I recomend finding a take away place that will do you a discount on bulk orders - our local chinese used to give us special service because of a few bulk orders we did for parties... but then we learned that pizza is a lot easier to clean up the next day then trodden-in noodles.
Fair enough, you don't want your daught to be kidnapped on the way to school. But seeing as this technology could also be used to make sure that she does go to school, wouldn't you feel that you might as well take advantage of that?
At this point, however, your daughters freedom is restricted... Ok, she should go to school, but you should trust her to go to school, and anything which forces her, takes away from her resposibility.
It seems to me that this is the begining of a slippery slope, where using the technology in a slightly more restrictive way, in the interest of safety, could eventually lead to a very restrictive environment for children.
Of course, I'm sure most parents would use a technology like this sensibly, but you know there are some that wouldn't...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you legally allowed to reverse engineer interfaces for the sake of compatability anyway? Or does this not apply here?
There was actually an article about this in Edge magazine in November, and they were saying that they had conformation of online stories... so supposedly it's been reported on the net somewhere
They did say it'd have 2 new face buttons though, and also that they hoped the actual thing would have a bit more wow factor then their artists sketch, when in fact it has decidedly less.
Look at those levels again, there is one constant floor (didn't even change texture IIRC), and one constant height for all the walls (again, same texture on all of them IIRC). The only difference was they put all those floating platforms in to make walkways. They weren't even proper 3d objects. No, I'd say the technology in ROTT has much more incommon with Wolfenstein 3D than it does with Doom, even down to the fact that all the walls are at right angles and at fixed intervals.
Although ROTT did have much more impressive gib-age then Doom, which made it fun to play for a little while. Other than that, it was the weapons and quality of the sprites that made ROTT, technically, it isn't superior to Doom in anyway (that I can think of).
We all know, but I'm not sure that enough of the public (here in England at least) know that when they talk about the evils of the recording industry, that they do actually all get together and decide to be jointly evil, and that there's actually an official organisation that persecutes people to perpetuate it's monopoly.
I have actually just posted a different but similar in ideology idea. I like the idea of a solution that promotes freedom. Linux has become an excellent alternative to the Microsoft monopoly, I believe we need to take a similar approach in this case. The only problem being, that in this case, there are significant demands on capital. Requiring a benevolent benefactor, and for any new solution to acquire support fairly quickly.
Would a record company work as a not-for-profit-organisation? I mean, assuming some benevolent rich corporation (if such a thing exists) was willing to set one up, if only as a marketing ploy, could it succeed?
I don't really see why not, although I haven't really looked into it enough to perhaps see some of the pit falls of my idea. They'd take enough money from CD sales to cover expenses (admin, distribution, marketing) and give the rest to the artist. There's a possibility of cheaper CDs and more money for the artist, leading to more demand from consumers and more artists wanting to join. Perhaps even some larger artists could be persuaded to join for ethical reasons?
On the other hand, perhaps I should stop wearing these rose-tinted glasses, they cause nothing but disapointment...
But seriously, if anyone has any thoughts on how this might/might not work, then say.
If there are no (or fewer) record sales for said band, the record company is likly to drop them. They're only likly to trust their own quantative statistics, and the band sending them a few dolars here and there isn't likly to help.
It's good to see someone taking a stand. The point is not to make a huge difference, the point is to stand true to your own morals. The idea that one person doesn't make a difference, so it's not worth making a stand, is ridiculous. If one person makes a stand, then perhaps another will, if two people are making a stand, perhaps a third or forth will join them?
Personally, I felt really good about myself when I finally decided to properly boycott Microsoft products and services. But when I did that, I was only missing out on a few games (few as in games worth playing). But the reason I won't boycott the MPAA and RIAA is that I like films and I like music, they actually have something I want. At least in Microsofts case there is a valid alternative.
Although, I guess the alternative to MPAA and RIAA owned media might not be so bad, I haven't really looked into it. I will do now though, and I'll try and cut down the amount I spend that benefits the MPAA/RIAA.
It's something we all should be activly trying to do, even if we do give in to our LoTRs and Matrixs (should that be Matrices) from time to time.
It's nice to hear some positive news about a company that gets so much bad press on slashdot, makes me believe that there are those out there that aren't completly evil...
...and makes me feel a little better about those two days tempory work I did putting together AOL CDs for distribution...
I know this topic is a little old now, but I feel I ought to defend myself here.
I'm not saying that the move is a bad move, or that Windows has better (or even good) security.
I was just pointing out that saying less people attack Linux, therefore it is more secure, is wrong. It happens that Linux is more secure, but it's bad to reason that it's security comes from obscurity (ie. fewer skiddies have the tools to attack it).
Back to the analogy... What I'm trying to say is, that the move from a tent to a house is relevant, but the move to a safer neighbourhood isn't relevant
The argument is roughly analogous to reasoning it's better to move to a given neighbourhood just because said neighbourhood currently has a lower crime rate.
In a sense, yes, but that's not the point... Moving to an open source product because it is attacked less, means that you are at less risk from skiddie and worms. But a real attacker won't be randomly trying machines for known exploits, (s)he'll be attacking just the box/site that he wants access to.
To keep with the neighbourhood analogy, it's like moving to a safer neighbourhood when a hit-man's after you, it doesn't really matter how many petty criminals are in the area, there's still a goddamn hitman!
True, you can turn it off, but then you won't be able to view TCPA encrypted media...
So, "secure" data using TCPA transmitted between people or companies will require trusted apps to read it.
Now, do you suppose free software will be able to become "trusted"? Given that it's constantly changing and often has little or no funding?
I'm thinking that if TCPA becomes widly used, it's going to have a huge negative impact on free software... not that MicroSoft care.
I've said it before, but implementing these laws is nigh on impossible. Think about how you would implement them...
They are defined is such a high-level way that hard coding them into anything would be extremely hard. In fact, you'd probably have to train a neural network with these laws just so that you had them in a suitable language. Of course then you have to determine whether this is what the robots have learned, or whether the action is the cause of some side effect learning (ie. Tank recognition).
I can't see anyone ever being able to do anything useful with these laws.
If I didn't install X, why would I want to install a desktop...?
Re:Gentoo is a giant step, too long for mere morta
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
So, does RH give you the option to install ssh with or withour X support. X support is damn useful, and if I were to install X, I'd definatly want it. But on a server, I wouldn't instal X and wouldn't want the dependancy problems. It seems a little much for RH to provide many different versions of the same software with different configure options enabled.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but my point was that I'd want software with/without different support compiled in depending upon what I install. As far as I know - that's not easy with RPM.
Re:How the heck did he know this?
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
I think you're deliberatly trying to scare people here - compiling a kernel that works is not hard. You just include everything you think you'll need, and follow the help if you're unsure (most options say 'if unsure, select y' or something similar.
Re:Gentoo is a giant step, too long for mere morta
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
Have you tried doing a minimal install, with ssh, but without X?
Actually - I'm kinda bluffing that it won't work here, it didn't work on SuSE so I'm assuming it won't work on RH either.
Re:Speaking of compiling...
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
You do have a point, where as installing with RPMs can be a real pain (due to being compiled with support for things that aren't relevant, nor installed, like ssh and X (dammit - I don't want X on my server!)). Compiled from source stuff can be a pain to uninstall if there is no make uninstall. Usually there is, but when there isn't you generally have to go through the Makefile and find out where everything has been installed to. This isn't too hard, but it's still a pain.
That's why systems like Gentoo work really well - no dependency problems as it's compiled from source, and easy to uninstall.
Ok, I'll admit that the optimizations get me all hot under the collar with probably no real performance increase.
But, that's not best thing about Gentoo and other compiled from source distributions. Let me give you an example:
I was trying to install SuSE on a server, I wanted a pretty minimal system. One of the things I needed on there was ssh. However, the ssh rpm had been compiled with X support, so of course I had to install X and various other X odds and ends. There were other silly dependencies that I can't remember aswell, things requiring QT/Gtk when they work perfectly well as console applications etc.
But dependencies are a major weakness of RPM or other package based systems.
If I were to try and do the same thing on Gentoo, it'd see that I wasn't installing X, and wouldn't compile X support into ssh. If at a later date, I wanted to install X, I could get it to add X support to any software that supported it very easily.
RPMs were the one thing that I never got along with in Linux. Currently I'm running an LFS system (mainly because I wanted to learn how everything works), but my next system will be a Gentoo system.
Slashdot Mirror
okaaaaay...
And I think that about now is the time that you should start taking your medication again...
Candles?? Sure, candles will be helpful if the power goes out, but surely it'll be easier to escape from 200 angery geeks under cover of darkness?
I recomend finding a take away place that will do you a discount on bulk orders - our local chinese used to give us special service because of a few bulk orders we did for parties... but then we learned that pizza is a lot easier to clean up the next day then trodden-in noodles.
Fair enough, you don't want your daught to be kidnapped on the way to school. But seeing as this technology could also be used to make sure that she does go to school, wouldn't you feel that you might as well take advantage of that?
At this point, however, your daughters freedom is restricted... Ok, she should go to school, but you should trust her to go to school, and anything which forces her, takes away from her resposibility.
It seems to me that this is the begining of a slippery slope, where using the technology in a slightly more restrictive way, in the interest of safety, could eventually lead to a very restrictive environment for children.
Of course, I'm sure most parents would use a technology like this sensibly, but you know there are some that wouldn't...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you legally allowed to reverse engineer interfaces for the sake of compatability anyway? Or does this not apply here?
There was actually an article about this in Edge magazine in November, and they were saying that they had conformation of online stories... so supposedly it's been reported on the net somewhere
They did say it'd have 2 new face buttons though, and also that they hoped the actual thing would have a bit more wow factor then their artists sketch, when in fact it has decidedly less.
4 buttons and a 4 way pad... writing notes on it might be a little tricky.
uhh... ROTT didn't have a real Z dimension
Look at those levels again, there is one constant floor (didn't even change texture IIRC), and one constant height for all the walls (again, same texture on all of them IIRC). The only difference was they put all those floating platforms in to make walkways. They weren't even proper 3d objects. No, I'd say the technology in ROTT has much more incommon with Wolfenstein 3D than it does with Doom, even down to the fact that all the walls are at right angles and at fixed intervals.
Although ROTT did have much more impressive gib-age then Doom, which made it fun to play for a little while. Other than that, it was the weapons and quality of the sprites that made ROTT, technically, it isn't superior to Doom in anyway (that I can think of).
We all know, but I'm not sure that enough of the public (here in England at least) know that when they talk about the evils of the recording industry, that they do actually all get together and decide to be jointly evil, and that there's actually an official organisation that persecutes people to perpetuate it's monopoly.
I have actually just posted a different but similar in ideology idea. I like the idea of a solution that promotes freedom. Linux has become an excellent alternative to the Microsoft monopoly, I believe we need to take a similar approach in this case. The only problem being, that in this case, there are significant demands on capital. Requiring a benevolent benefactor, and for any new solution to acquire support fairly quickly.
Would a record company work as a not-for-profit-organisation? I mean, assuming some benevolent rich corporation (if such a thing exists) was willing to set one up, if only as a marketing ploy, could it succeed?
I don't really see why not, although I haven't really looked into it enough to perhaps see some of the pit falls of my idea. They'd take enough money from CD sales to cover expenses (admin, distribution, marketing) and give the rest to the artist. There's a possibility of cheaper CDs and more money for the artist, leading to more demand from consumers and more artists wanting to join. Perhaps even some larger artists could be persuaded to join for ethical reasons?
On the other hand, perhaps I should stop wearing these rose-tinted glasses, they cause nothing but disapointment...
But seriously, if anyone has any thoughts on how this might/might not work, then say.
If there are no (or fewer) record sales for said band, the record company is likly to drop them. They're only likly to trust their own quantative statistics, and the band sending them a few dolars here and there isn't likly to help.
It's good to see someone taking a stand. The point is not to make a huge difference, the point is to stand true to your own morals. The idea that one person doesn't make a difference, so it's not worth making a stand, is ridiculous. If one person makes a stand, then perhaps another will, if two people are making a stand, perhaps a third or forth will join them?
Personally, I felt really good about myself when I finally decided to properly boycott Microsoft products and services. But when I did that, I was only missing out on a few games (few as in games worth playing). But the reason I won't boycott the MPAA and RIAA is that I like films and I like music, they actually have something I want. At least in Microsofts case there is a valid alternative.
Although, I guess the alternative to MPAA and RIAA owned media might not be so bad, I haven't really looked into it. I will do now though, and I'll try and cut down the amount I spend that benefits the MPAA/RIAA.
It's something we all should be activly trying to do, even if we do give in to our LoTRs and Matrixs (should that be Matrices) from time to time.
It's nice to hear some positive news about a company that gets so much bad press on slashdot, makes me believe that there are those out there that aren't completly evil...
But I still feel dirty.
I know this topic is a little old now, but I feel I ought to defend myself here.
I'm not saying that the move is a bad move, or that Windows has better (or even good) security.
I was just pointing out that saying less people attack Linux, therefore it is more secure, is wrong. It happens that Linux is more secure, but it's bad to reason that it's security comes from obscurity (ie. fewer skiddies have the tools to attack it).
Back to the analogy... What I'm trying to say is, that the move from a tent to a house is relevant, but the move to a safer neighbourhood isn't relevant
Phew! I hope that cleared things up :)
In a sense, yes, but that's not the point... Moving to an open source product because it is attacked less, means that you are at less risk from skiddie and worms. But a real attacker won't be randomly trying machines for known exploits, (s)he'll be attacking just the box/site that he wants access to.
To keep with the neighbourhood analogy, it's like moving to a safer neighbourhood when a hit-man's after you, it doesn't really matter how many petty criminals are in the area, there's still a goddamn hitman!
True, you can turn it off, but then you won't be able to view TCPA encrypted media...
So, "secure" data using TCPA transmitted between people or companies will require trusted apps to read it.
Now, do you suppose free software will be able to become "trusted"? Given that it's constantly changing and often has little or no funding? I'm thinking that if TCPA becomes widly used, it's going to have a huge negative impact on free software... not that MicroSoft care.
I've said it before, but implementing these laws is nigh on impossible. Think about how you would implement them...
They are defined is such a high-level way that hard coding them into anything would be extremely hard. In fact, you'd probably have to train a neural network with these laws just so that you had them in a suitable language. Of course then you have to determine whether this is what the robots have learned, or whether the action is the cause of some side effect learning (ie. Tank recognition).
I can't see anyone ever being able to do anything useful with these laws.
Sorry, I don't get your point...
If I didn't install X, why would I want to install a desktop...?
So, does RH give you the option to install ssh with or withour X support. X support is damn useful, and if I were to install X, I'd definatly want it. But on a server, I wouldn't instal X and wouldn't want the dependancy problems. It seems a little much for RH to provide many different versions of the same software with different configure options enabled.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but my point was that I'd want software with/without different support compiled in depending upon what I install. As far as I know - that's not easy with RPM.
I think you're deliberatly trying to scare people here - compiling a kernel that works is not hard. You just include everything you think you'll need, and follow the help if you're unsure (most options say 'if unsure, select y' or something similar.
Have you tried doing a minimal install, with ssh, but without X?
Actually - I'm kinda bluffing that it won't work here, it didn't work on SuSE so I'm assuming it won't work on RH either.
You do have a point, where as installing with RPMs can be a real pain (due to being compiled with support for things that aren't relevant, nor installed, like ssh and X (dammit - I don't want X on my server!)). Compiled from source stuff can be a pain to uninstall if there is no make uninstall. Usually there is, but when there isn't you generally have to go through the Makefile and find out where everything has been installed to. This isn't too hard, but it's still a pain.
That's why systems like Gentoo work really well - no dependency problems as it's compiled from source, and easy to uninstall.
Ok, I'll admit that the optimizations get me all hot under the collar with probably no real performance increase.
But, that's not best thing about Gentoo and other compiled from source distributions. Let me give you an example:
I was trying to install SuSE on a server, I wanted a pretty minimal system. One of the things I needed on there was ssh. However, the ssh rpm had been compiled with X support, so of course I had to install X and various other X odds and ends. There were other silly dependencies that I can't remember aswell, things requiring QT/Gtk when they work perfectly well as console applications etc.
But dependencies are a major weakness of RPM or other package based systems.
If I were to try and do the same thing on Gentoo, it'd see that I wasn't installing X, and wouldn't compile X support into ssh. If at a later date, I wanted to install X, I could get it to add X support to any software that supported it very easily.
RPMs were the one thing that I never got along with in Linux. Currently I'm running an LFS system (mainly because I wanted to learn how everything works), but my next system will be a Gentoo system.