A lot of posters have made the excellent point that intellectual property laws tie Lucas's hands--he has to always protect his trademarks or he will begin losing the right to ever protect them. I just wish Lucasfilm would come out and say so instead of trying to hide behind this nonsense about what they "think" fandom is and isn't.
Yes, it is the point. It would be nice to play Blizzard games under Linux. That may even be more important than connecting to your own local server instead of Battle.net. But playing games under Linux has NOTHING to do with the bnetd situation!
No. You don't get it. The whole point of bnetd is so that people can play Blizzard multiplayer games without connecting to Blizzard's server. bnetd doesn't have anything to do with playing Blizzard games on Linux.
And there is no reason for Transgaming to make a Linux version of Battle.net (or Battle.net client code). If Transgaming gets the Windows binaries of Blizzard games running under WineX, then those clients will be able to connect to Battle.net.
The author states that he didn't want his book to be riddled with footnotes so as not to confuse the reader, but that is obviously a stupid attitude for a book that is written to encourage people to embrace science.
Oh, well, "obviously". On the other hand, is it possible to just present science in an entertaining way that encourages people to do more research on their own without weighing it down to the point that it's unapproachable? Or to put it another way, should a book about dinosaurs for five year olds be fully annotated with long treatises on alternative dinosaur theories?
I agree with the first poster. There is no good excuse for failing to provide references where such exist. It is not necessary to clutter the page with "confusing" footnotes. I just finished reading a book (Angel in the Whirlwind, by Benson Bobrick) that provides tons of references without a single extra mark in the actual text. At the end of the book there is a list of references. They are listed by chapter, page number, and the first few words of each quote. A system like this satisfies those who want to know where the information is coming from, and does so without getting in the way of those that might be confused by footnotes.
Just from thinking about the situation (i.e., without the influence of empirical evidence), I don't think it's an obvious conclusion that the ready availability of free digital versions increases the sales of real music.
However, the fact remains that as Napster useage increased, music sales really did go up. When Napster died, music sales really did go down.
In light of the evidence, I think it's safe to say that something non-intuitive about consumer nature makes it so that there are more than enough of your "exceptions" that the "rule" doesn't matter.
The record companies' greed has prevented them from accepting what they percieved as a giving away of their commodity when the reality is that their earnings increased as result. In other words, they were too busy grasping after imagined losses to notice their very real (and significant) gains.
Looks like they kind of shot themselves in the foot by doing that.
If you're being singled out because of anything except your actions, it's discrimination.
You aren't being singled out. The no-bags rule applies to everybody. The rule only applies to a behavior (carrying a bag) and not to who you are.
I think your response to the store personnel was just fine. The choice you have is that if the store won't meet your needs (in this case, by letting you carry your bag in the store), adapt to the store's policies, or don't shop there. You did the right thing by letting them know your concerns and giving them an opportunity to meet your needs. But they would not have been morally or ethically wrong for not letting you carry your bag. They just would have lost your business.
Of course, none of this really applies to the bnetd issue. The bit about the pockets was a clever satire of the original post. However, this discussion takes the analogy in a direction where it just doesn't apply.
At least for some implementations, you are absolutely correct (on my '84 Dodge van the speedometer and odometer both use the same cable leading from the transmission).
They don't want to take over your mind and soul, they just want your money.
I absolutely agree that the pursuit of money is Microsoft's motivating force. But what difference does that make? The problem is that they're more than happy to take over your mind and soul to get your money. Whatever the motivation, our minds and souls are still in danger. (Well, not literally our souls--I hope. But certainly our freedoms.)
The solution is simple. Turn off your computer, and do your shopping and socializing the old fashioned way. The Internet is only popular while we, the collective, see it as a required part of our life. This is a lie that we have told ourselves repeatedly.
If you wish to have your life revolve around the computer, or around the media, then you choose to be a part of this 'mass hallucination'.
The Internet is not the problem. The problem is Microsoft (or anybody else) having centralized control of everybody's information. The choice should not be use Passport or become one of the cash-only hippies living up in Humbolt County. We should be able to use the Internet in a free (as in speech), open (as in standards and availability), and private (as in we get to choose who gets our information) manner.
There is no fallacy. Be a bit more discerning and try not to have such a dichotomous view of the world.
Regardless of anything else, using these number to declare that one thing is more secure than another is a mistake.
That sounds like another piece of advice that should be on the stats page, not buried in a slashdot comment. Its unfortunate that someone misinterprets your statistics and publishes a misleading article every 6 months, but I can't
help but wonder why you don't take proactive steps to help people understand the meaning of your web page.
The numbers presented below should not be considered a metric by which an accurate comparison of the vulnerability of one operating system versus another can be made.
(Emphasis is in the original.)
In all fairness, it might have been added in response to your comment. After a hasty glance through the page source, I didn't see any sort of timestamp. But I seem to remember that disclaimer always being on the page (though it had been a while since I last visited--back before the site migration).
Right on. I think it would be great fun to see what a well-financed team can do.
It looks like they'll need to build something adaptable. Part of the idea is that the machine will have to do just about everything well. But they will have more information about the course than we are given now.
The competition is in fact a series of tests. The course is TOP SECRET but we can tell you that your vehicle has to be able to handle all terrains, climb any hill (at least 30 degrees), be manoeuvrable, tow a reasonable amount of weight and survive numerous low-speed collisions (in the words of our chief engineer, "it should be smash proof!"). It has to be the ultimate combat machine. Don't worry, we will give you more details about the challenges before you start building your machine.
Q: Can I spend some of my own money on my vehicle?
Yes - you may spend as much as you like. You don't have to spend anything since we will provide enough money for a basic vehicle and bear in mind that your finished vehicle may not survive the competition.
True, the company's network and computers are not yours, which could include usage logs, but what about stuff like the HR file? That is private (between employee and employer) information. Should that just be handed over?
Well, there's xmag (which has been around forever), but it's certainly not feature-rich. Besides it probably makes things too big and doesn't magnify much of the screen at a time.
A better idea might be using XFree with a low resolution and a large virtual desktop. Then things will look big without reducing the workspace size. Jumping between a bunch of different modes (with Ctl-Alt-Numpad+/-) would give differing levels of magnification. Since XFree lets you do pretty much any screen resolution you want (that your hardware can handle) this could be as finely grained as wanted. (Okay, so entering a hundred modes in XF86Config would be a pain, but it's doable.)
MS get lots of attention, but in all fairness, there was plently of critisism when BIND started the closed mailing list.
Additionally, they are not really the same in scope. BIND may not release vulnerability info to the public, but they aren't trying to stop everyone else from doing it. Microsoft is.
The key difference between what Culp suggests and the right way is that with Culp's approach there is no real incentive for the vendor.
The responsible way to release vulnerability info is to warn the vendor first, letting them know that in a week or so the advisory will be made public. That way the vendor is forced to act. Scott Culp left out the part about the time limit.
I suspected Evolution was done with CORBA--most Gnome programs follow that design philosophy. It's great in terms of reuse. If I want to make a program that uses a calendar, I can just use what has already been implemented for Evolution.
But that's not really what I was getting at with my comment. As far as I can tell, the CORBA interface isn't sufficiently user-level.
I'm looking for programs that communicate through simple, reasonably well-defined interfaces. I want the ability to (as a user) specify "helper" programs. I'd like to be able to tell my mail reader what calendar program to use and how to pass it that information. Then, if I receive something that my mail reader recognizes as a meeting invitation, it give to my calendar program to add to my schedule. Likewise, I should be able to tell my calendar program how to get email addresses from my addressbook for people who are listed as attendees and then load my mail user agent to send them a message. In a similar way, it would be nice if my addressbook knew how to open my MUA for mailing.
Obviously, Evolution's components all know how to do these things--but only with (correct me if I'm wrong here) Evolution's other components. I should be able to pick and choose my components. Maybe Mutt for email, Evolution's Calendar for scheduling, and something else (as a side note, what are some good addressbooks?) for contacts.
As a user, it should be realtively easy for me to tell each program how to talk to the other. For this to be possible, programs need to be written with simple interfaces and designed to be scriptable (so that things can be done on a command-line). E.g., I should be able to type something like:
addressbook --email --name "John Smith"
And have it send:
johnsmith@someisp.net
to stdout. Some other addressbook might have different switches, but as long as I can get them both to send one line with an email address to stdout, they can both be easily plugged into my mail and calendar programs.
For examples, Mutt implements this design philosophy very well and MH takes it to the extreme.
I recognize that configuring these programs can be a real pain. Getting a usable Mutt setup is an adventure. But it doesn't always have to be that way. Evolution could ship as a collection of programs preconfigured to use eachother. Then only those who cared to make changes would have to worry about things like command-line syntax and such.
Finally, I'm not totally stuck on Unix pipes as the only acceptable form of multi-process communication. I'm sure CORBA has its advantages. But I should be able to set things up like I described without recompiling or writing my own software.
Your point about perspective is a very good one. Something that interface designers should always be aware of. Most people just want to do "human" things without worrying about the underlying mechanism. This is in no way incompatible with the Unix philosphy.
Suppose Evolution split its calender and email (and whatever else it does) features into seperate smaller, efficient programs. Programs that "do one thing and do it well". Evolution Mail, Evolution Calendar, Evolution Addressbook, and so on could still totally interface with each other using, e.g., Unix pipes.
The advantage of such an arrangement, however, is that the interfaces are then exposed to the rest of the world. I love using Mutt for email. But I also like being able to quickly add an appointment to my calendar based on an email. And it's always handy to have a good address book. If things were done the Unix way, I could choose my mail user agent from a broad selection of software, match that with a calendar I like, and whatever addressbook suits me best.
Evolution could still ship with defaults set to using Evolution Mail, Evolution Addressbook, and Evolution Calendar. People who are happy with that wouldn't need to know or care how they are integrated. But those of us who want to dig a bit deeper will be able to mix and match our programs by simply telling it to launch something else whenever I want to use calendars or mail. Perhaps best of all, people who are new to Unix will be able to dig deeper and learn and grow to love the Unix philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
That goes without saying. It's in San Francisco.
A lot of posters have made the excellent point that intellectual property laws tie Lucas's hands--he has to always protect his trademarks or he will begin losing the right to ever protect them. I just wish Lucasfilm would come out and say so instead of trying to hide behind this nonsense about what they "think" fandom is and isn't.
Yes, it is the point. It would be nice to play Blizzard games under Linux. That may even be more important than connecting to your own local server instead of Battle.net. But playing games under Linux has NOTHING to do with the bnetd situation!
No. You don't get it. The whole point of bnetd is so that people can play Blizzard multiplayer games without connecting to Blizzard's server. bnetd doesn't have anything to do with playing Blizzard games on Linux.
And there is no reason for Transgaming to make a Linux version of Battle.net (or Battle.net client code). If Transgaming gets the Windows binaries of Blizzard games running under WineX, then those clients will be able to connect to Battle.net.
Yes. The EFF is helping them.
I agree with the first poster. There is no good excuse for failing to provide references where such exist. It is not necessary to clutter the page with "confusing" footnotes. I just finished reading a book (Angel in the Whirlwind, by Benson Bobrick) that provides tons of references without a single extra mark in the actual text. At the end of the book there is a list of references. They are listed by chapter, page number, and the first few words of each quote. A system like this satisfies those who want to know where the information is coming from, and does so without getting in the way of those that might be confused by footnotes.
However, the fact remains that as Napster useage increased, music sales really did go up. When Napster died, music sales really did go down.
In light of the evidence, I think it's safe to say that something non-intuitive about consumer nature makes it so that there are more than enough of your "exceptions" that the "rule" doesn't matter.
The record companies' greed has prevented them from accepting what they percieved as a giving away of their commodity when the reality is that their earnings increased as result. In other words, they were too busy grasping after imagined losses to notice their very real (and significant) gains.
They seem to be getting good at that.
You aren't being singled out. The no-bags rule applies to everybody. The rule only applies to a behavior (carrying a bag) and not to who you are.
I think your response to the store personnel was just fine. The choice you have is that if the store won't meet your needs (in this case, by letting you carry your bag in the store), adapt to the store's policies, or don't shop there. You did the right thing by letting them know your concerns and giving them an opportunity to meet your needs. But they would not have been morally or ethically wrong for not letting you carry your bag. They just would have lost your business.
Of course, none of this really applies to the bnetd issue. The bit about the pockets was a clever satire of the original post. However, this discussion takes the analogy in a direction where it just doesn't apply.
\begin{nitpick}
It would be more like 13,000 MPH if it only took fifteen minutes. 600 MPH would take about five and a half hours.
(3300 miles / 0.25 hours = 13200 miles/hour)
(3300 miles / (600 miles/hour) = 5.5 hours)
\end{nitpick}
At least for some implementations, you are absolutely correct (on my '84 Dodge van the speedometer and odometer both use the same cable leading from the transmission).
Get the hemlock! ;-)
I absolutely agree that the pursuit of money is Microsoft's motivating force. But what difference does that make? The problem is that they're more than happy to take over your mind and soul to get your money. Whatever the motivation, our minds and souls are still in danger. (Well, not literally our souls--I hope. But certainly our freedoms.)
The Internet is not the problem. The problem is Microsoft (or anybody else) having centralized control of everybody's information. The choice should not be use Passport or become one of the cash-only hippies living up in Humbolt County. We should be able to use the Internet in a free (as in speech), open (as in standards and availability), and private (as in we get to choose who gets our information) manner.
There is no fallacy. Be a bit more discerning and try not to have such a dichotomous view of the world.
Shhhhhhhhhhh!
He does put it on the stats page. From the page:
(Emphasis is in the original.)In all fairness, it might have been added in response to your comment. After a hasty glance through the page source, I didn't see any sort of timestamp. But I seem to remember that disclaimer always being on the page (though it had been a while since I last visited--back before the site migration).
Right on. I think it would be great fun to see what a well-financed team can do.
It looks like they'll need to build something adaptable. Part of the idea is that the machine will have to do just about everything well. But they will have more information about the course than we are given now.
From the FAQ:
It is unlimited. From the FAQ:
(my emphasis in bold)
True, the company's network and computers are not yours, which could include usage logs, but what about stuff like the HR file? That is private (between employee and employer) information. Should that just be handed over?
Well, there's xmag (which has been around forever), but it's certainly not feature-rich. Besides it probably makes things too big and doesn't magnify much of the screen at a time.
A better idea might be using XFree with a low resolution and a large virtual desktop. Then things will look big without reducing the workspace size. Jumping between a bunch of different modes (with Ctl-Alt-Numpad+/-) would give differing levels of magnification. Since XFree lets you do pretty much any screen resolution you want (that your hardware can handle) this could be as finely grained as wanted. (Okay, so entering a hundred modes in XF86Config would be a pain, but it's doable.)
The reviewer does mention the integration. He even talks about the handy search feature.
MS get lots of attention, but in all fairness, there was plently of critisism when BIND started the closed mailing list.
Additionally, they are not really the same in scope. BIND may not release vulnerability info to the public, but they aren't trying to stop everyone else from doing it. Microsoft is.
I couldn't find any mention of a time limit in Culp's original article. Maybe he said it elsewhere.
You are right though, no amount of fixes will help unless admins patch their boxes.
The key difference between what Culp suggests and the right way is that with Culp's approach there is no real incentive for the vendor.
The responsible way to release vulnerability info is to warn the vendor first, letting them know that in a week or so the advisory will be made public. That way the vendor is forced to act. Scott Culp left out the part about the time limit.
I suspected Evolution was done with CORBA--most Gnome programs follow that design philosophy. It's great in terms of reuse. If I want to make a program that uses a calendar, I can just use what has already been implemented for Evolution.
But that's not really what I was getting at with my comment. As far as I can tell, the CORBA interface isn't sufficiently user-level.
I'm looking for programs that communicate through simple, reasonably well-defined interfaces. I want the ability to (as a user) specify "helper" programs. I'd like to be able to tell my mail reader what calendar program to use and how to pass it that information. Then, if I receive something that my mail reader recognizes as a meeting invitation, it give to my calendar program to add to my schedule. Likewise, I should be able to tell my calendar program how to get email addresses from my addressbook for people who are listed as attendees and then load my mail user agent to send them a message. In a similar way, it would be nice if my addressbook knew how to open my MUA for mailing.
Obviously, Evolution's components all know how to do these things--but only with (correct me if I'm wrong here) Evolution's other components. I should be able to pick and choose my components. Maybe Mutt for email, Evolution's Calendar for scheduling, and something else (as a side note, what are some good addressbooks?) for contacts.
As a user, it should be realtively easy for me to tell each program how to talk to the other. For this to be possible, programs need to be written with simple interfaces and designed to be scriptable (so that things can be done on a command-line). E.g., I should be able to type something like:
And have it send: to stdout. Some other addressbook might have different switches, but as long as I can get them both to send one line with an email address to stdout, they can both be easily plugged into my mail and calendar programs.For examples, Mutt implements this design philosophy very well and MH takes it to the extreme.
I recognize that configuring these programs can be a real pain. Getting a usable Mutt setup is an adventure. But it doesn't always have to be that way. Evolution could ship as a collection of programs preconfigured to use eachother. Then only those who cared to make changes would have to worry about things like command-line syntax and such.
Finally, I'm not totally stuck on Unix pipes as the only acceptable form of multi-process communication. I'm sure CORBA has its advantages. But I should be able to set things up like I described without recompiling or writing my own software.
Your point about perspective is a very good one. Something that interface designers should always be aware of. Most people just want to do "human" things without worrying about the underlying mechanism. This is in no way incompatible with the Unix philosphy.
Suppose Evolution split its calender and email (and whatever else it does) features into seperate smaller, efficient programs. Programs that "do one thing and do it well". Evolution Mail, Evolution Calendar, Evolution Addressbook, and so on could still totally interface with each other using, e.g., Unix pipes.
The advantage of such an arrangement, however, is that the interfaces are then exposed to the rest of the world. I love using Mutt for email. But I also like being able to quickly add an appointment to my calendar based on an email. And it's always handy to have a good address book. If things were done the Unix way, I could choose my mail user agent from a broad selection of software, match that with a calendar I like, and whatever addressbook suits me best.
Evolution could still ship with defaults set to using Evolution Mail, Evolution Addressbook, and Evolution Calendar. People who are happy with that wouldn't need to know or care how they are integrated. But those of us who want to dig a bit deeper will be able to mix and match our programs by simply telling it to launch something else whenever I want to use calendars or mail. Perhaps best of all, people who are new to Unix will be able to dig deeper and learn and grow to love the Unix philosophy.