeed: the etymological link between "moderation" and "masturbation".
The etymological connection between "moderate" and "masturbate" go deeper than you might think. "Masturbate" in its modern form, evolved from New Latin "masturbationem", from Latin "masturbari", which came by analogy with "mans-stuprare" (meaning 'stirring up with one's hands'). "Moderation", in turn, is derived from Latin "moderationem", itself from "moderatus", the past participle of "moderari", also from the Latin.
The kicker is "moderation" isn't recorded until 1794, a full thirty-two years after "masturbate" was recorded in 1766. In other words, it was only after three decades of "masturbating" that it occurred to anyone to engage in "moderation". Linguistic anthropologists have long known of this association between the two, but only now on Slashdot are the original conditions of their coevolution fully realized. As a casual amateur linguist who struggled through a few anthropology courses in college, I must say, these are exciting times to live in.
If you're a member of a certain religious-sect who knocks on my front door to talk to me about your religion, and I tell you to shut up, then I am engaging in an act of censorship. The proper question is, is it a justified or legitimate act of censorship. I, as a private citizen, reserve the right to restrict speech on my own property. But does the public library, financed by public monies, reserve the same right? I would argue it doesn't.
Already, companies like Intel are about six months behind Moore's law. It's nice to know that theoretically, Moore's law can continue for a few more years into the future, but how are these developments supposed to help struggling IC-manufacturers now?
The physical universe may not constrain us as much as we had feared, but it looks like gross human incompetence is filling that role quite nicely.
To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer.
You must be mistaken. Internet Explorer is an integrated part of the Windows operating system. You could have just as easily said "The only app they were running was the Network control panel".
Would you complain if they were using Macs and had the Finder as the only app running?
Look at the logoff image or main2 image. They're systematically removing definite and indefinite articles from the English language. It's bad enough that Microsoft has to perpetuate the infantilism of "My Computer" and "My Internet" (gimmee, gimmee, gimmee!!!). Now, it's: "Uggh! Me Tarzan! Me want 'Turn off Computer'" The grammar of America's youth is shoddy enough as it is. We don't need Barbie telling our kids, "math class is tough", and we don't need Microsoft telling them "computer" is a proper noun.
Like the subject says, don't confuse "pretty" with "functional". The shot of the control panel sure is pretty, but look at all that empty whitespace and how far the icons aren't sorted in any sensible order!
If I had to guess, I'd say these UI changes were made by someone who does layout for magazine ads -- as a static interface, it's lovely, but I couldn't imagine having to interact with it with a mouse.
(1) "Sun Microsystems has always promoted the tenets of Universal Design, which hold that products, solutions, and services should be developed to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without adaptation or specialised design," said Marco Boerries, vice president and general manager of webtop and application software at Sun Microsystems. (from the article)
(2) Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software - any time, any place and on any device. (from every Microsoft press-release)
In its rush to foist NT dominance on the rest of the IT world, Microsoft has done more, perhaps, than anyone to undermine the accessibility of computers to people with visual disabilities. It takes true vision and compassion for Sun to learn from Microsoft's failures and perform a truly noble deed. That is enlightened self interest at its very best.
You misunderstand his point. The 5300s may have caught fire, but they never gave software errors or had IRQ conflicts. There's a big difference between making mechanically shoddy parts, which Apple has done on occasion (like most hardware companies) and making shoddy drivers, which they've rarely done.
By definition, Apple won't have a hard time hitting that well defined target: they design the target for themselves.
... and someone who may yet go back, I can speak with a little experience here. Apple has a flaky history when it comes to pleasing its developers. I remember back when all it took was a small annual fee, and you had full access to all alpha/beta releases from their ADC site, plus steep hardware discounts. These days, Apple's implemented a tiered system whereby the more you pay, the more benefits you receive, but the more you pay, the lower the benefit/return ratio is.
When I first got in with ADC, I was a starving college student who could barely pay the interest on his student loans, much less pay for the latest and greatest Apple hardware to test the software I was writing (some pretty sophisticated finance software, back before I started consulting in an unrelated field -- if anyone's interested, give me a holler). Here I was, struggling to develop software that Apple's platform desperately needed, and Apple recognized this and subsidized my hardware through ADC. If they hadn't, I can assure you I would've had to give up the ghost and quit my dream.
But what are young developers today to do? Unless you're Adobe or Intuit, Apple doesn't want to hear from you. If you have several thousands of dollars to throw at an upgraded ADC membership, then you're lucky. We're not all so fortunate.
Perhaps it's too early to say they "get it", but this recent turn of events demonstrates that even Microsoft isn't above responding to criticism from its userbase. First Kerberos, and now the reimaging issue. Maybe there's hope for them after all.
They're the onesLinuxstart.com is partnered with to provide free web-based email. I have a couple email addresses with them, so whatever they're using works.
Seriously, it's nothing that couldn't be solved by a couple symbolic links. But Debian would rather maintain its "purity" then do what's necessary to accomodate proprietary software. It's their choice, but don't give them more credit then they're due.
I know people here have mixed feelings towards RedHat. One the one hand, they support the free software movement by GPLing all their software, but on the other hand, they're a big corporate interest who perennially inspires fears of becoming Microsoft.
It's still good to see them putting another distribution out on time and within budget. Even if they try to change future liscensing, this distribution will make for at least one more before they do so. Let's hope they never pursue that course.
The sun-to-moon distance refers to the event horizon only, not to the dimensions of the mass contained. If what we know about black holes is correct, then the mass is all concentrated at a singular point at the center. There isn't actually anything at the event horizon's surface.
It measures speed. Velocity is a vector, described by speed plus direction. The earth is constantly accelerating towards the sun, but the earth maintains a constant speed (if you treat its orbit as a circular instead of elliptical).
Books have long conjectured there's a black hole at the milkyway's center, but this is the first hard evidence for one. Sure, we have ideas and hypotheses about the answers to my questions, but there's a big difference between "suspecting" and "knowing". I'm awaiting the latter.
You're right about not changing its effect on distant orbiting bodies.
You're wrong about the mechanism of its formation, though. The way it works is, over its lifetime, the star forms heavier and heavier elements through solar fusion in its core, giving off thermal energy that keeps the star from collapsing. It runs into trouble when it finally works its way up to iron, because you can't derive any energy from fusing iron atoms -- to create any elements heavier than iron actually requires a net input of energy. So, once there's no energy left to be had from fusion, the star can't keep itself from collapsing any longer, and it collapses.
If it's less than about 2.8 solar masses, then it collapses into a neutron star (and most likely causing a super nova in the process). If it's heavier, then the neutron-neutron forces are insufficient to oppose gravity, and it collapses further, into a black hole.
Gravity doesn't work that way. It's only a function of mass (and space). Two objects of the same mass and the same vollume will produce the same distortion in the space-time continuum and will appear indistinguishable. It doesn't matter what goes on inside the black box (in this case, the black hole).
Slashdot Mirror
Most schools can't afford to pay for the bandwith being devoted to napster, so they're happy for an excuse to ban it. A few like Harvard, whose endowment is up $5 billion for the year to over $19 billion, can afford the bandwith and so allow themselves the luxury of not getting pushed around. But as you can tell if you read most schools' statements on the subject, most are primarily banning it because of network and bandwith issues, and only a few are specifically citing the legal issues.
And don't forget about how many speech codes exist at these universities and colleges. While they may pay lip service to free speech, they've always been quick to ban "objectionable" speech. It'd be entirely consistent in their view to ban napster as "objectionable" speech.
ISPs are really just logical extensions of BBSes, except that most ISPs (with the notable exception of "online services" like AOL or MSN) don't have their own local content.
And that's exactly why ISPs are not teh logical extensions of BBSes. ISPs (except for some temporary local caching) don't store copies of data being trafficked in. They're merely the conduit, much like public highways or phone companies (like you said at the end, common carriers). A BBS is more like a bazaar, actually physically containing all the wares.
As you may have heard, computer programs like Napster and computer networks have made copying copyrighted material including music and videos easier than ever.
...
The scans suggest that some students may be making extensive use of Napster and other programs that can facilitate illegal copying of copyrighted material that belongs to another person, group, or company.
As you can see, the network tests suggest that some students are making extensive use of computer networks, and as we all know from the preamble to this letter, computer networks facilitate copying copyrighted works.
Any attempt to create some assurance of quality would undermine the GPL's explicit clause relating to warranties (that none is implied). You can't simultaneously imply there's no warranty and imply that certain environments are perfect. Any court of law in the US would see through this and declare an implied warranty to exist, and cause endless legal hassles for RMS and the FSF. (I can't speak for other countries; maybe Canada is more sensible, but I doubt it.)
Reread my comment, because I think you didn't catch my gist. As the subject explicitly indicates, I was saying, "Good for them", as in "Good job, guys, keep up the hard work." Debian is a wonderful linux distribution, and people should be told so if they don't already know. And if their political tactics are obnoxious or objectionable, then who are we to condemn? Either they are, or they aren't, and we should all look for ourselves and find out. That's one of the prime tenets of western enlightened thought, and I try to live by it.
Back in the System 6 days, there were several superior Finder replacement programs. These days, you can still find a few like Entrypoint.
There's nothing sacred about the Finder. You can force-quit it like any other program. (And many do so, in order to free up more memory.)
I'm quite serious, and by labeling me 'funny', you've completely misunderstood my intent and purpose in sharing my insight. This act of mismoderation, though, does provide a lovely opportunity to discuss a matter that recently came to my attention and which I found quite interesting, indeed: the etymological link between "moderation" and "masturbation".
The etymological connection between "moderate" and "masturbate" go deeper than you might think. "Masturbate" in its modern form, evolved from New Latin "masturbationem", from Latin "masturbari", which came by analogy with "mans-stuprare" (meaning 'stirring up with one's hands'). "Moderation", in turn, is derived from Latin "moderationem", itself from "moderatus", the past participle of "moderari", also from the Latin.
The kicker is "moderation" isn't recorded until 1794, a full thirty-two years after "masturbate" was recorded in 1766. In other words, it was only after three decades of "masturbating" that it occurred to anyone to engage in "moderation". Linguistic anthropologists have long known of this association between the two, but only now on Slashdot are the original conditions of their coevolution fully realized. As a casual amateur linguist who struggled through a few anthropology courses in college, I must say, these are exciting times to live in.
Cheers,
Froid
If you're a member of a certain religious-sect who knocks on my front door to talk to me about your religion, and I tell you to shut up, then I am engaging in an act of censorship. The proper question is, is it a justified or legitimate act of censorship. I, as a private citizen, reserve the right to restrict speech on my own property. But does the public library, financed by public monies, reserve the same right? I would argue it doesn't.
Already, companies like Intel are about six months behind Moore's law. It's nice to know that theoretically, Moore's law can continue for a few more years into the future, but how are these developments supposed to help struggling IC-manufacturers now?
The physical universe may not constrain us as much as we had feared, but it looks like gross human incompetence is filling that role quite nicely.
To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer.
You must be mistaken. Internet Explorer is an integrated part of the Windows operating system. You could have just as easily said "The only app they were running was the Network control panel".
Would you complain if they were using Macs and had the Finder as the only app running?
Look at the logoff image or main2 image. They're systematically removing definite and indefinite articles from the English language. It's bad enough that Microsoft has to perpetuate the infantilism of "My Computer" and "My Internet" (gimmee, gimmee, gimmee!!!). Now, it's: "Uggh! Me Tarzan! Me want 'Turn off Computer'" The grammar of America's youth is shoddy enough as it is. We don't need Barbie telling our kids, "math class is tough", and we don't need Microsoft telling them "computer" is a proper noun.
Like the subject says, don't confuse "pretty" with "functional". The shot of the control panel sure is pretty, but look at all that empty whitespace and how far the icons aren't sorted in any sensible order!
If I had to guess, I'd say these UI changes were made by someone who does layout for magazine ads -- as a static interface, it's lovely, but I couldn't imagine having to interact with it with a mouse.
Let's compare two bits of rhetoric.
(1) "Sun Microsystems has always promoted the tenets of Universal Design, which hold that products, solutions, and services should be developed to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without adaptation or specialised design," said Marco Boerries, vice president and general manager of webtop and application software at Sun Microsystems. (from the article)
(2) Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software - any time, any place and on any device. (from every Microsoft press-release)
In its rush to foist NT dominance on the rest of the IT world, Microsoft has done more, perhaps, than anyone to undermine the accessibility of computers to people with visual disabilities. It takes true vision and compassion for Sun to learn from Microsoft's failures and perform a truly noble deed. That is enlightened self interest at its very best.
You misunderstand his point. The 5300s may have caught fire, but they never gave software errors or had IRQ conflicts. There's a big difference between making mechanically shoddy parts, which Apple has done on occasion (like most hardware companies) and making shoddy drivers, which they've rarely done.
By definition, Apple won't have a hard time hitting that well defined target: they design the target for themselves.
Just off the top of my head, the Gimp does already have layers.
It's not photoshop, but it's getting better day by day.
... and someone who may yet go back, I can speak with a little experience here. Apple has a flaky history when it comes to pleasing its developers. I remember back when all it took was a small annual fee, and you had full access to all alpha/beta releases from their ADC site, plus steep hardware discounts. These days, Apple's implemented a tiered system whereby the more you pay, the more benefits you receive, but the more you pay, the lower the benefit/return ratio is.
When I first got in with ADC, I was a starving college student who could barely pay the interest on his student loans, much less pay for the latest and greatest Apple hardware to test the software I was writing (some pretty sophisticated finance software, back before I started consulting in an unrelated field -- if anyone's interested, give me a holler). Here I was, struggling to develop software that Apple's platform desperately needed, and Apple recognized this and subsidized my hardware through ADC. If they hadn't, I can assure you I would've had to give up the ghost and quit my dream.
But what are young developers today to do? Unless you're Adobe or Intuit, Apple doesn't want to hear from you. If you have several thousands of dollars to throw at an upgraded ADC membership, then you're lucky. We're not all so fortunate.
Cheers,
Froid
Perhaps it's too early to say they "get it", but this recent turn of events demonstrates that even Microsoft isn't above responding to criticism from its userbase. First Kerberos, and now the reimaging issue. Maybe there's hope for them after all.
They're the ones Linuxstart.com is partnered with to provide free web-based email. I have a couple email addresses with them, so whatever they're using works.
Seriously, it's nothing that couldn't be solved by a couple symbolic links. But Debian would rather maintain its "purity" then do what's necessary to accomodate proprietary software. It's their choice, but don't give them more credit then they're due.
I know people here have mixed feelings towards RedHat. One the one hand, they support the free software movement by GPLing all their software, but on the other hand, they're a big corporate interest who perennially inspires fears of becoming Microsoft.
It's still good to see them putting another distribution out on time and within budget. Even if they try to change future liscensing, this distribution will make for at least one more before they do so. Let's hope they never pursue that course.
The sun-to-moon distance refers to the event horizon only, not to the dimensions of the mass contained. If what we know about black holes is correct, then the mass is all concentrated at a singular point at the center. There isn't actually anything at the event horizon's surface.
It measures speed. Velocity is a vector, described by speed plus direction. The earth is constantly accelerating towards the sun, but the earth maintains a constant speed (if you treat its orbit as a circular instead of elliptical).
Books have long conjectured there's a black hole at the milkyway's center, but this is the first hard evidence for one. Sure, we have ideas and hypotheses about the answers to my questions, but there's a big difference between "suspecting" and "knowing". I'm awaiting the latter.
Cheers,
Froid
You're right about not changing its effect on distant orbiting bodies.
You're wrong about the mechanism of its formation, though. The way it works is, over its lifetime, the star forms heavier and heavier elements through solar fusion in its core, giving off thermal energy that keeps the star from collapsing. It runs into trouble when it finally works its way up to iron, because you can't derive any energy from fusing iron atoms -- to create any elements heavier than iron actually requires a net input of energy. So, once there's no energy left to be had from fusion, the star can't keep itself from collapsing any longer, and it collapses.
If it's less than about 2.8 solar masses, then it collapses into a neutron star (and most likely causing a super nova in the process). If it's heavier, then the neutron-neutron forces are insufficient to oppose gravity, and it collapses further, into a black hole.
Gravity doesn't work that way. It's only a function of mass (and space). Two objects of the same mass and the same vollume will produce the same distortion in the space-time continuum and will appear indistinguishable. It doesn't matter what goes on inside the black box (in this case, the black hole).