What surprises me is that although the scientific community has fully embraced the flexibility, power, and openness of Linux; Microsoft continues its efforts to paint it as a "toy" operating system.
I'm sure folks will scream its illegal and it probably is - but can't a case be made for 'self defense' I mean if someone brandishes a gun at me am I not within my rights to shoot them or at least take their gun away?
The problem is that 'self defense' only exists in a situation where your personal safety is at risk - like the above scenario.
It's like asking: If someone is breaking into your house to use your coffee maker, are you allowed to kick down their door and throw away all their coffee?
Basically, you can't violate someone else's rights unless your own safety is in danger.
But then again the tax cut for the ultra-rich and breaking the ABM treaty to build a 21st century Maginot line are crackpot ideas.
Interesting that you end your commentary on the patent system with your entirely irrelevant opinions on tax cuts and ballistic missle defense.
But don't worry - I'll take the bait anyway.
Do you understand why the richest received the majority of the tax cut? Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the richest are taxed a much higher percentage of their income.
Of course, I'd wager that you knew that and you just don't see what's wrong with it. In that case, this diatribe is pointless.
So perhaps McAffee could simply refuse to license the patent to Micrsoft. By refusing to license, McAffee could at the very least keep Microsoft tied up in court for a long time. This isn't to say that McAffee has any vested interest in kicking Microsoft around.
Not only does McAfee not have an interest in "kicking Microsoft around", they absolutely depend on Microsoft's survival.
McAfee and the other anti-virus companies entire existence is due to the fact that Microsoft has so far been woefully unable to design decent operating system security.
The anti-virus industry is a freaking joke. Once the majority of operating systems start treating untrustworthy code with the proper care, anti-virus software will become obsolete.
"It's good to see ISPs like Verizon reject such pressure from big label companies."
*Groan*. Right. That's like saying "it's good to see convenience store robbers get away all the time."
Regardless of how you feel about MP3 trading, you're a fool if you think having your ISP arbitrarily censoring your Internet activity is a good idea.
There is nothing inherently illegal in peer-to-peer file sharing, in fact, it can be quite useful (and legal).
As an aside, I think ISPs who do restrict their users unnecessarily are opening themselves up to a certain risk. To do so implies responsibility on the ISP for it's users actions. It would take a lot more than a couple "cease and desists" before I would assume this liability.
How is this a bad thing? You think it's better to have a president that half the country hates than one whom everyone kinda likes?
A good point, and I've wondered before if we would be better off with the compromise candidate. However, we'd probably get what we saw with McCain, which was NO support from the right or the left, and therefore a lame duck president.
Of course, since there is essentially no chance of a major overhaul to the voting system - the whole thing is a moot point.
You vote not just for one person, but you rank the candidates in order of preference. ie. Ralph Nader first, Al Gore second, dubya third (see where I'm going with this?)
A candidate wins by being preferred to the others the most often, as opposed to having the most votes
The problem with that method of voting is that you ALWAYS get the compromise candidate.
So, for example, if half the people [loved Bush & hated Gore] and half the people [loved Gore & hated Bush], but everone kinda liked McCain - we'd always have the McCains.
Note: I'm not making a political statement here, I'm just using examples.
In related news:
Recent surveys show that employees that use Microsoft's popular Instant Messenger software are having one of the most productive weeks in recent years.
Now if only Slashdot would have a week-long outage, I could get some work done.
The primary goal of Linux for the past few years seems to have been "imitate and emulate Microsoft."... We spend more time trying to get Microsoft-supported games to run on Linux than we do writing games for Linux.
Linux ports of games just don't sell very well at this point; Linux-only games don't sell at all. What is the solution? Embrace and extend.
Consider this: If you can buy Windows for $150 or you can download a Linux distro that runs all your Windows apps and your Linux apps for free; which option will you pursue?
The idea here is that Linux (and XFree86 and WINE) should embrace the Win32 API and extend upon that functionality with native Linux apps.
If Linux could do everything Windows can and more, and do it cheaper, why would anyone buy Windows?
Many commercial software developers like to list piracy as a reason for high costs. Microsoft included.
What is really interesting is that now that Windows has copy-protection, why haven't they lowered the price? Although it's not hack-proof (nothing is), it's still strong enough to curb the majority of casual "piracy".
I guess that line about Microsoft having to overcharge the honest user to subsidize the pirates was just a line of shit.
Consider what kind of virus would attach to an open source developer, if he/she were ever to get a gander at some of M$'s "shared source" code?... That developer would effectively be forever forbidden from working on public project.
The street goes both ways on this one. From what I understand, Microsoft has an extremely rigid policy in place to prevent it's developers from viewing GPL'ed (and similarly licensed) code. After all, can you imagine the hell fire that would rain down on MS if GPL'ed code was discovered in Windows?
As an aside, I think the potential risk for "infection" from Microsoft's shared source is minimal. A developer would be a complete moron to steal code from MS and use it in a project with publicly available source code. And if MS code was discovered it'd probably be fairly trivial to replace.
I didn't see what the big deal was with IPF switching licenses, personally I thought it was taken all out of context by many.
License issues are a lot like certain Constitutional rights - you may never need them, but they're nice to have.
Chances are, that you'd never publish anything that your government would like to censor, but having the freedom to do so is extremely important. Likewise, you'll probably never have to defend your home against military invasion - but the right to bear sure would help if you do.
The point here is that I agree that Darren Reed would have probably never done anything rash or stupid with IPF. But, an open license would have ensured that he didn't.
There is a reason that it's called OpenBSD, and Theo did the right thing by standing his ground on the situation.
A quick and nimble company created by two guys out of their dorm room [Yahoo] is now one of the most feared corporate instituations on the planet. Okay, Google, what did Yahoo do wrong here?
From a Slashdot fortune: Nice guys don't finish nice.
I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to survive in a competitive marketplace. There's a reason that the biggest corporate entities in the world seem nasty - philanthropy and goodwill will only get you so far.
To compete with the corporate dirtbags of the world, you've got to play by the house rules.
Unfortunately, the problem with a government funded Internet infrastructure is that you have to abide by government rules.
That's the beauty of the Internet in its current form - no single entity can pull the plug on it if they don't like what's happening. Or so the theory goes.
What's really interesting about the RC5-64 project is that it's biggest contribution to computer science has absolutely nothing to do with encryption.
This was the project that ignited massively distributed computing. The biggest projects are obviously SETI@Home and the handful of protein folding clients, but we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. This is still such an untapped resource that we will undoubtedly see some really incredible stuff in the near future. And the folks at RC5 were the ones that got the ball rolling.
Seriously, this is soooo close to being a good idea. Slashdotters love everything2.com - just imagine the entire WWW like it.
SmartTags could be a very powerful improvement to the WWW if done properly. And that means no concentrated authority on where these links point to. I'd be interested in it if it used an open directory for the link info instead of some corporate "money word" bucket.
As it is, who the hell wants to always be redirected to Microsoft's web site? Besides the pointy haired bosses.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
13 teraflops is a pretty big toy.
The problem is that 'self defense' only exists in a situation where your personal safety is at risk - like the above scenario.
It's like asking: If someone is breaking into your house to use your coffee maker, are you allowed to kick down their door and throw away all their coffee?
Basically, you can't violate someone else's rights unless your own safety is in danger.
Interesting that you end your commentary on the patent system with your entirely irrelevant opinions on tax cuts and ballistic missle defense.
But don't worry - I'll take the bait anyway.
Do you understand why the richest received the majority of the tax cut? Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the richest are taxed a much higher percentage of their income.
Of course, I'd wager that you knew that and you just don't see what's wrong with it. In that case, this diatribe is pointless.
Not only does McAfee not have an interest in "kicking Microsoft around", they absolutely depend on Microsoft's survival.
McAfee and the other anti-virus companies entire existence is due to the fact that Microsoft has so far been woefully unable to design decent operating system security.
The anti-virus industry is a freaking joke. Once the majority of operating systems start treating untrustworthy code with the proper care, anti-virus software will become obsolete.
*Groan*. Right. That's like saying "it's good to see convenience store robbers get away all the time."
Regardless of how you feel about MP3 trading, you're a fool if you think having your ISP arbitrarily censoring your Internet activity is a good idea.
There is nothing inherently illegal in peer-to-peer file sharing, in fact, it can be quite useful (and legal).
As an aside, I think ISPs who do restrict their users unnecessarily are opening themselves up to a certain risk. To do so implies responsibility on the ISP for it's users actions. It would take a lot more than a couple "cease and desists" before I would assume this liability.
Oh man - I'm gonna stop posting on Slashdot if we have to write bibliographies now.
A good point, and I've wondered before if we would be better off with the compromise candidate. However, we'd probably get what we saw with McCain, which was NO support from the right or the left, and therefore a lame duck president.
Of course, since there is essentially no chance of a major overhaul to the voting system - the whole thing is a moot point.
In case you're interested the total "Yes" votes was a little more than 200 after I voted.
A candidate wins by being preferred to the others the most often, as opposed to having the most votes
The problem with that method of voting is that you ALWAYS get the compromise candidate.
So, for example, if half the people [loved Bush & hated Gore] and half the people [loved Gore & hated Bush], but everone kinda liked McCain - we'd always have the McCains.
Note: I'm not making a political statement here, I'm just using examples.
Wha? I hate to break it to you, but if you think that Shawn Fanning is still doing all the coding at Napster, you're nuts.
Do you have any idea what kind of talent you can buy when someone stuffs umpteen million dollars of venture capital in your pocket?
I can assure you that Napster has bought programmers so smart that they make Fanning look like Forest Gump.
These are the same people who tricked me into thinking that by the year 2000 I'd be watching holographic porn while riding in my flying car.
Most of the time these people can barely grasp how things work now - let alone in the future.
Recent surveys show that employees that use Microsoft's popular Instant Messenger software are having one of the most productive weeks in recent years.
Now if only Slashdot would have a week-long outage, I could get some work done.
Linux ports of games just don't sell very well at this point; Linux-only games don't sell at all. What is the solution? Embrace and extend.
Consider this: If you can buy Windows for $150 or you can download a Linux distro that runs all your Windows apps and your Linux apps for free; which option will you pursue?
The idea here is that Linux (and XFree86 and WINE) should embrace the Win32 API and extend upon that functionality with native Linux apps.
If Linux could do everything Windows can and more, and do it cheaper, why would anyone buy Windows?
What is really interesting is that now that Windows has copy-protection, why haven't they lowered the price? Although it's not hack-proof (nothing is), it's still strong enough to curb the majority of casual "piracy".
I guess that line about Microsoft having to overcharge the honest user to subsidize the pirates was just a line of shit.
The flip side to this is that maybe it will end the eternal, retarded jockeying for file-type association that every program vies for.
In Eric Cartman's whiney voice:
No RealPlayer! I don't want you to open my MP3s!
Of course ultimately, it should be the end-user's choice on which programs open certain file types (or devices).
The street goes both ways on this one. From what I understand, Microsoft has an extremely rigid policy in place to prevent it's developers from viewing GPL'ed (and similarly licensed) code. After all, can you imagine the hell fire that would rain down on MS if GPL'ed code was discovered in Windows?
As an aside, I think the potential risk for "infection" from Microsoft's shared source is minimal. A developer would be a complete moron to steal code from MS and use it in a project with publicly available source code. And if MS code was discovered it'd probably be fairly trivial to replace.
Bingo. I liken people who (unnecessarily) drive SUVs to the asshole who wants to wear a cowboy hat at the movies.
License issues are a lot like certain Constitutional rights - you may never need them, but they're nice to have.
Chances are, that you'd never publish anything that your government would like to censor, but having the freedom to do so is extremely important. Likewise, you'll probably never have to defend your home against military invasion - but the right to bear sure would help if you do.
The point here is that I agree that Darren Reed would have probably never done anything rash or stupid with IPF. But, an open license would have ensured that he didn't.
There is a reason that it's called OpenBSD, and Theo did the right thing by standing his ground on the situation.
From a Slashdot fortune: Nice guys don't finish nice.
I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to survive in a competitive marketplace. There's a reason that the biggest corporate entities in the world seem nasty - philanthropy and goodwill will only get you so far.
To compete with the corporate dirtbags of the world, you've got to play by the house rules.
That's the beauty of the Internet in its current form - no single entity can pull the plug on it if they don't like what's happening. Or so the theory goes.
Note to self:
Don't forget to take a lead GPS "antenna cover" with me when renting from ACME this summer.
Heh - that's exactly what I thought. Slashdotters taking career advice from a wannabe pr0n king.
This was the project that ignited massively distributed computing. The biggest projects are obviously SETI@Home and the handful of protein folding clients, but we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. This is still such an untapped resource that we will undoubtedly see some really incredible stuff in the near future. And the folks at RC5 were the ones that got the ball rolling.
Thanks.
Sweet! Win - win.
Seriously, this is soooo close to being a good idea. Slashdotters love everything2.com - just imagine the entire WWW like it.
SmartTags could be a very powerful improvement to the WWW if done properly. And that means no concentrated authority on where these links point to. I'd be interested in it if it used an open directory for the link info instead of some corporate "money word" bucket.
As it is, who the hell wants to always be redirected to Microsoft's web site? Besides the pointy haired bosses. :-)