Do you expect uniformed policemen to knock on your door, asking for that overdue library book?
It's happened. People have gone to court over such petty things.
So why did they place a convenient bench just outside the library? Would it be OK to read a library book while sitting on that bench?
Yes, it would be okay to read a book there... if you had check it out first. Oh, I get it - you can assume that the bench's whole purpose was to let people sit down and use the access point. Hell, do anything you want there - it's public property.
.... And it's still safely sitting there, on its little shelf inside the library, happily blinking its little lights and routing its little packets. He didn't take it, you know. He simply used it. Just like one might use the bench outside, sit on a chair inside the library or - God forbid! - read a magazine inside the library without checking it out first. We really need to stomp out these heinous crimes against humanity!
But he did "take" it to be technical. He took access, he took bandwidth. My point wasn't to say that the man was wrong or even that the police officer was right. I'm just saying that any open Wi-Fi point isn't open to just anyone. Regardless of what many here may think it is morally wrong to use something that isn't there for you to use. It is for people inside the library... that simple. How can you say that being in close proximity of the library is being a patron?
From their rules:
Library staff may limit use of computer equipment which has been purchased from grant funds, according to the terms or intent of the grant agreement.
Users will not make any attempt to gain unauthorized access to restricted files or networks, or to damage or modify computer equipment or software.
There isn't anything in the rules about Wi-Fi anyways... the rules are moot. Sure, you can read a book inside the library without checking it out and that goes beyond the discussion (because you are still following protocol).
But this AP wasn't encrypted. It was an open, public hotspot. Besides, even after he stopped using it, the cop still rousted him from the bench where he was sitting. In a public area. By your analogies, he could be accused of stealing the bench unless he carried it inside the library before sitting on it.
Who cares if it was encrypted? Does an unencrypted hotspot make it public? A simple "No Unauthorized Access" will make a legal case in court if I don't secure my website but people click right past the warning. Yes, the cop was a dick. Anyone who has dealt with the police knows that is usually the case. But your argument about stealing the bench is ridiculous. Even still, the land the library sits on isn't "public" property, it's "city/county" property and carries other legal implications.
What if the store puts out a box of apples and the sign "Unsellable old apples, minor cosmetic flaws, please help yourself".
What? How can you even say that has anything to do with it? Your analogy puts "please help yourself" right in as a qualifier. I'm sure that the library doesn't have a sign saying: "please connect to the Internet, other people inside aren't doing the same"
Simply, go inside and use the facilities. And quiet literally... could I urinate in your yard because you don't have a fence? Your street? It's public property.
It just doesn't make moral sense... the hotspot isn't secure so anyone can use it. I'm sure companies who don't lock down their hotspots appreciate that. Even though it's their flaw, it isn't your right to take advantage of it. Ah, well, this cop isn't driving this car... and it does belong to the city, I might as well take it.
This guy left his front door open, let's grab that television.... These mp3's are copyright, but they are just sitting here on this server. Where does it stop?
Everyone should know by now that Al Gore didn't say he invented the Internet. (Just as we all should know by now that a Beowulf cluster of anything is cool.... we've imagined it. BSD is dead and goatse.cx is the worst thing we've seen)
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people
have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet.
Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as
Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect
on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore
was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people
were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high
speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and
the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected
official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have
a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and
scholarship.
I've downloaded a few but don't plan on doing anything dirty. Maybe I'll send out a few letters telling people that they should watch what they post on-line
I can see the reponse: "Honey, do you know anyone named 'ImaLamer'?"
"No dear"
"Well, he or she claims that your bank information is online"
Against the rules? Yes. If the library, public library, has a rule against people using the wi-fi access outside the library's building... then sure they have that right to ask anyone who is breaking the rule to leave/stop using the wi-fi.
It's not about laws, it's about rules. Even still, the access point is open to library patrons. You are not a patron for simply sitting in front of the building with your card in your pocket. Enter the library.
I mean... should the whole neighborhood cancel their ISP subscriptions and run some sort of bridge to the "public" access point? I'm sure that wouldn't be okay.
Just go inside, it isn't that hard. I argued in another post that it isn't okay for you to simply remove books from the library without checking them out... there is a protocol. Maybe they want you to sign something saying that you won't look at porn or something.
Point is: it isn't a public access point. It belongs to the library. Look inside of a library book, it doesn't have the words: "Property of The People Of XXXXXX". It likely has this stamp: "Property of XXXXX Library".
If you don't return a book, are you charged for it or do they say, "no bother, it's yours good citizen" ?
The library has the right to restrict access if that means they can keep the program going. From a moral standpoint though I can't understand why the Priest doesn't see his actions as wrong.
"I did notice several other open signals in the area -- am I allowed to connect to them?"
What in your right mind makes you think you can? Because the system administrator came to you and said you could?
I understand how cool it is to use an unsecured Wi-Fi signal, but morally it seems wrong. Legally, who cares.
Well, I don't see the owner of these apples so I might as well eat one.
I see your point, but I must also say that it doesn't seem right to me. Sure, the cop looks like a prick but that is why we make them enforce the law. We don't want to go around stepping on anyone's toes.
Seriously though I can see the problem. The access is there for library users. It shouldn't be for whoever can get a signal. Simply put a sign up...
Free wi-fi access inside
The library has a right to ask people to not take the Internet with them. Not that they are losing business, I'm sure they sell almost nothing. I can see the potential for anyone to abuse it. Simply, no one should use it outside of the library because it's harder to find out who is doing what if something goes wrong. Someone downloads child porn and you lock the doors and call the police - (or something...).
Just because the signal is strong enough for you to use it in your house next door doesn't make it right. Just because they have no WEP key doesn't mean it is in fact public... they are just making it easier for their patrons. Just because the library lends books free of charge doesn't mean that you can walk in and take one home without checking it out. There are rules and sorry - they must be followed in a civilized society.
The fact that the guy is a Priest makes no difference either. Rules/Laws should be applied evenly, no exceptions based on background. Shouldn't the hackers get more access? "Don't worry officer I know what I'm doing."
Just don't do it again AKMA... okay? Your making everyone here have a conniption fit.
I see the issue as a "non-issue" like abortion. People who vote on those two issues alone are throwing their vote away.
If you vote only with "Pro/Con-gun" in mind you are likely going to make the situation where guns will be needed for a revolution. Look at our current situation. Some would argue, Bush maybe gun friendly, but he isn't voter friendly.
When it comes to abortion it is the minority that want Roe v. Wade overturned. Still how could another law stand the test of the Supreme Court? A new Supreme Court would be the only answer. I don't care about the whole issue but it seems that people are only making the legislature waste time when they could be going forward to make real people better (as opposed to hypothetical lives which may or may not end before birth, or whatever...)
Vote on other issues which actually have a chance and we all can be happy. Politics, it has been said, is the struggle not to do two different things, but how to get to the same point. Both parties want freedom, I don't doubt that.
It's the wacko's who bring the whole system down.
(I of course am a liberal "wacko", but taking my web-admin hat off I say this)
2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.
2003 On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the National Parks Conservation Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 84 percent of the time.
An interesting aside, Nixon was the one who can be credited with the creation of the EPA. He spent a third of his 1973(?) State of The Union talking about the environment.
No matter how bitterly contested, never has the victor been decided by shots fired in anger.
Problem is however that even in the last election when there were other legal solutions to "Bush vs. Gore"...
The idea of due process extends throughout society not just in the criminal court system. The wheels of this constitution-based federal republic move slow for this reason. People who repeat the following saying; "idle hands are the devils tools" never lived in a dictatorship.
One problem with such regimes, even monarchies, is that the wheels of justice and executive decision making move too quick. A dictatorship often features things such as arrest on Monday and death on Friday (TGIF huh?)...
During the 2000 election there were ways to contest the vote and it should have been done. The problem with Bush vs. Gore was that it didn't account for the fact that many votes were never counted - at all. Under Florida state law all votes rejected by a machine must be viewed to determine if a vote is discernable. Not that this could have beaten Bush or made Gore win is an exercise which is left up to those of us who care...
The problem is that during the election there were only five counties in Florida which counted all of their votes the first time. Regardless of whether an old lady voted for someone on accident, which isn't up for discussion legally... regardless of whether people were allowed to vote or not in the first place, no one has sued so I assume that there is no case
(as Americans this is a serious charge which everyone should be looking into btw, we can not assume it's okay even if it got the guy we voted for. It's a Constitutional issue..
The issue is: the count never ended and Florida could have still went either way. Some studies say one thing (which I believe) and the other way. You can't put stock into either one. If someone wrote in a name, it may have never been counted in some counties. In Florida, a card with Bush written all over it is a legal vote. It is obvious that the choice is Bush.
If people were turned away illegally, regardless of their race, they should have been up in arms. I believe that being your *already established, legal right* to vote is something which calls for an organized strike or other civil disobediance.
You are not being given the rights of the master document so all legal documents below that are practically invalid. All state and local laws, even federal ones must uphold the Constitution and before anyone can be inforced it must accept the Constitution as a extension of that document as far as it sets the pattern.
The trouble is that a modern Linux desktop also crawls under 128MB on a PIII. I regret to say that the Linux desktops are suffering as much from bloat as does MS.
I don't use Slackware personally but a quick check of their website shows me that they host versions going back to 3.3.
I'm sure most major distributions have their past versions out there somewhere. You may have to use an FTP searching site to find them but they are out there. RedHat 7.3 your favorite? It's out there. Even Caldera "Open Desktop" is out there. (Or I can send you a copy, take that SCO!)
The beautiful thing about linux is two-fold. First you can create your own "distribution" based on what you need. (Plus, there are plenty of slim distributions out there, many working off of floppies or compact discs) The second thing is this; they can't stop you from distributing it further once you get your hands on it and they can't stop you from forking your own from a version.
There is no need to stay attached to one distribution, you can create your own. A developing country can do just that. As computer use rises they can use students or enthusiasts to create a custom distribution for their country. Not only does it solve their problems but it also can help as a teaching tool when it comes to the basics of computer science.
That is the good thing about free software, you can do what you want with it - no one can stop you from doing what you want to do with it. I'm sure there are good quotes on this in "Free as In Freedom", which I'm looking at now on my bookshelf, but I'm too lazy to look them up.
We do not capitalize the title/rank/position of a person when it follows the individual's name; when it used with the name of a company, an agency, an office, and the like; or when it is used alone. In other words, a title/rank/position is a common noun or adjective unless it immediately precedes a person's name.
Other presidents are lower case, except for the current President and Vice President of the United States, as in "President Bush;...the President said..."
So to recap; referring to Gore you capitalize and referring to Bush you leave off the "p".
Well, I understand that the concept is based on ads and another thing. Two people are bound to have the same e-mail (spam, automated mail) - they only store one and the difference between the two. Like any compression method out there.
But I see your point though. Imagine though that we both have an mp3 of Stairway to Heaven stored. Likely we got it from the same source - therefore the same file. Gmail stores it once. (all done with hash's)
If they don't do this already they should. How many times is the word "viagra" sent via e-mail? Why not just give it a value which is smaller in bit size and substitue for it. Whole sentences can be stored the same way.
price maker: A buyer or seller that possess sufficient market control to affect the price of the good. Price market should be compared with the alternative, price taker. From the selling side of the market, a monopoly is the best example of a price maker. As the only seller in the market, a monopoly firm has the ability to control the price. Firms operating under oligopoly and monopolistic competition are also price makers, although to a lesser degree, depending on their relative market control. From the buying side of the market, a monopsony is also a price maker. As the only buyer in the market, a monopsony firm is able to control the price. Firms operating under oligopsony and monopsonistic competition are price makers, also to a lesser degree.
I don't know how they can sue based on simple capitalistic economics. I mean go ahead, just don't get hyped up.
BTW, I hate MS's shit, it just seems silly at first glance. You can't sue until the price is right
Slashdot Mirror
It's happened. People have gone to court over such petty things.
So why did they place a convenient bench just outside the library? Would it be OK to read a library book while sitting on that bench?
Yes, it would be okay to read a book there... if you had check it out first. Oh, I get it - you can assume that the bench's whole purpose was to let people sit down and use the access point. Hell, do anything you want there - it's public property.
But he did "take" it to be technical. He took access, he took bandwidth. My point wasn't to say that the man was wrong or even that the police officer was right. I'm just saying that any open Wi-Fi point isn't open to just anyone. Regardless of what many here may think it is morally wrong to use something that isn't there for you to use. It is for people inside the library... that simple. How can you say that being in close proximity of the library is being a patron?
From their rules:
There isn't anything in the rules about Wi-Fi anyways... the rules are moot. Sure, you can read a book inside the library without checking it out and that goes beyond the discussion (because you are still following protocol).
But this AP wasn't encrypted. It was an open, public hotspot. Besides, even after he stopped using it, the cop still rousted him from the bench where he was sitting. In a public area. By your analogies, he could be accused of stealing the bench unless he carried it inside the library before sitting on it.
Who cares if it was encrypted? Does an unencrypted hotspot make it public? A simple "No Unauthorized Access" will make a legal case in court if I don't secure my website but people click right past the warning. Yes, the cop was a dick. Anyone who has dealt with the police knows that is usually the case. But your argument about stealing the bench is ridiculous. Even still, the land the library sits on isn't "public" property, it's "city/county" property and carries other legal implications.
What if the store puts out a box of apples and the sign "Unsellable old apples, minor cosmetic flaws, please help yourself".
What? How can you even say that has anything to do with it? Your analogy puts "please help yourself" right in as a qualifier. I'm sure that the library doesn't have a sign saying: "please connect to the Internet, other people inside aren't doing the same"
Simply, go inside and use the facilities. And quiet literally... could I urinate in your yard because you don't have a fence? Your street? It's public property.
It just doesn't make moral sense... the hotspot isn't secure so anyone can use it. I'm sure companies who don't lock down their hotspots appreciate that. Even though it's their flaw, it isn't your right to take advantage of it. Ah, well, this cop isn't driving this car... and it does belong to the city, I might as well take it.
This guy left his front door open, let's grab that television.... These mp3's are copyright, but they are just sitting here on this server. Where does it stop?
At least he should have
How can this be rated funny?
Everyone should know by now that Al Gore didn't say he invented the Internet. (Just as we all should know by now that a Beowulf cluster of anything is cool.... we've imagined it. BSD is dead and goatse.cx is the worst thing we've seen)
Vinton Cerf even gave a good portion of credit to Gore:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people
have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet.
Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as
Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect
on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore
was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people
were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high
speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and
the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected
official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have
a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and
scholarship.
I know...
What I'm wondering is....
Can I mirror these files on my web site?
I've downloaded a few but don't plan on doing anything dirty. Maybe I'll send out a few letters telling people that they should watch what they post on-line
I can see the reponse:
"Honey, do you know anyone named 'ImaLamer'?"
"No dear"
"Well, he or she claims that your bank information is online"
"Must be some sort of scam sweetie, toss it"
Found a cool "guide" to these types of things:
http://gray-world.net/etc/passwd/googletut1.txt
(BTW, the last link I posted above is a honey pot for those of you still trying to do something... he he)
I believe it was covered on Slashdot before...
However search Google for cool stuff like:
"Index Of" "My Documents" "Last Modified"
You can see plenty of people's documents, about 1300 or so results.
Linux is less fun:
"Index of" "/etc" "Last Modified"
What can you do with this though?
Illegal no...
Against the rules? Yes. If the library, public library, has a rule against people using the wi-fi access outside the library's building... then sure they have that right to ask anyone who is breaking the rule to leave/stop using the wi-fi.
It's not about laws, it's about rules. Even still, the access point is open to library patrons. You are not a patron for simply sitting in front of the building with your card in your pocket. Enter the library.
I mean... should the whole neighborhood cancel their ISP subscriptions and run some sort of bridge to the "public" access point? I'm sure that wouldn't be okay.
Just go inside, it isn't that hard. I argued in another post that it isn't okay for you to simply remove books from the library without checking them out... there is a protocol. Maybe they want you to sign something saying that you won't look at porn or something.
Point is: it isn't a public access point. It belongs to the library. Look inside of a library book, it doesn't have the words: "Property of The People Of XXXXXX". It likely has this stamp: "Property of XXXXX Library".
If you don't return a book, are you charged for it or do they say, "no bother, it's yours good citizen" ?
The library has the right to restrict access if that means they can keep the program going. From a moral standpoint though I can't understand why the Priest doesn't see his actions as wrong.
"I did notice several other open signals in the area -- am I allowed to connect to them?"
What in your right mind makes you think you can? Because the system administrator came to you and said you could?
I understand how cool it is to use an unsecured Wi-Fi signal, but morally it seems wrong. Legally, who cares.
Well, I don't see the owner of these apples so I might as well eat one.
So some cops are stupid and/or overzealous
Film at 11.
I see your point, but I must also say that it doesn't seem right to me. Sure, the cop looks like a prick but that is why we make them enforce the law. We don't want to go around stepping on anyone's toes.
Seriously though I can see the problem. The access is there for library users. It shouldn't be for whoever can get a signal. Simply put a sign up...
Free wi-fi access inside
The library has a right to ask people to not take the Internet with them. Not that they are losing business, I'm sure they sell almost nothing. I can see the potential for anyone to abuse it. Simply, no one should use it outside of the library because it's harder to find out who is doing what if something goes wrong. Someone downloads child porn and you lock the doors and call the police - (or something...).
Just because the signal is strong enough for you to use it in your house next door doesn't make it right. Just because they have no WEP key doesn't mean it is in fact public... they are just making it easier for their patrons. Just because the library lends books free of charge doesn't mean that you can walk in and take one home without checking it out. There are rules and sorry - they must be followed in a civilized society.
The fact that the guy is a Priest makes no difference either. Rules/Laws should be applied evenly, no exceptions based on background. Shouldn't the hackers get more access? "Don't worry officer I know what I'm doing."
Just don't do it again AKMA... okay? Your making everyone here have a conniption fit.
I see the issue as a "non-issue" like abortion. People who vote on those two issues alone are throwing their vote away.
If you vote only with "Pro/Con-gun" in mind you are likely going to make the situation where guns will be needed for a revolution. Look at our current situation. Some would argue, Bush maybe gun friendly, but he isn't voter friendly.
When it comes to abortion it is the minority that want Roe v. Wade overturned. Still how could another law stand the test of the Supreme Court? A new Supreme Court would be the only answer. I don't care about the whole issue but it seems that people are only making the legislature waste time when they could be going forward to make real people better (as opposed to hypothetical lives which may or may not end before birth, or whatever...)
Vote on other issues which actually have a chance and we all can be happy. Politics, it has been said, is the struggle not to do two different things, but how to get to the same point. Both parties want freedom, I don't doubt that.
It's the wacko's who bring the whole system down.
(I of course am a liberal "wacko", but taking my web-admin hat off I say this)
(For those of you who haven't been paying attention, BOTH Bush and Kerry are pro-hunters/sportsmen.)
I'm pretty sure however that Kerry has done more than most Senators when it comes to the environment.
Check out Project Vote Smart for example:
Environmental Issues:
2003 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 53 percent of the time.
2003 On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the National Parks Consevation Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 73 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the National Parks Conservation Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the Comprehensive US Sustainable Population considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 84 percent of the time.
An interesting aside, Nixon was the one who can be credited with the creation of the EPA. He spent a third of his 1973(?) State of The Union talking about the environment.
It doesn't have to be a party issue.
I liked what a past physics/math teacher said.
If he rolls through a stop sign that is at the apex of the hill, and he gets a ticket he'd contest it.
Grounds?
The car had a zero velocity before going down the hill, making him legally stopped.
No matter how bitterly contested, never has the victor been decided by shots fired in anger.
...
Problem is however that even in the last election when there were other legal solutions to "Bush vs. Gore"
The idea of due process extends throughout society not just in the criminal court system. The wheels of this constitution-based federal republic move slow for this reason. People who repeat the following saying; "idle hands are the devils tools" never lived in a dictatorship.
One problem with such regimes, even monarchies, is that the wheels of justice and executive decision making move too quick. A dictatorship often features things such as arrest on Monday and death on Friday (TGIF huh?)...
During the 2000 election there were ways to contest the vote and it should have been done. The problem with Bush vs. Gore was that it didn't account for the fact that many votes were never counted - at all. Under Florida state law all votes rejected by a machine must be viewed to determine if a vote is discernable. Not that this could have beaten Bush or made Gore win is an exercise which is left up to those of us who care...
The problem is that during the election there were only five counties in Florida which counted all of their votes the first time. Regardless of whether an old lady voted for someone on accident, which isn't up for discussion legally... regardless of whether people were allowed to vote or not in the first place, no one has sued so I assume that there is no case
(as Americans this is a serious charge which everyone should be looking into btw, we can not assume it's okay even if it got the guy we voted for. It's a Constitutional issue..
The issue is: the count never ended and Florida could have still went either way. Some studies say one thing (which I believe) and the other way. You can't put stock into either one. If someone wrote in a name, it may have never been counted in some counties. In Florida, a card with Bush written all over it is a legal vote. It is obvious that the choice is Bush.
If people were turned away illegally, regardless of their race, they should have been up in arms. I believe that being your *already established, legal right* to vote is something which calls for an organized strike or other civil disobediance.
You are not being given the rights of the master document so all legal documents below that are practically invalid. All state and local laws, even federal ones must uphold the Constitution and before anyone can be inforced it must accept the Constitution as a extension of that document as far as it sets the pattern.
Funny.. had to commend you.
The trouble is that a modern Linux desktop also crawls under 128MB on a PIII. I regret to say that the Linux desktops are suffering as much from bloat as does MS.
I don't use Slackware personally but a quick check of their website shows me that they host versions going back to 3.3.
I'm sure most major distributions have their past versions out there somewhere. You may have to use an FTP searching site to find them but they are out there. RedHat 7.3 your favorite? It's out there. Even Caldera "Open Desktop" is out there. (Or I can send you a copy, take that SCO!)
The beautiful thing about linux is two-fold. First you can create your own "distribution" based on what you need. (Plus, there are plenty of slim distributions out there, many working off of floppies or compact discs) The second thing is this; they can't stop you from distributing it further once you get your hands on it and they can't stop you from forking your own from a version.
There is no need to stay attached to one distribution, you can create your own. A developing country can do just that. As computer use rises they can use students or enthusiasts to create a custom distribution for their country. Not only does it solve their problems but it also can help as a teaching tool when it comes to the basics of computer science.
That is the good thing about free software, you can do what you want with it - no one can stop you from doing what you want to do with it. I'm sure there are good quotes on this in "Free as In Freedom", which I'm looking at now on my bookshelf, but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Werner Heisenberg was pulled over...
That is what I was thinking of! It was MSN decals...
But then I saw this:
who is campaigning against the president (he doesn't deserve a capital p)
Although I capitalize "President" I'm not sure it's right... aside from that he doesn't deserve the "p" in front.
Resident Bush
Well, I understand that the concept is based on ads and another thing. Two people are bound to have the same e-mail (spam, automated mail) - they only store one and the difference between the two. Like any compression method out there.
But I see your point though. Imagine though that we both have an mp3 of Stairway to Heaven stored. Likely we got it from the same source - therefore the same file. Gmail stores it once. (all done with hash's)
If they don't do this already they should. How many times is the word "viagra" sent via e-mail? Why not just give it a value which is smaller in bit size and substitue for it. Whole sentences can be stored the same way.
Yeah, I just was looking around on my user page and saw I had a score of "3"....
...checked it out and saw "Informative" which scarred me because I was going for "Funny"... but I'm a karma whore so I'll take it.
Didn't IBM get into the same problem in NYC before?
Remember "Peace, Love, Linux"?
Oddly enough when I first clicked on the "Read More" link I got this:
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
Scarry for someone like me who operates an Anti-Bush site.
....I can't even move my hand that fast.
Why... A beowulf cluster of this size
Seriously though, if the next Playstation is going to rely on distributed computing this would be the thing that makes it a reality.
Seriously, imagine p2p networks that spring up to and combine computing power to solve any math problem.
We can all build nukes! Forcast weather for the whole planet!
Imagine the cool "beowulf live" distributions that spring up - boot and enjoy holographic video (rendered on demand!)
It's not the connection speed, it's the potential to combine computer power that makes me drool.
From "AmosWEB:Gloss*arama":
I don't know how they can sue based on simple capitalistic economics. I mean go ahead, just don't get hyped up.
BTW, I hate MS's shit, it just seems silly at first glance. You can't sue until the price is right