This is where the "viral" nature of the GPL that some people complain about comes into play.
I'm not a lawyer first of all. It seems to me however that the situation you'd end up with would be one where I'd only be bound by the GPL for the code that you had written. So if I really wanted to, I could distribute a closed source binary of the entire thing, but include as source only the portions that you or others had contributed to it. Or I could sell my portion of the source tree and, as per the GPL, provide the portions that others had created for free. Like I said though, I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this.
If someone wants to use GPL'd code in a closed source product, they usually want to use it to create something more than what that GPL'd code will do on its own. For example if someone wanted to create a product that made use of a fast database engine, they would license MySQL for that purpose. It would be the final product, not the database itself, that that company would be trying
The best thing to do would be to try and find out what TrollTech or MySQL does with code contributions.
I think this is a great idea because you get the best of both worlds. You're able to sell your code to people who want to use it in closed source products AND if it is any good it gets used in open source products. The more it gets used in open source projects, the more companies there will be who come knocking at your door wanting to license it from you.
One of the main values of open source is that it provides a viable alternative to closed source solutions. You don't get stuck with whatever Microsoft or Oracle or Sun wants you to have. It also allows solutions to be custom tailored to fit a particular problem or situation. The downside to it is that it is often difficult at best to actually make money creating open source products. The people who make money are the ones who USE the products to achieve a result that would be expensive or impossible using closed source solutions. IN other words it is the customers of open source vendors who reap the biggest profits from open source.
When open source vendors dual license their products we all win. The vendors win, the open source community wins, and the companies that want to license it for closed-source work win. Everyone gets what they want and that is not a bad scenario at all.
I don't like the installation system that it uses either. When you first sit down in front of it you don't think there will be any problems. At first it reminded me a lot of slackware which is the version of Linux I started out on. However if you're not careful before you're done you will have installed the OS TWICE without meaning to, among other things. The biggest challlenge is to get it to do the things you want without doing the things you don't because you've already done them. The main reason for this is that the install routine does not really work in an entirely step-by-step chronological manner even though its interface would lead you to believe that it does.
Once the system is installed the package/ports system works beautifully and the system is very fast and stable. It runs well on a P-200 with 96 megs of memory. The last version of Redhat that would do that was probably 6.2 or 7.0 at the latest. The 2.4 kernel increased the minimum system requirements a great deal.
Overall I think that Linux's evolutionary and laise faire(sp?) development model will lead to the best solutions. The speed of its development is a testament to that. The problem is that the road to get there is a rocky one. There is something to be said for a mature code base that is maintained and carefully pushed forward by a small group that is dedicated to making sure it gets the job done and works right, right now. Linux, on the other hand, can be thought of as being in continuous beta. The degree to which it is solid and secure depends upon the bugs and quirks getting shake-and-baked out by dozens of independent companies and hundreds of individuals. This is why the dot-zero versions of Redhat are always quirky and poorly optimized while the dot-two versions generally work well.
If I was going to set up a web server I'd probably use FreeBSD. If I was going to set up a desktop system I'd use Mandrake or Redhat. If I was going to set up a system where security was the most important thing I'd use OpenBSD. The only reason I can think of to run NetBSD is if you've got some oddball hardware that you can't afford to replace with an x86 system.
The thing that struck me about this article is just how obvious its conclusions should be. The article starts of as if the rational assumption is that your destiny and accomplishments are somehow pre-determined by what some ivy league university thinks of your application. I'm sure the ivy league universities would just love it if everyone believed that, but it is patently false.
I really shouldn't have to be saying this, but the things that lead to sucess are character and hard work. Where one goes to school makes no difference at all. The ivy league schools get a good reputation because they are able to pick and choose applicants who they believe have the character and intelligence to suceed. From there it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Going to Harvard no more gives you character and discipline any more than not going there deprives you of them.
When one looks at history it is evident that most of the great discoveries and accomplishments were achieved by those with mediocre academic records. Einstein was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't get a teaching job. Edison didn't even have a sixth grade education. Both Newton and Maxwell were undistinguished prior to their major discoveries.
Once upon a time people understood that it is character and hard work that lead to greatness, why our culture has forgotten that I just don't know. Nowadays people seem to think that success is some kind of trick, or is achieved though one's image. So people chase after degrees from the ivy league because they think that if other people think that they are great then they will be. Sorry Charlie, the most someone with that approach will achieve is the ability to con everyone including themself. True greatness comes from within and it is not something that can be bought, faked or manufactured.
I can't comment on other countries because, as an arrogant American, I'm not really all that aware of the existance of nations outside the US, except the ones that are in need of nuking that is.
The US is not a democracy in the truest sense of the word. It is a representational democracy and/or a republic. The structure of our government was crafted to provide a system that while responsible to the people and responsive to its needs and wants, did not respond very quickly.
The reason this is important is because approximately 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. The world is full of idiots. If governmental policy changed with the tides of whatever political or ideological fad was most popular, you'd have nothing but chaos. This problem was recognized by the founding fathers and described as the "fevers of the people." The solution that was created is what some people today like to complain about as "gridlock." Gridlock exists because the system pits "ambition against ambition" in the form of checks and balances. This helps ensure that very little is done very quickly. Before anything can be done, a majority must agree and agree for a significant ammount of time. Therefore gridlock is good. The only time you need swift certain action on the part of the government is in an emergency, which are rare. My favorite aspect of gridlock is that it encourages people to take responsibility for things instead of looking to the government to solve their problems for them. It has also helped the US avoid an awful lot of communist/socialist bullshit that is currently plaguing most of europe and that will have to end if the it ever hopes to be relevant in world affiars again, let alone a become a super-power and a counter-balance to the US in the form of the EU.
Of course there is a flaw in the system, it requires that citizens fulfill their civic duty by being informed about what their government is doing and exerting control over it by voting. Politicians listen to two things, money and votes. Not everyone has the former, but almost everyone has the latter. Of the two it is the most important. Politicians in this country pay very close attention to who does and does not vote. They have statisticians working hard to determine exactly who among their constituents they need to keep happy in order to stay in office. Nowadays the only people who are voting are old people and political idealogues. Joe and Jane Blow sit on their asses at home and let senile people and those with an axe to grind determine the fate of this country, and that is just sick. So the next time you're upset about what the government is doing, ask yourself one question, did I vote?
"The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears..."
There are people who have similar snide comments to make about freedom of speech too. The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are the foundation of a free society and the only thing that even comes close to guaranteeing its survival. Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Remember that the next time you feel the urge to disarm yourself. The next time you feel the urge to disarm someone else remember that NRA members like me are well armed and not at all averse to fighting a war to protect our freedom. I'd rather die fighting to preserve freedom that live to see it perish.
It isn't Bush's or any other president's JOB to fix the problem. That job belongs to the american people and specifically to the consumers of public education, the students and their parents.
It really is sad that so many people in this country act as if it is the government's job to solve all their problems for them. What makes you think the government CAN solve the problem? The government is not your mommy and daddy.
If you want your child to have a better education then DO SOMETHING about it yourself. Encourage other parents to do the same thing. Whining about the president is nothing but a piss-poor excuse for your lack of action.
I don't have children yet, but I can guarantee you that IF they go to public school they'll be educated to a 2nd or 3rd grade level before they enter kindergarten. My plan is to home school them if possible because I know that private schools are only marginally better at best. I find the level of education that 12 years of schooling in this country to be extremely pathetic. But then education in this country on all levels is pretty sad. I should know, I work at the 3rd largest university in the country.
Mexico is not the poorest or the most corrupt nation on earth, but its certainly in the running.
Mexico is in dire need of cultural reform. If its people had a stronger work ethic and a little bit of back-bone the country would be prosperous. The bullshit that is engrained into their culture is what is keeping it in poverty. Bigots will try to tell you that their situation is caused by some sort of racial or genetic inferiority. The truth is that they are blessed with as much innate ability as any other race or ethic group. If they would get their shit together and work to better their situation they would surely suceed. After all, they've noplace to go but up.
Kevin Mitnick is no hero, except maybe to script kiddies and people who LIKED the movie Hackers (for any reason other than Angelina Jolie that is *schwing*). It is because of people like him that the word 'hacker' is in common mis-use to describe a computer criminal when we all know that 'cracker' is the correct term.
I have zero sympathy for him. He was not wrongfully accused. The things he was convicted of are the things he did. The punishment that was met out was harsher due to his celebrity status, but if he couldn't do the time, he shouldn't have committed the crime.
I'm pleased that he seems to have changed his ways. I'd be even more pleased if he would take some time to chastise those who praise him for his former deeds and remind them that breaking into other people's systems and being destructive is not a glorious pursuit, but done by pathetic losers with an inferiority complex. Anyone can break and destroy. True talent is held by those who can create. Mostly I'm glad that his probation is almost done because I get sickened every time some punk posts "Free Kevin!" crap.
"There was only one catch, it was build on top of the proprietary java platform. This made it useless for the Free Software community."
There is plenty of java code that has been released under the GPL and BSD licenses. The only way that java would be useless to someone is if they turned their nose up at it. Turning one's nose up at something for non-technical reasons is usually a bad idea.
One of my favorite maxims is that religion stops a thinking mind. I'm not entirely sure that it is true anymore, but it is good for pissing some people off and making other people laugh.
Nowadays I'm much more convinced that religious zeal fulfills a psychological need in those who don't want to think in the first place. They tune in, turn on, and drop out. This is all done without drugs because for them religion is a drug.
It is commonly known to psychologists that there is a strong correlation between drug abuse and religion. If you look at families that have a history of drug or alcohol abuse you'll find that the ones who don't end up on drugs tend to end up being religious freaks. Some even start out as one and later become the other. For them religion truly is an opiate.
Now I'm not saying the everyone who believes in God or has religious beliefs is a religion junkie. Religion is not inherently evil. I myself believe in God, but don't make any claims to understand what God is. Religion is a human invention and as such relfects human weaknesses and imperfections.
The problems I have with religion are with those who refuse to accept its shortcomings, who want to pretend that their religious beliefs somehow supercede reality itself. This is the classic battle between science and superstition. Religious factions that want to choose superstition are going to lose out in the long run because within a few generations they won't have any more followers, or will become extreme fringe groups. I don't want to see this happen because the only thing worse than religion is its abscence. Nature abhors a vacuum. Just imagine the BS and nonesense that would fill in the place that religion currently holds in areas such as ethics and morals. We've already got enough permeation of political correctness and the ideologies from which it is created without such nonsense becoming the univeral norm.
I don't call people idiots for having contrary views, I call them idiots when I believe their views are not derived from rational thought and careful consideration. People who merely disagree with me I call fools;)
Perhaps idiot is the wrong word. I could call them gullible, or sheep, or easily led. I could call them brainwashed or buffaloed too. But since actions speak louder than the thoughts that create them, I think I'll just call them idiots.
Don't you remember the civil war that became known as the Russian revolution? What about China's invasion of Tibet? The Korean war? Vietnam?
Anyplace you see aggression and conflict at the hands of communists you can pretty much define it as a war in the name of 'no God.' The reason is that communism has no deities, only saints and martyrs.
The reason why the Democrats are having such a hard time getting their shit together is because there is just so much of it. The Republicans have the same problem of course, but since they, comparatively speaking, are less full of shit than the Democrats, they're typically more successful.
Wouldn't it be nice if politics in America didn't involve so much shit from all sides?
I'm not sure I follow you. WHAT exactly are they doing that makes them criminals? You say that they are playing with life and the implication is that it is somehow wrong. Isn't playing with life exactly what biologists and medical researchers have been doing all along? I guess you'd rather we do without things like anti-biotics and vaccines, both of which were created/discovered by the process of playing with life that you seem to have a problem with.
There are few things I know within the core of my being. The idea that cloning etc. is somehow inherently wrong just isn't one of them. For me to believe it is wrong would require some evidence to that effect, or at least a valid argument against it. I'm sorry, but appeals to emotion just don't cut it.
I've always been of the opinion that cloning, genetic engineering, etc were Good Things. This is technology that can potentially cure genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease in people who already suffer from it as well as prevent it from ever showing up in the first place. Then of course there is cancer. Imagine treatments that would simply repair the sections of our DNA sequence that MUST be damaged in order for any cancer to form. Forget radiation and chemotherapy that are simply attempts to kill the cancer without killing the patient. Fix the anti-cancer genes in the cancer cells and they kill themselves.
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature. Human nature might not be perfect, but I don't trust anyone to try and make it better. This is where genetic engineering gets risky in my opinion, when it gives people with an agenda for who and what mankind should be the tools to warp human beings into their twisted model of human behavior. Just imagine if the looney left or the religious right were to become the keepers of the technology. How many bolsheviks and bible thumpers could they create? There are already enough idiots and brainwashed buffoons in the world without a breeding program to manufacture them.
Anyway I'm glad this is being done by Stanford. Of course you'll hear nothing but screaming from the idiots of the world, but such is the burden of scientific progress. At least nowadays you don't have to worry about the inquisition murdering you for daring to contradict the codified superstition that passes for mankind's understanding of the divine.
With all of the instant messaging tools available out there, is there any reason to run the messenger service to begin with?
This is why I really don't understand what the big deal is about the messenger spam. Just turn the damned thing off.
The same thing goes for spam from the 3rd world. I don't know anybody in China, Rangoon, Nigeria, so I see no reason to accept e-mail from these places. In fact, I would be willing to make the argument that the best way to prevent spam is to ONLY accept email from networks owned by companies that strictly forbid spam. If everyone were to do this, the market for spam hosted on legitimate servers would essentially dry up. That doesn't solve the problem of crackers breaking into systems and setting up spam-relays, but then that problem will only be solved by the owners of the boxes being competent and taking responsibility for securing and updating their systems. If people were keeping an eye on security holes and being vigilant about closing them off, most of the cracker activity online would cease to exist. Lets just see some "1337 d00d" try and break into a system that has been locked down properly and kept up-to-date.
Is there ANY reason to accept emails from asia in the first place? I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone in China, or Nigeria for that matter. I've got no qualms about dropping every single email that originates from outside the U.S.
That solution would work just fine for me, but what about people who actually do need to hear from others in 3rd world countries?
A possible solution to this problem that I've often considered is an access control list. Basically you would have two email boxes, an inner one, and an outer one. Everything would show up in your outer box and those emails coming from a known good source would be transferred to your inner box. This way an email from your mom would be passed through because her email address would be in your approved list, but an email from somewhere else would not be unless you added that person's email address to your list.
Most of us aren't getting a ton of legitimate emails from strangers. We use our emails to communicate with people we already know. This is why the access control list method would work. Combine this with a web filter that deletes porn spam, scam spam, and other obvious BS, and even our outer box would be relatively empty.
One thing that occurs to me is why haven't we heard to people launching DDOS attacks on spammers? Crackers are scum, but if they were to hose up a spammer or two I for one would not complain. Why attack amazon or yahoo when you can attack some jackass overseas and actually do the public a service?
So that is supposed to be some kind of an insult? Being young is not synonymous with being wrong. Anyone who thinks so is likely at the point in their life where dreams have turned to regrets and there are fewer days ahead than behind.
I'd do her anyway and so would just about heterosexual male. The average age that people first have sex in the U.S. is now 14. So chances are if she isn't already doing the horizontal bop, she soon will be. The only reason I can think of not to sleep with her is the time I'd spend in jail if caught.
Some people say she looks like a stoner. I think they're right, but shes still awfully cute.
Do you realize that scientology sues to harrass? The idea that anyone is violating copyright law where they are concerned is irrelevant. They'll sue you not because they have a case but because they want to make you spend money paying a lawyer. That is the long and short of it. Not to mention the fact that I care about as much about their copyrights as I do about the right of the North Korean government to persecute political dissidents. After all in their legal system these dissidents are classified as criminals, yet I don't think anyone who wasn't some kind of nazi would agree that they should be locked up, tortured, killed, etc.
Sunlight is the best disenfectant, and if shedding light on scientology means stretching the bounds of fair use then so be it. Scientology uses copyright to prevent people from finding out about them, which is not and has never been the intention behind the concept of copyright. If anyone is violating copyright law it is scientology by misusing the law for a purpose that is contrary to the aims and ideals of the people who wrote the law.
I myself am an ex-scientologist and let me tell you those motherfuckers deserve a bullet in the back of the head followed by a shallow grave. If I were president Bush I'd be dropping Daisy cutters on Hemet.
I'm not a kiss-ass. I'm not about to bend over backwards verbally and in writing to stroke the ego of one Richard M. Stallman.
To me this entire issue is a non-issue.
What suprises me most of all is that anyone even gives him the time of day when it comes to this. I swear if I'm ever in a position where I've published something that lots of people are reading and I start getting "call it gnu/linux" nasty-gram emails I'm going to dump every last one of them in the trash without any response whatsoever. My silence and lack or acknowledgement will speak volumes.
Political correctness is a social disease. We have enough of it in the world already without introducing into computer jargon.
Slashdot Mirror
This is where the "viral" nature of the GPL that some people complain about comes into play.
I'm not a lawyer first of all. It seems to me however that the situation you'd end up with would be one where I'd only be bound by the GPL for the code that you had written. So if I really wanted to, I could distribute a closed source binary of the entire thing, but include as source only the portions that you or others had contributed to it. Or I could sell my portion of the source tree and, as per the GPL, provide the portions that others had created for free. Like I said though, I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this.
If someone wants to use GPL'd code in a closed source product, they usually want to use it to create something more than what that GPL'd code will do on its own. For example if someone wanted to create a product that made use of a fast database engine, they would license MySQL for that purpose. It would be the final product, not the database itself, that that company would be trying
The best thing to do would be to try and find out what TrollTech or MySQL does with code contributions.
Lee
If I write code and place it under the GPL, then the licensees are the ones who are bound by it. I, as the licensor, am not bound by it.
Lee
I think this is a great idea because you get the best of both worlds. You're able to sell your code to people who want to use it in closed source products AND if it is any good it gets used in open source products. The more it gets used in open source projects, the more companies there will be who come knocking at your door wanting to license it from you.
One of the main values of open source is that it provides a viable alternative to closed source solutions. You don't get stuck with whatever Microsoft or Oracle or Sun wants you to have. It also allows solutions to be custom tailored to fit a particular problem or situation. The downside to it is that it is often difficult at best to actually make money creating open source products. The people who make money are the ones who USE the products to achieve a result that would be expensive or impossible using closed source solutions. IN other words it is the customers of open source vendors who reap the biggest profits from open source.
When open source vendors dual license their products we all win. The vendors win, the open source community wins, and the companies that want to license it for closed-source work win. Everyone gets what they want and that is not a bad scenario at all.
Lee
I don't like the installation system that it uses either. When you first sit down in front of it you don't think there will be any problems. At first it reminded me a lot of slackware which is the version of Linux I started out on. However if you're not careful before you're done you will have installed the OS TWICE without meaning to, among other things. The biggest challlenge is to get it to do the things you want without doing the things you don't because you've already done them. The main reason for this is that the install routine does not really work in an entirely step-by-step chronological manner even though its interface would lead you to believe that it does.
Once the system is installed the package/ports system works beautifully and the system is very fast and stable. It runs well on a P-200 with 96 megs of memory. The last version of Redhat that would do that was probably 6.2 or 7.0 at the latest. The 2.4 kernel increased the minimum system requirements a great deal.
Overall I think that Linux's evolutionary and laise faire(sp?) development model will lead to the best solutions. The speed of its development is a testament to that. The problem is that the road to get there is a rocky one. There is something to be said for a mature code base that is maintained and carefully pushed forward by a small group that is dedicated to making sure it gets the job done and works right, right now. Linux, on the other hand, can be thought of as being in continuous beta. The degree to which it is solid and secure depends upon the bugs and quirks getting shake-and-baked out by dozens of independent companies and hundreds of individuals. This is why the dot-zero versions of Redhat are always quirky and poorly optimized while the dot-two versions generally work well.
If I was going to set up a web server I'd probably use FreeBSD. If I was going to set up a desktop system I'd use Mandrake or Redhat. If I was going to set up a system where security was the most important thing I'd use OpenBSD. The only reason I can think of to run NetBSD is if you've got some oddball hardware that you can't afford to replace with an x86 system.
Lee
The thing that struck me about this article is just how obvious its conclusions should be. The article starts of as if the rational assumption is that your destiny and accomplishments are somehow pre-determined by what some ivy league university thinks of your application. I'm sure the ivy league universities would just love it if everyone believed that, but it is patently false.
I really shouldn't have to be saying this, but the things that lead to sucess are character and hard work. Where one goes to school makes no difference at all. The ivy league schools get a good reputation because they are able to pick and choose applicants who they believe have the character and intelligence to suceed. From there it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Going to Harvard no more gives you character and discipline any more than not going there deprives you of them.
When one looks at history it is evident that most of the great discoveries and accomplishments were achieved by those with mediocre academic records. Einstein was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't get a teaching job. Edison didn't even have a sixth grade education. Both Newton and Maxwell were undistinguished prior to their major discoveries.
Once upon a time people understood that it is character and hard work that lead to greatness, why our culture has forgotten that I just don't know. Nowadays people seem to think that success is some kind of trick, or is achieved though one's image. So people chase after degrees from the ivy league because they think that if other people think that they are great then they will be. Sorry Charlie, the most someone with that approach will achieve is the ability to con everyone including themself. True greatness comes from within and it is not something that can be bought, faked or manufactured.
Lee
I can't comment on other countries because, as an arrogant American, I'm not really all that aware of the existance of nations outside the US, except the ones that are in need of nuking that is.
The US is not a democracy in the truest sense of the word. It is a representational democracy and/or a republic. The structure of our government was crafted to provide a system that while responsible to the people and responsive to its needs and wants, did not respond very quickly.
The reason this is important is because approximately 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. The world is full of idiots. If governmental policy changed with the tides of whatever political or ideological fad was most popular, you'd have nothing but chaos. This problem was recognized by the founding fathers and described as the "fevers of the people." The solution that was created is what some people today like to complain about as "gridlock." Gridlock exists because the system pits "ambition against ambition" in the form of checks and balances. This helps ensure that very little is done very quickly. Before anything can be done, a majority must agree and agree for a significant ammount of time. Therefore gridlock is good. The only time you need swift certain action on the part of the government is in an emergency, which are rare. My favorite aspect of gridlock is that it encourages people to take responsibility for things instead of looking to the government to solve their problems for them. It has also helped the US avoid an awful lot of communist/socialist bullshit that is currently plaguing most of europe and that will have to end if the it ever hopes to be relevant in world affiars again, let alone a become a super-power and a counter-balance to the US in the form of the EU.
Of course there is a flaw in the system, it requires that citizens fulfill their civic duty by being informed about what their government is doing and exerting control over it by voting. Politicians listen to two things, money and votes. Not everyone has the former, but almost everyone has the latter. Of the two it is the most important. Politicians in this country pay very close attention to who does and does not vote. They have statisticians working hard to determine exactly who among their constituents they need to keep happy in order to stay in office. Nowadays the only people who are voting are old people and political idealogues. Joe and Jane Blow sit on their asses at home and let senile people and those with an axe to grind determine the fate of this country, and that is just sick. So the next time you're upset about what the government is doing, ask yourself one question, did I vote?
Lee
"The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears..."
There are people who have similar snide comments to make about freedom of speech too. The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are the foundation of a free society and the only thing that even comes close to guaranteeing its survival. Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Remember that the next time you feel the urge to disarm yourself. The next time you feel the urge to disarm someone else remember that NRA members like me are well armed and not at all averse to fighting a war to protect our freedom. I'd rather die fighting to preserve freedom that live to see it perish.
Lee
It isn't Bush's or any other president's JOB to fix the problem. That job belongs to the american people and specifically to the consumers of public education, the students and their parents.
It really is sad that so many people in this country act as if it is the government's job to solve all their problems for them. What makes you think the government CAN solve the problem? The government is not your mommy and daddy.
If you want your child to have a better education then DO SOMETHING about it yourself. Encourage other parents to do the same thing. Whining about the president is nothing but a piss-poor excuse for your lack of action.
I don't have children yet, but I can guarantee you that IF they go to public school they'll be educated to a 2nd or 3rd grade level before they enter kindergarten. My plan is to home school them if possible because I know that private schools are only marginally better at best. I find the level of education that 12 years of schooling in this country to be extremely pathetic. But then education in this country on all levels is pretty sad. I should know, I work at the 3rd largest university in the country.
Lee
Mexico is not the poorest or the most corrupt nation on earth, but its certainly in the running.
Mexico is in dire need of cultural reform. If its people had a stronger work ethic and a little bit of back-bone the country would be prosperous. The bullshit that is engrained into their culture is what is keeping it in poverty. Bigots will try to tell you that their situation is caused by some sort of racial or genetic inferiority. The truth is that they are blessed with as much innate ability as any other race or ethic group. If they would get their shit together and work to better their situation they would surely suceed. After all, they've noplace to go but up.
Lee
Kevin Mitnick is no hero, except maybe to script kiddies and people who LIKED the movie Hackers (for any reason other than Angelina Jolie that is *schwing*). It is because of people like him that the word 'hacker' is in common mis-use to describe a computer criminal when we all know that 'cracker' is the correct term.
I have zero sympathy for him. He was not wrongfully accused. The things he was convicted of are the things he did. The punishment that was met out was harsher due to his celebrity status, but if he couldn't do the time, he shouldn't have committed the crime.
I'm pleased that he seems to have changed his ways. I'd be even more pleased if he would take some time to chastise those who praise him for his former deeds and remind them that breaking into other people's systems and being destructive is not a glorious pursuit, but done by pathetic losers with an inferiority complex. Anyone can break and destroy. True talent is held by those who can create. Mostly I'm glad that his probation is almost done because I get sickened every time some punk posts "Free Kevin!" crap.
http://www.go-mono.com/
Be my guest....
"There was only one catch, it was build on top of the proprietary java platform. This made it useless for the Free Software community."
There is plenty of java code that has been released under the GPL and BSD licenses. The only way that java would be useless to someone is if they turned their nose up at it. Turning one's nose up at something for non-technical reasons is usually a bad idea.
Lee
One of my favorite maxims is that religion stops a thinking mind. I'm not entirely sure that it is true anymore, but it is good for pissing some people off and making other people laugh.
Nowadays I'm much more convinced that religious zeal fulfills a psychological need in those who don't want to think in the first place. They tune in, turn on, and drop out. This is all done without drugs because for them religion is a drug.
It is commonly known to psychologists that there is a strong correlation between drug abuse and religion. If you look at families that have a history of drug or alcohol abuse you'll find that the ones who don't end up on drugs tend to end up being religious freaks. Some even start out as one and later become the other. For them religion truly is an opiate.
Now I'm not saying the everyone who believes in God or has religious beliefs is a religion junkie. Religion is not inherently evil. I myself believe in God, but don't make any claims to understand what God is. Religion is a human invention and as such relfects human weaknesses and imperfections.
The problems I have with religion are with those who refuse to accept its shortcomings, who want to pretend that their religious beliefs somehow supercede reality itself. This is the classic battle between science and superstition. Religious factions that want to choose superstition are going to lose out in the long run because within a few generations they won't have any more followers, or will become extreme fringe groups. I don't want to see this happen because the only thing worse than religion is its abscence. Nature abhors a vacuum. Just imagine the BS and nonesense that would fill in the place that religion currently holds in areas such as ethics and morals. We've already got enough permeation of political correctness and the ideologies from which it is created without such nonsense becoming the univeral norm.
Lee
I don't call people idiots for having contrary views, I call them idiots when I believe their views are not derived from rational thought and careful consideration. People who merely disagree with me I call fools ;)
Perhaps idiot is the wrong word. I could call them gullible, or sheep, or easily led. I could call them brainwashed or buffaloed too. But since actions speak louder than the thoughts that create them, I think I'll just call them idiots.
Lee
Don't you remember the civil war that became known as the Russian revolution? What about China's invasion of Tibet? The Korean war? Vietnam?
Anyplace you see aggression and conflict at the hands of communists you can pretty much define it as a war in the name of 'no God.' The reason is that communism has no deities, only saints and martyrs.
Lee
The reason why the Democrats are having such a hard time getting their shit together is because there is just so much of it. The Republicans have the same problem of course, but since they, comparatively speaking, are less full of shit than the Democrats, they're typically more successful.
Wouldn't it be nice if politics in America didn't involve so much shit from all sides?
Lee
I'm not sure I follow you. WHAT exactly are they doing that makes them criminals? You say that they are playing with life and the implication is that it is somehow wrong. Isn't playing with life exactly what biologists and medical researchers have been doing all along? I guess you'd rather we do without things like anti-biotics and vaccines, both of which were created/discovered by the process of playing with life that you seem to have a problem with.
Lee
There are few things I know within the core of my being. The idea that cloning etc. is somehow inherently wrong just isn't one of them. For me to believe it is wrong would require some evidence to that effect, or at least a valid argument against it. I'm sorry, but appeals to emotion just don't cut it.
Lee
I've always been of the opinion that cloning, genetic engineering, etc were Good Things. This is technology that can potentially cure genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease in people who already suffer from it as well as prevent it from ever showing up in the first place. Then of course there is cancer. Imagine treatments that would simply repair the sections of our DNA sequence that MUST be damaged in order for any cancer to form. Forget radiation and chemotherapy that are simply attempts to kill the cancer without killing the patient. Fix the anti-cancer genes in the cancer cells and they kill themselves.
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature. Human nature might not be perfect, but I don't trust anyone to try and make it better. This is where genetic engineering gets risky in my opinion, when it gives people with an agenda for who and what mankind should be the tools to warp human beings into their twisted model of human behavior. Just imagine if the looney left or the religious right were to become the keepers of the technology. How many bolsheviks and bible thumpers could they create? There are already enough idiots and brainwashed buffoons in the world without a breeding program to manufacture them.
Anyway I'm glad this is being done by Stanford. Of course you'll hear nothing but screaming from the idiots of the world, but such is the burden of scientific progress. At least nowadays you don't have to worry about the inquisition murdering you for daring to contradict the codified superstition that passes for mankind's understanding of the divine.
Lee
With all of the instant messaging tools available out there, is there any reason to run the messenger service to begin with?
This is why I really don't understand what the big deal is about the messenger spam. Just turn the damned thing off.
The same thing goes for spam from the 3rd world. I don't know anybody in China, Rangoon, Nigeria, so I see no reason to accept e-mail from these places. In fact, I would be willing to make the argument that the best way to prevent spam is to ONLY accept email from networks owned by companies that strictly forbid spam. If everyone were to do this, the market for spam hosted on legitimate servers would essentially dry up. That doesn't solve the problem of crackers breaking into systems and setting up spam-relays, but then that problem will only be solved by the owners of the boxes being competent and taking responsibility for securing and updating their systems. If people were keeping an eye on security holes and being vigilant about closing them off, most of the cracker activity online would cease to exist. Lets just see some "1337 d00d" try and break into a system that has been locked down properly and kept up-to-date.
Lee
Is there ANY reason to accept emails from asia in the first place? I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone in China, or Nigeria for that matter. I've got no qualms about dropping every single email that originates from outside the U.S.
That solution would work just fine for me, but what about people who actually do need to hear from others in 3rd world countries?
A possible solution to this problem that I've often considered is an access control list. Basically you would have two email boxes, an inner one, and an outer one. Everything would show up in your outer box and those emails coming from a known good source would be transferred to your inner box. This way an email from your mom would be passed through because her email address would be in your approved list, but an email from somewhere else would not be unless you added that person's email address to your list.
Most of us aren't getting a ton of legitimate emails from strangers. We use our emails to communicate with people we already know. This is why the access control list method would work. Combine this with a web filter that deletes porn spam, scam spam, and other obvious BS, and even our outer box would be relatively empty.
One thing that occurs to me is why haven't we heard to people launching DDOS attacks on spammers? Crackers are scum, but if they were to hose up a spammer or two I for one would not complain. Why attack amazon or yahoo when you can attack some jackass overseas and actually do the public a service?
Lee
So that is supposed to be some kind of an insult? Being young is not synonymous with being wrong. Anyone who thinks so is likely at the point in their life where dreams have turned to regrets and there are fewer days ahead than behind.
Some people say she looks like a stoner. I think they're right, but shes still awfully cute.
Ellen
Do you realize that scientology sues to harrass? The idea that anyone is violating copyright law where they are concerned is irrelevant. They'll sue you not because they have a case but because they want to make you spend money paying a lawyer. That is the long and short of it. Not to mention the fact that I care about as much about their copyrights as I do about the right of the North Korean government to persecute political dissidents. After all in their legal system these dissidents are classified as criminals, yet I don't think anyone who wasn't some kind of nazi would agree that they should be locked up, tortured, killed, etc.
Sunlight is the best disenfectant, and if shedding light on scientology means stretching the bounds of fair use then so be it. Scientology uses copyright to prevent people from finding out about them, which is not and has never been the intention behind the concept of copyright. If anyone is violating copyright law it is scientology by misusing the law for a purpose that is contrary to the aims and ideals of the people who wrote the law.
I myself am an ex-scientologist and let me tell you those motherfuckers deserve a bullet in the back of the head followed by a shallow grave. If I were president Bush I'd be dropping Daisy cutters on Hemet.
Lee
I'm not a kiss-ass. I'm not about to bend over backwards verbally and in writing to stroke the ego of one Richard M. Stallman.
To me this entire issue is a non-issue.
What suprises me most of all is that anyone even gives him the time of day when it comes to this. I swear if I'm ever in a position where I've published something that lots of people are reading and I start getting "call it gnu/linux" nasty-gram emails I'm going to dump every last one of them in the trash without any response whatsoever. My silence and lack or acknowledgement will speak volumes.
Political correctness is a social disease. We have enough of it in the world already without introducing into computer jargon.
Lee