I don't trust code from Microsoft when I am 100% sure it's theirs.
I'm a Microsoft user since the early 80's and any update is a crap shoot, that's what reinstalling the OS is for.
Does anyone remember DOS 3.0? DOS 4.0? NT 4.0 service pack 2? Just to name a couple that come to mind...
Despite my cynicism, I'm happy to use Microsoft products. I just understand and plan for the fact that at any time my system might go completely kablooey. Frequent code backups, burning anything useful onto CD ROM's and a bit of common sense have served me well.
Yes, on one hand he's saying, "Don't trust anyone over 30 to have a clue about technology." and on the other he's saying that, "While I don't have a clue about technology, I know how to fix it."
People might complain about Texas politicians being amateur, but this kind of thinking often happens at the national level too!
I would also be upset if something popped up porn at me without me being able to stop it, but we all know what a double-edged sword censorware is. Or more specifically, it's only got edge, and that only works on the user.
... I also think it's interesting when a significant part of a religion is "secret" (Mormons, Clams, Masons...). Why would anyone want to hide their religion? I can see why the Scientologists do it, because they make a tremendous amount of money. Why do the Mormons have so many secrets? Why has their religion been compared in publsihed works as comparable to Soviet bureaucracy? Why aren't non-believers even allowed in a Mormon temple? What do they have to hide?
I think part of it is that in all three cases mentioned above, if you are not indoctrinated gradually into the tortured uses of language and logic that is the foundation of these philosophies, you would see it for what it is. You can always judge an organization by how it handles detractors. The U.S. government, for instance, has codified tolerance for criticism in its Constitution, and generally adheres to this principal. An organization with any merit can withstand criticism.
I hear a lot of Catholic-bashing on forums like/. and k5, but no one can argue that the Church tries to silence dissenters.. if they did excommunication would be a lot more common. In any event, it takes a certain amount of confidence in your philosophies to set yourself up for criticism and not try to suppress it.
...and as crazy and convoluted and (seemingly) hallucinogen-inspired as it is (LDS. LSD. Think about it, won't you?), it _is_ a religion if not a Christian one (for generally accepted values of "Christian").
I don't begrudge anyone who practices Mormonism, nor if they want to proselitize door-to-door (although I politely tell them that as a devout Catholic they are wasting both their time and mine).
Scientology, on the other hand, acts viciously against anyone who distributes their copyrighted works. Why? Maybe they don't want their powerful
secrets revealed to an uncaring (and unpaying public). Most likely because they don't want to the public to realize what complete and utter gibberish it is.
Seeing how fast they reacted this fast to a piece of their drivel being posted on Slashdot, the idea that they wouldn't be aware of other sites on the Internet seems ludicrous to me. How much would it cost to hire a paralegal or whatever to sit around and sift through Altavista or Google all day. Not much. I think the added exposure to the fact that a.) the Church of Scientology is run by crooks and thugs and b.) The "religion" of Scientology is just a bunch of psychobabble and pulp science fiction folderol is well worth the small risk of addition trouble for people who were already willing to take larger risks by posting in the first place.
I don't find the fact that Slashdot is forced to remove copyrighted text from a comment to be the worst thing in the world, and I do think that a couple thousand different intelligent people perusing Operation Clambake is a very good thing. Truth is the greatest defense (and offense).
Well, Fox wouldn't exist without the Simpsons. It would have tanked around 1990 but for that one show. I think the show does have the network by the short hairs (or used to).
I understand your misgivings, but the sole responsibility of law-enforcement is not to respond to crimes after the fact, but to also _prevent_ crimes from happening whenever possible (for a reasonably limited value of "possible", i.e., without violating all relevant civil and legal rights).
Now, I have little doubt the authorities in this situation and climate might go a little to far, but I also agree with them looking into it. Of course, it can be a slippery slope on the way to a police state, but I still think it's worth taking the risk, since our form of government is uniquely qualified to prevent a police state (or to paraphrase, I believe, Disraeli, it's the worst form of government in the world, except for all the rest).
>Is it illegal to have a line about a shotgun on a web page?
>If not, what business do the police have investigating it?
Hello? Do you watch the news? There have been a number of school shootings in the U.S. where people were killed. In each case there _were_ warning signs like threats or obsessions with violence. Understandably, people are a little paranoid right now. It was an unfortunate turn of events, but how would you like to be the police Sergeant who had to face an angry city when a kid _DID_ pull a shotgun from an Adidas bag and blow someone's son or daughter away when you had this information beforehand?
Like it or not, tjose of you in this insulated little Slashdot fantasy world are going to have to realize that there are more than black and white in the world and the right to Free Speech in the U.S. may be one of our most paramount, but it is not absolute. Try citing the first amendment to security at an airport after you make a joke about a bomb. Try explaining about your rights to the F.B.I. after you make a crack about shooting the president.
I'm sorry you got modded down... obviously the infinite monkeys sometimes _don't_ write Shakespeare...
Moderators... get a clue.
The "we" in your sentence, Anonymous Coward, would have to be _everybody_. If the "we" means the slashdot community, etc, but not the vast majority of voters, as well as the politicians themselves, then all we do is marginalize ourselves. We can't demonstrate what the media get wrong to population at large if we don't pay at least some attention to what they are saying. I personally see very few movies and don't watch a whole lot of television, but I find it educational and informative to see what's out there. It's interesting and useful to know about the Survivor or Millionaire phenomena, but actually watching them is unnecessary (as well as tedious beyond belief, IMO).
because... you don't want to lost precious karma?
you don't have a point?
Like it or not, the media are a very powerful force shaping society today. To ignore their effects, while trying very hard to combat them seems to be a little counter-productive. The/. community is very concerned (and rightly so) about the portrayal of computer nerds in the mass media, particularly with respect to issues like DeCSS, Napster, etc.
If we completely ignore the media, how can we combat the lies they tell?
Your right. But there is no software license in existence in the commercial world that tries to dictate what you do with other code completely unrelated except for the fact that it's being linked together. The GPL may make sense for applications, but it's absolutely ludicrous for libraries. That's why the LGPL exists in the first place, but even the description of the LGPL on gnu.org thumbs their nose by saying, what we really want is all your code, but if you're too much of a puss you can use the LGPL and force anyone who wants to use a piece of your code to spill their guts to the world for free. The GPL is a wonderful idea, but the more I consider it vis-a-vis the Real World (and not academia, where most of/. users are living in a happy little magical dream world, the more I see it as being quite untenable. I guess it all boils down to the fact that the Free Software movement in general considers me morally inferior because I use Microsoft. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think they should pretend it's more profound than that.
No. What the GPL means is I'm going to give you something, but only if you give me back anything you might use with it.
You completely missed my point. I'm saying that I cannot use GPL code because I cannot make the rest of the software I working on GPL. If this discussion were about religion and morals everyone would be screaming about the fact that people who are using the GPL are forcing their morality on me. I'm perfectly happy to honor the GPL with respect to anything I use or any modifications or additions to it. What I find intolerable is the fact that simply by linking that code to something else suddenly the whole program must be GPL'ed. That's ludicrous for anyone working in the commercial world. We can't all be idealist and practice the communal life-style of GPL while hoping somehow we can finagle a way to get paid enough to eat. I honestly don't see how anyone could could have a sucessful business because here comes the GPL saying "All your code are belong to us."
Agreed. As a developer of proprietary commercial code, I cannot use any GPL code either. I don't like the idea of the GPL forcing itse;f down my throat. I do not have the wherewithal to support myself so I can sit around and write free software, nor do I have enough influence (nor want...) to make that decision for the company I work with.
The fact of the matter is GPL is really only for those folks who are willing to subject themselves to this "ideal" of perfect free software as codified by the GPL, while those of us who just want to make a living and can't or don't want to do the software equivalent of chucking it all and living on a commune just don't count for anything.
The more I consider the GPL, the more I see it as a tool for RMS and the FSF to force their religion down everyone's throat. I personally think the LGPL is reasonable (my understanding is the "linking" clause is not there). I plan to release code under the LGPL or possibly another license or even pitch it into the public domain. However, in order to maximize my code's usefullness to anyone who might want to use it, I will not deign to tell people who want to use my code how they should license theirs. I think that's none of my business.
Re:Why do we need a phone you can throw away?
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
I like Gates' later quote about not being able to multi-task in less the 1MB of memory while the Amiga was around doing quite well with half that.
Re:Why do we need a phone you can throw away?
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 2
...or you dial a number and buy more time.
We already live in a disposable society. Would you take a cell phone to get fixed? Most likely it would cost more to fix than to replace, so you would chuck it and buy a new one. Now if this phone is several ounces of plastic and metal vs. a smaller amount of paper and plastic (and possibly less metal), you are now throwing away much less.
It's not a perfect solution, but it could be better than what we have now.
Re:A worrying turn of phrase...
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 3
She can't control how her product is used.
Should Napster be responsible for whether or not its clients use the service to trade copyrighted material?
Better yet, should AOL be responsible for allowing a child molester in a kiddy chat room?
Should the phone company be responsible for carrying your insider trading calls?
Should Einstein be held responsible for the development of the A-bomb?
As with any technology, the respsonsibility for its misuse lies solely with the person who misuses it. Of course, this includes the inventor, but only in relation to him- or herself.
Re:end of pay phones?!?
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
Well, in the case of disposable cameras, I understand much of the product is recycled, if not indefinitely. I would suppose that disposable phones could be recycled somewhat too... assuming the customer doesn't just throw it out.
The catch with cameras is that you _have_ to turn it in in order to get the film developed.
I guess if you got someone to make a movie of you, it'd be okay.
I don't really know the exact legalities since I have interest in either pornography nor prostitution, although it's certainly a case of a double standard. <sarcasm> But we all know Freedom of Speech trumps everything, including common sense, morality and other rights. </sarcasm>
Funny enough, the pr0n industry seems to be way ahead of the curve because there's so much profit to be made with relatively few expenses...
Small start up costs mean lots of businesses will spring up quickly. Perhaps, Napster should consider distributing music through steganographically-encoded XXX pictures? I'm sure they would have a lot of financial backing...
Re:This could be the breakthrough we need.
on
Silicon LED
·
· Score: 1
Hear, Hear!
I like the fact that I can work on my suntan in a windowless office. If I need some exercise, there's heavy lifting right in front of me.
Just think if flat panel displays become the norm, there are gonna be a lot of disappointed cats (except for maybe the really skinny ones).
That's all well and good, but who wants to continue analog transmissions. After all, you can't use your Digital-TV-version-of-SDMI if the old analog sets can still pick up the signal!
Gasp! People might record shows and (horrors!) watch them again, or cheat hard-working sponsors by skipping the commercials!
This is a neat innovation to be sure, but I'm sure the subversives who created it will swiftly be brought to justice. After all, conceiving of a technology that, if it were implemented and distributed, could conceivably be used to violate the DMCA is undoubtedly illegal under the DMCA.
All citizens reading the referenced article are expected to report to reducation centers for cumpulsory brainwipes. Failure to do so will result in summary termination.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't trust code from Microsoft when I am 100% sure it's theirs.
I'm a Microsoft user since the early 80's and any update is a crap shoot, that's what reinstalling the OS is for.
Does anyone remember DOS 3.0? DOS 4.0? NT 4.0 service pack 2? Just to name a couple that come to mind...
Despite my cynicism, I'm happy to use Microsoft products. I just understand and plan for the fact that at any time my system might go completely kablooey. Frequent code backups, burning anything useful onto CD ROM's and a bit of common sense have served me well.
Yes, on one hand he's saying, "Don't trust anyone over 30 to have a clue about technology." and on the other he's saying that, "While I don't have a clue about technology, I know how to fix it."
People might complain about Texas politicians being amateur, but this kind of thinking often happens at the national level too!
I would also be upset if something popped up porn at me without me being able to stop it, but we all know what a double-edged sword censorware is. Or more specifically, it's only got edge, and that only works on the user.
... I also think it's interesting when a significant part of a religion is "secret" (Mormons, Clams, Masons...). Why would anyone want to hide their religion? I can see why the Scientologists do it, because they make a tremendous amount of money. Why do the Mormons have so many secrets? Why has their religion been compared in publsihed works as comparable to Soviet bureaucracy? Why aren't non-believers even allowed in a Mormon temple? What do they have to hide?
/. and k5, but no one can argue that the Church tries to silence dissenters .. if they did excommunication would be a lot more common. In any event, it takes a certain amount of confidence in your philosophies to set yourself up for criticism and not try to suppress it.
I think part of it is that in all three cases mentioned above, if you are not indoctrinated gradually into the tortured uses of language and logic that is the foundation of these philosophies, you would see it for what it is. You can always judge an organization by how it handles detractors. The U.S. government, for instance, has codified tolerance for criticism in its Constitution, and generally adheres to this principal. An organization with any merit can withstand criticism.
I hear a lot of Catholic-bashing on forums like
...and as crazy and convoluted and (seemingly) hallucinogen-inspired as it is (LDS. LSD. Think about it, won't you?), it _is_ a religion if not a Christian one (for generally accepted values of "Christian").
I don't begrudge anyone who practices Mormonism, nor if they want to proselitize door-to-door (although I politely tell them that as a devout Catholic they are wasting both their time and mine).
Scientology, on the other hand, acts viciously against anyone who distributes their copyrighted works. Why? Maybe they don't want their powerful
secrets revealed to an uncaring (and unpaying public). Most likely because they don't want to the public to realize what complete and utter gibberish it is.
$1000 an hour?
I'd be happy to fing for free. But I guess I shouldn't mention that in a public forum.
Rick
Seeing how fast they reacted this fast to a piece of their drivel being posted on Slashdot, the idea that they wouldn't be aware of other sites on the Internet seems ludicrous to me. How much would it cost to hire a paralegal or whatever to sit around and sift through Altavista or Google all day. Not much. I think the added exposure to the fact that a.) the Church of Scientology is run by crooks and thugs and b.) The "religion" of Scientology is just a bunch of psychobabble and pulp science fiction folderol is well worth the small risk of addition trouble for people who were already willing to take larger risks by posting in the first place.
I don't find the fact that Slashdot is forced to remove copyrighted text from a comment to be the worst thing in the world, and I do think that a couple thousand different intelligent people perusing Operation Clambake is a very good thing. Truth is the greatest defense (and offense).
Well, Fox wouldn't exist without the Simpsons. It would have tanked around 1990 but for that one show. I think the show does have the network by the short hairs (or used to).
I understand your misgivings, but the sole responsibility of law-enforcement is not to respond to crimes after the fact, but to also _prevent_ crimes from happening whenever possible (for a reasonably limited value of "possible", i.e., without violating all relevant civil and legal rights).
Now, I have little doubt the authorities in this situation and climate might go a little to far, but I also agree with them looking into it. Of course, it can be a slippery slope on the way to a police state, but I still think it's worth taking the risk, since our form of government is uniquely qualified to prevent a police state (or to paraphrase, I believe, Disraeli, it's the worst form of government in the world, except for all the rest).
>Is it illegal to have a line about a shotgun on a web page?
>If not, what business do the police have investigating it?
Hello? Do you watch the news? There have been a number of school shootings in the U.S. where people were killed. In each case there _were_ warning signs like threats or obsessions with violence. Understandably, people are a little paranoid right now. It was an unfortunate turn of events, but how would you like to be the police Sergeant who had to face an angry city when a kid _DID_ pull a shotgun from an Adidas bag and blow someone's son or daughter away when you had this information beforehand?
Like it or not, tjose of you in this insulated little Slashdot fantasy world are going to have to realize that there are more than black and white in the world and the right to Free Speech in the U.S. may be one of our most paramount, but it is not absolute. Try citing the first amendment to security at an airport after you make a joke about a bomb. Try explaining about your rights to the F.B.I. after you make a crack about shooting the president.
I'm sorry you got modded down... obviously the infinite monkeys sometimes _don't_ write Shakespeare...
Moderators... get a clue.
The "we" in your sentence, Anonymous Coward, would have to be _everybody_. If the "we" means the slashdot community, etc, but not the vast majority of voters, as well as the politicians themselves, then all we do is marginalize ourselves. We can't demonstrate what the media get wrong to population at large if we don't pay at least some attention to what they are saying. I personally see very few movies and don't watch a whole lot of television, but I find it educational and informative to see what's out there. It's interesting and useful to know about the Survivor or Millionaire phenomena, but actually watching them is unnecessary (as well as tedious beyond belief, IMO).
>[posting anonymously because, yeah]
/. community is very concerned (and rightly so) about the portrayal of computer nerds in the mass media, particularly with respect to issues like DeCSS, Napster, etc.
because... you don't want to lost precious karma?
you don't have a point?
Like it or not, the media are a very powerful force shaping society today. To ignore their effects, while trying very hard to combat them seems to be a little counter-productive. The
If we completely ignore the media, how can we combat the lies they tell?
please read the line above as:
you can use the LGPL and not force anyone who wants to use a piece of your code.
It's very late and I've been on the phone with the doctor about a sick daughter. I'm a little distracted. Good night.
Your right. But there is no software license in existence in the commercial world that tries to dictate what you do with other code completely unrelated except for the fact that it's being linked together. The GPL may make sense for applications, but it's absolutely ludicrous for libraries. That's why the LGPL exists in the first place, but even the description of the LGPL on gnu.org thumbs their nose by saying, what we really want is all your code, but if you're too much of a puss you can use the LGPL and force anyone who wants to use a piece of your code to spill their guts to the world for free. The GPL is a wonderful idea, but the more I consider it vis-a-vis the Real World (and not academia, where most of /. users are living in a happy little magical dream world, the more I see it as being quite untenable. I guess it all boils down to the fact that the Free Software movement in general considers me morally inferior because I use Microsoft. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think they should pretend it's more profound than that.
No. What the GPL means is I'm going to give you something, but only if you give me back anything you might use with it.
You completely missed my point. I'm saying that I cannot use GPL code because I cannot make the rest of the software I working on GPL. If this discussion were about religion and morals everyone would be screaming about the fact that people who are using the GPL are forcing their morality on me. I'm perfectly happy to honor the GPL with respect to anything I use or any modifications or additions to it. What I find intolerable is the fact that simply by linking that code to something else suddenly the whole program must be GPL'ed. That's ludicrous for anyone working in the commercial world. We can't all be idealist and practice the communal life-style of GPL while hoping somehow we can finagle a way to get paid enough to eat. I honestly don't see how anyone could could have a sucessful business because here comes the GPL saying "All your code are belong to us."
He never said "make good money ethically" or "make good money without reducing yourself to scum of the earth".
I would agree with everything you say about the pr0n folks. But you can't argue with the fact that they are making money.
Now before you get all bent out of shape over that comment, I am not implying anything other than "they are making money".
Agreed. As a developer of proprietary commercial code, I cannot use any GPL code either. I don't like the idea of the GPL forcing itse;f down my throat. I do not have the wherewithal to support myself so I can sit around and write free software, nor do I have enough influence (nor want...) to make that decision for the company I work with.
The fact of the matter is GPL is really only for those folks who are willing to subject themselves to this "ideal" of perfect free software as codified by the GPL, while those of us who just want to make a living and can't or don't want to do the software equivalent of chucking it all and living on a commune just don't count for anything.
The more I consider the GPL, the more I see it as a tool for RMS and the FSF to force their religion down everyone's throat. I personally think the LGPL is reasonable (my understanding is the "linking" clause is not there). I plan to release code under the LGPL or possibly another license or even pitch it into the public domain. However, in order to maximize my code's usefullness to anyone who might want to use it, I will not deign to tell people who want to use my code how they should license theirs. I think that's none of my business.
I like Gates' later quote about not being able to multi-task in less the 1MB of memory while the Amiga was around doing quite well with half that.
...or you dial a number and buy more time.
We already live in a disposable society. Would you take a cell phone to get fixed? Most likely it would cost more to fix than to replace, so you would chuck it and buy a new one. Now if this phone is several ounces of plastic and metal vs. a smaller amount of paper and plastic (and possibly less metal), you are now throwing away much less.
It's not a perfect solution, but it could be better than what we have now.
She can't control how her product is used.
Should Napster be responsible for whether or not its clients use the service to trade copyrighted material?
Better yet, should AOL be responsible for allowing a child molester in a kiddy chat room?
Should the phone company be responsible for carrying your insider trading calls?
Should Einstein be held responsible for the development of the A-bomb?
As with any technology, the respsonsibility for its misuse lies solely with the person who misuses it. Of course, this includes the inventor, but only in relation to him- or herself.
Well, in the case of disposable cameras, I understand much of the product is recycled, if not indefinitely. I would suppose that disposable phones could be recycled somewhat too... assuming the customer doesn't just throw it out.
The catch with cameras is that you _have_ to turn it in in order to get the film developed.
Sorry, dear. I couldn't call you: My dog ate my phone!
I guess if you got someone to make a movie of you, it'd be okay.
I don't really know the exact legalities since I have interest in either pornography nor prostitution, although it's certainly a case of a double standard. <sarcasm> But we all know Freedom of Speech trumps everything, including common sense, morality and other rights. </sarcasm>
Wow! Is there anything pr0n can't do?
Funny enough, the pr0n industry seems to be way ahead of the curve because there's so much profit to be made with relatively few expenses...
Small start up costs mean lots of businesses will spring up quickly. Perhaps, Napster should consider distributing music through steganographically-encoded XXX pictures? I'm sure they would have a lot of financial backing...
Hear, Hear!
I like the fact that I can work on my suntan in a windowless office. If I need some exercise, there's heavy lifting right in front of me.
Just think if flat panel displays become the norm, there are gonna be a lot of disappointed cats (except for maybe the really skinny ones).
That's all well and good, but who wants to continue analog transmissions. After all, you can't use your Digital-TV-version-of-SDMI if the old analog sets can still pick up the signal!
Gasp! People might record shows and (horrors!) watch them again, or cheat hard-working sponsors by skipping the commercials!
This is a neat innovation to be sure, but I'm sure the subversives who created it will swiftly be brought to justice. After all, conceiving of a technology that, if it were implemented and distributed, could conceivably be used to violate the DMCA is undoubtedly illegal under the DMCA.
All citizens reading the referenced article are expected to report to reducation centers for cumpulsory brainwipes. Failure to do so will result in summary termination.