I too am annoyed by dopeheads while they spout their mid-stupor drivel, but I see it more as a freedom issue. If you want to smoke something that'll make you stupid for 4 hours, you should be able to. I'd prefer a beer anyday.
As for the issue of Toxins, there is nothing that you do that is not bad for you in some way. Breathing exposes you to environmental pollution, eating cooked food exposes you to aeromatic hydrocarbons which are known carcinogens. Eating uncooked food exposes your body to microorganisms.
Smoking dope isn't good for you, but don't give me that "it's too bad for you" line.
LK
maybe it's not that bad
on
Red Hat 6.0
·
· Score: 1
The subject itself is more important than its packaging. People who will truly learn, understand and absorb will realize this. They will search for the sites and groups which can feed their spiritual/intellectual searches, rather than look for eye candy. Those who will get distracted by the flashy banners, hand-fed news and wanton wenches are likely not going to be interested in enlightenment in any case.
You cannot reach them all, and I think the ones that have to work for their enlightenment are the ones that will truly change the world, as well as their own souls. By slogging through the muck, we give ourselves a basis for comparison. A foundation of conviction in our ideals, as we have examined the other possibilities.
A properly setup Linux station is EASIER to maintain and use than a Windows95 station.
The only reason it seems more difficult to you is that it is unfamiliar. It makes sense for you to tell your neighbor "Linux will be difficult for you" because that statement ends implicitly with "...because you are used to Win95." But it doesn't make sense to say "Linux will be difficult for students" because they may not be used to Win95.
I propose we start asking our MS-centric coworkers and friends where they get THEIR support. When they say "Microsoft", we can say "OK, but what if you can't get through, or they don't know or it's too expensive? Maybe you should use Linux, where even the tech support has a multiplicity of options."
I bet this will help a lot of skittish businesses adopt Linux in the short term. And it helps toast all those pesky arguments about how Linux supposedly has no tech support.
Not to mention that all of these companies creating support networks will be hiring...!
Hmm well... not everyone in Debian is on the Apple Mailing lists. In fact I would hazzard to guess that MOST are not.
How many "debian.org" adresses did you see? It should also be mentioned that not everyone in debian uses their Debian.org adress for everything.
Since I am not on the Apple mailing lists myself...I really can't comment further. However...at least on debian mailing lists I have seen a very low instance of what you talk about...flame wars yes...but mindless name calling...well...not till after all the usefull agruing is over
Installing both GCC and EGCS packages
on
egcs to become gcc
·
· Score: 1
Posted by Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon:
I've done this on my Alpha at home (Red Hat Linux 5.2, kernel 2.2.3, glibc 2.0). As far as installation goes, be certain not to use the "-U" switch, and do use "-force" to cause it to over-write duplicates (e.g./usr/bin/gcc).
Of course, you will also have to install the support packages, e.g. libstdc++.
The only thing of which you need to be careful is using the correct libraries with the correct compiler. For example, if you have both EGCS 1.0.3 and EGCS 1.1.2 installed, and you want to use EGCS 1.0.3 instead of the default 1.1.2, you'll need to tell the compiler to use the older library files (with -l and -nostdlibs or something like that).
I've got GCC 2.7.2.3, GCC 2.8.1, EGCS 1.0.3, and EGCS 1.1 on my Alpha. I used to use the older compilers to build kernels or programs that depended on certain compiler/library bugs. I haven't run into a show-stopper yet. If you have any problems setting this up, feel free to send me an email.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
I was sent your piece "Beyond the Holy Circle" (slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/03/28/154238), by a friend. Your suggestion that the "wall-busting net" has enormous and almost certainly unpredictable consequences is a useful and fruitful one. However your effort to construct a philosophy of history, traced back into the Enlightenment, suffers from a lack of historical perspective on the Enlightenment. Your characterization of it as a struggle between rationalist "geeks" and proponents of "orthodoxy," although certainly entertaining and guaranteed to be an effective rabble rouser in certain circles, is largely misleading. To characterize the enlightenment as a manichean struggle between the forces of rationalist science and superstitious orthodoxy is simply to misread the historical record, and to misread it badly. Only Galileo, in the five hundred years between the high middle ages and modernity, fits that paradigm. Much scientific and mathematical progress was made in the Enlightenment by orthodox Christians. Prominent Anglicans, Calvinists, and Jesuits were among the most significant enlightened scientific thinkers. Issac Newton, the very model of enlightened rationality for both Kant and Hume, abandoned his mathematical and scientific studies to concentrate on unpacking the mysteries of the book of Revelation; he was an orthodox Christian. Pascal, whose work in the mathematics that led to the science of the enlightenment is only overshadowed by Newton's, was an orthodox Christian whose theological works are still studied. Leibnitz, with Newton the inventor of calculus, sought to demonstrate the existence of God philosophically. The philosophical tradition flowing from Descartes, widely held to be the father of Enlightened rationality, is rooted in high medieval scholasticism. The rise of Reformed theology was a critical component in the development of the scientific method; indeed it is in puritan England and Reformed Holland that much of the work of the Enlightenment went on. Bacon and Mendel were both orthodox Christians. If you have spent any time reading the enlightened orthodox Christians, e.g. Jonathan Edwards, you would know that they are as concerned for rationality, conceived in an Enlightenment model, as were the enlightened deists and atheists. Further, Hume's philosophical and moral convictions were not drawn from his enlightened epistemology; if drawn from anywhere, it was the classical stoic tradition of ancient Rome and Greece that underlay his anthropology and ethics (as he himself states). While his epistemology, if logically thought out, results in the destruction of any postive rational knowledge at all (Cf. the Essay on Human Understanding) and so of the possibility of any true enlightenment. It was precisely because Kant feared that Hume's critiques would destroy the possiblity of rational knowledge that he wrote the "Critique of Pure Reason." And with the collapse of the claim that Euclidean geometry represented the necessary modalities of human mathematical reasoning, Kant's effort fell as well. The stoic moral position has a long and noble history. And it has much to commend it. But it was not created by the Enlightement. And although there were noble Enlightenment stoics, e.g. Gibbon, Hume, there were others, e.g. Rousseau or Berkeley who adopted very unstoic positions, Rousseau who developed a modern notion of false consciousness and Berkeley who developed an Enlightenment epistemology very like Hume's to validate an orthodox Christian posture. How the invention of the pc and the growth of the web will transform the human condition remains to be seen. It seems clear that we are only beginning to grasp some of the parameters of those changes. But to seek to validate those changes by false and misleading appropriations of the western tradition cannnot help us understand the changes; it can only make it more difficult for us to understand what is really going on.
Sincerely, George Kuykendall
George Kuykendall Industri-Matematik International Suite 201, 5 Greentree Center Marlton, NJ 08053 Ph. (609) 797-3382 Fax (609) 797-6660
Jon talks about "Shauna," and "her life, much of which is spent online." A life spent online is not a real life, but a just a facade of a life. What does this mean? Someone can only truly interact with a physical presence? What about invalids or shut ins, people with disfiguring diseases, or people who are otherwise socially unnacceptable? These people now have a means to communicate on a truly level playing field.
Well, just go to any American ghetto and ask how "liberated" the internet has made them I have, I've actually worked at clients where they were building online internet communities for public housing. Cable companies have provided cable modem access for these people at $10 per month(I only wish I had that)and volunteers maintain the online communities. Mr. Katz is slowly beginning to believe that he is a modern day Kant or Hume. He may think that, but no one who has studied Kant, Hume and Berkely would think so. He's just a commentator, not a philosopher. Drop the cynicism.
``AOL employs the core Mozilla development team, and hence calls the shots by virtue of writing the checks. They can reorient the team to puruse AOL goals (IRC) even when the "open developers" disagree. Its sheer number folks. And the numbers are following the dollars.''
Hi, there. I've been looking around for a bit, and I can't find a single ``open developer'' -- defined as someone who has contributed a single line of code or more -- who objected to the chat-in-mozilla stuff. Can you point me to one?
I think I know why I'm having trouble, though: those who actually contribute know enough about the architecture of mozilla to realize that this is an optional component that you can add or remove as desired, like mail/news.
Actually, I think that anyone who cared to click the link could figure that out as well, since it's clearly mentioned that it will always be possible to build the client without any chat support at all.
Slowly but surely, the nomenclature's changing
on
"Hackers" are Dumb
·
· Score: 1
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Sure, the mainstream media will continue to use and misuse the term "hacker," but personally, I think the whole open source/Linux wave is changing that. I have the privilege of covering both the open source movement and computer security issues. When I see a bunch of brilliant Linux coders calling themselves hackers, it makes me review just what a hacker is, and how I might differentiate them from a) "good" computer security hackers, and b) crackers.
Over the past year, I think the use of these terms has improved, while at the same time, I think the more enlightened press people have been able to communicate these basic ideas to their readers -- and that's the tough part. Thanks to WarGames, you've got a general public that sees the word "hacker" and automatically thinks of a pimply-faced anti-social pubescent malcontent breaking into NORAD.
If the open source-ers keep it up for a few more years, that pesky nomenclature might just change once and for all. But it won't happen overnight.
Canadian Version of 'By US Code Title 47, Sec.227'
on
ISP Sues Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Posted by bwalter:
No, don't charge people. Bottom line: rub it out. Make it illegal. It's illegal to approach someone's home and pester them if they've got a 'No Solicitor's' sign out front in a few US States, so why can't spam be counted in that?
You can set up special rules you want; in the end the spam still uses the bandwidth. Think of your email, and what percentage of it is spam.
Put an end to it. Kill it. There's no middle ground for this kind of personal affront.
I agree with Rob in that folks should be free to send clearly labeled spam. However, I also think that spammers should foot the bill for sending it instead of the ISP. With tracking software what it is today, it would be really easy for ISPs to charge spammers, who might be less likely to use this tactic if they had to pay for it.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGH!
on
Can Linux Do it?
·
· Score: 0
DON'T legalize labelled spam. It isn't just mailboxes filling up that's the problem. You apparently have a dim idea that this is the case since you made that sendmail comment, but the spam would still be running over the network.
Have you ever tried to control a command line interface by speech recognition? It's not easy, and it's very slow as command lines are optimised for minimum keystrokes and are generally totally unpronouncible. GUIs on the other hand can be controlled nearly as fast by speech as with a mouse if the speech recognition system can be made aware of the names of the menus, buttons, tabs and other controls available on the screen. Dragon Dictate managed to find these and add them to the vocabulary dynamically so you could click on items by just saying their name. Where this failed (ActiveX changed the interface) accelerator keys could be used.
My point is that it is not impossible to do, it just needs some thought and standard interfaces. I used to be unable to type due to RSI, but I found Windows significantly quicker and easier to operate by speech than any command line (and faster than the traditional mouse/keyboard approach for some tasks).
Aren't we being a bit pessimistic here? To relate to earlier posts: I am a programmer, I don't do drugs, I don't have a girlfriend, I have no trouble in interacting with people. But: I don't consider drug users to be morons/losers/whatever, it's your choice, goddammit! If you want to make that choice, do so, I am happy with my after work-beer, and if you are unhappy about your decision, choose again - life doesn't stop just because you do something wrong.
-I quite firmly believe so... Of course, as for me, I may not be entirely sane - but who is? And I don't do drugs. I don't see why I should, because I'm a programmer? Nah, don't think so.
>anyone who says you can't code while stoned >obviously doesn't smoke enough buds!
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by gmesser57:
Follow the link to the counter rant, from there the link to the Stephenson essay works.
Or....
http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
I too am annoyed by dopeheads while they spout their mid-stupor drivel, but I see it more as a freedom issue. If you want to smoke something that'll make you stupid for 4 hours, you should be able to. I'd prefer a beer anyday.
As for the issue of Toxins, there is nothing that you do that is not bad for you in some way. Breathing exposes you to environmental pollution, eating cooked food exposes you to aeromatic hydrocarbons which are known carcinogens. Eating uncooked food exposes your body to microorganisms.
Smoking dope isn't good for you, but don't give me that "it's too bad for you" line.
LK
Posted by OGL:
KDE and GNOME work fine together...
check out http://www.rit.edu/~waw0573/
-W.W.
Posted by Siozie:
The subject itself is more important than its packaging. People who will truly learn, understand and absorb will realize this. They will search for the sites and groups which can feed their spiritual/intellectual searches, rather than look for eye candy. Those who will get distracted by the flashy banners, hand-fed news and wanton wenches are likely not going to be interested in enlightenment in any case.
You cannot reach them all, and I think the ones that have to work for their enlightenment are the ones that will truly change the world, as well as their own souls. By slogging through the muck, we give ourselves a basis for comparison. A foundation of conviction in our ideals, as we have examined the other possibilities.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
A properly setup Linux station is EASIER to maintain and use than a Windows95 station.
The only reason it seems more difficult to you is that it is unfamiliar. It makes sense for you to tell your neighbor "Linux will be difficult for you" because that statement ends implicitly with "...because you are used to Win95." But it doesn't make sense to say "Linux will be difficult for students" because they may not be used to Win95.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
...or someone will ask you how long it takes to get a working web browser when you start with a working web browser.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I propose we start asking our MS-centric coworkers and friends where they get THEIR support. When they say "Microsoft", we can say "OK, but what if you can't get through, or they don't know or it's too expensive? Maybe you should use Linux, where even the tech support has a multiplicity of options."
Posted by Jim Fromm:
I would say it isn't even parallel processing.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
I bet this will help a lot of skittish businesses adopt Linux in the short term. And it helps toast all those pesky arguments about how Linux supposedly has no tech support.
Not to mention that all of these companies creating support networks will be hiring...!
Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:
Hmm well...
not everyone in Debian is on the Apple Mailing
lists. In fact I would hazzard to guess that MOST
are not.
How many "debian.org" adresses did you see?
It should also be mentioned that not everyone
in debian uses their Debian.org adress for
everything.
Since I am not on the Apple mailing lists
myself...I really can't comment further.
However...at least on debian mailing lists
I have seen a very low instance of what you
talk about...flame wars yes...but
mindless name calling...well...not till after
all the usefull agruing is over
I've done this on my Alpha at home (Red Hat Linux 5.2, kernel 2.2.3, glibc 2.0). As far as installation goes, be certain not to use the "-U" switch, and do use "-force" to cause it to over-write duplicates (e.g. /usr/bin/gcc).
Of course, you will also have to install the support packages, e.g. libstdc++.
The only thing of which you need to be careful is using the correct libraries with the correct compiler. For example, if you have both EGCS 1.0.3 and EGCS 1.1.2 installed, and you want to use EGCS 1.0.3 instead of the default 1.1.2, you'll need to tell the compiler to use the older library files (with -l and -nostdlibs or something like that).
I've got GCC 2.7.2.3, GCC 2.8.1, EGCS 1.0.3, and EGCS 1.1 on my Alpha. I used to use the older compilers to build kernels or programs that depended on certain compiler/library bugs. I haven't run into a show-stopper yet. If you have any problems setting this up, feel free to send me an email.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
Posted by george_k:
Hi.
I was sent your piece "Beyond the Holy Circle" (slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/03/28/154238), by a friend. Your suggestion that the "wall-busting net" has enormous and almost certainly unpredictable consequences is a useful and fruitful one.
However your effort to construct a philosophy of history, traced back into the Enlightenment, suffers from a lack of historical perspective on the Enlightenment. Your characterization of it as a struggle between rationalist "geeks" and proponents of "orthodoxy," although certainly entertaining and guaranteed to be an effective rabble rouser in certain circles, is largely misleading. To characterize the enlightenment as a manichean struggle between the forces of rationalist science and superstitious orthodoxy is simply to misread the historical record, and to misread it badly. Only Galileo, in the five hundred years between the high middle ages and modernity, fits that paradigm. Much scientific and mathematical progress was made in the Enlightenment by orthodox Christians. Prominent Anglicans, Calvinists, and Jesuits were among the most significant enlightened scientific thinkers. Issac Newton, the very model of enlightened rationality for both Kant and Hume, abandoned his mathematical and scientific studies to concentrate on unpacking the mysteries of the book of Revelation; he was an orthodox Christian. Pascal, whose work in the mathematics that led to the science of the enlightenment is only overshadowed by Newton's, was an orthodox Christian whose theological works are still studied. Leibnitz, with Newton the inventor of calculus, sought to demonstrate the existence of God philosophically. The philosophical tradition flowing from Descartes, widely held to be the father of Enlightened rationality, is rooted in high medieval scholasticism. The rise of Reformed theology was a critical component in the development of the scientific method; indeed it is in puritan England and Reformed Holland that much of the work of the Enlightenment went on. Bacon and Mendel were both orthodox Christians. If you have spent any time reading the enlightened orthodox Christians, e.g. Jonathan Edwards, you would know that they are as concerned for rationality, conceived in an Enlightenment model, as were the enlightened deists and atheists.
Further, Hume's philosophical and moral convictions were not drawn from his enlightened epistemology; if drawn from anywhere, it was the classical stoic tradition of ancient Rome and Greece that underlay his anthropology and ethics (as he himself states). While his epistemology, if logically thought out, results in the destruction of any postive rational knowledge at all (Cf. the Essay on Human Understanding) and so of the possibility of any true enlightenment. It was precisely because Kant feared that Hume's critiques would destroy the possiblity of rational knowledge that he wrote the "Critique of Pure Reason." And with the collapse of the claim that Euclidean geometry represented the necessary modalities of human mathematical reasoning, Kant's effort fell as well.
The stoic moral position has a long and noble history. And it has much to commend it. But it was not created by the Enlightement. And although there were noble Enlightenment stoics, e.g. Gibbon, Hume, there were others, e.g. Rousseau or Berkeley who adopted very unstoic positions, Rousseau who developed a modern notion of false consciousness and Berkeley who developed an Enlightenment epistemology very like Hume's to validate an orthodox Christian posture.
How the invention of the pc and the growth of the web will transform the human condition remains to be seen. It seems clear that we are only beginning to grasp some of the parameters of those changes. But to seek to validate those changes by false and misleading appropriations of the western tradition cannnot help us understand the changes; it can only make it more difficult for us to understand what is really going on.
Sincerely,
George Kuykendall
George Kuykendall
Industri-Matematik International
Suite 201, 5 Greentree Center
Marlton, NJ 08053
Ph. (609) 797-3382
Fax (609) 797-6660
Jon talks about "Shauna," and "her life, much of which is spent online." A life spent online is not a real life, but a just a facade of a life.
What does this mean? Someone can only truly interact with a physical presence? What about invalids or shut ins, people with disfiguring diseases, or people who are otherwise socially unnacceptable? These people now have a means to communicate on a truly level playing field.
Well, just go to any American ghetto and ask how "liberated" the internet has made them
I have, I've actually worked at clients where they were building online internet communities for public housing. Cable companies have provided cable modem access for these people at $10 per month(I only wish I had that)and volunteers maintain the online communities.
Mr. Katz is slowly beginning to believe that he is a modern day Kant or Hume.
He may think that, but no one who has studied Kant, Hume and Berkely would think so. He's just a commentator, not a philosopher. Drop the cynicism.
``AOL employs the core Mozilla development team, and hence calls the shots by virtue of writing the checks. They can reorient the team to puruse AOL goals (IRC) even when the "open developers" disagree. Its sheer number folks. And the numbers are following the dollars.''
Hi, there. I've been looking around for a bit, and I can't find a single ``open developer'' -- defined as someone who has contributed a single line of code or more -- who objected to the chat-in-mozilla stuff. Can you point me to one?
I think I know why I'm having trouble, though: those who actually contribute know enough about the architecture of mozilla to realize that this is an optional component that you can add or remove as desired, like mail/news.
Actually, I think that anyone who cared to click the link could figure that out as well, since it's clearly mentioned that it will always be possible to build the client without any chat support at all.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Sure, the mainstream media will continue to use and misuse the term "hacker," but personally, I think the whole open source/Linux wave is changing that. I have the privilege of covering both the open source movement and computer security issues. When I see a bunch of brilliant Linux coders calling themselves hackers, it makes me review just what a hacker is, and how I might differentiate them from a) "good" computer security hackers, and b) crackers.
Over the past year, I think the use of these terms has improved, while at the same time, I think the more enlightened press people have been able to communicate these basic ideas to their readers -- and that's the tough part. Thanks to WarGames, you've got a general public that sees the word "hacker" and automatically thinks of a pimply-faced anti-social pubescent malcontent breaking into NORAD.
If the open source-ers keep it up for a few more years, that pesky nomenclature might just change once and for all. But it won't happen overnight.
Posted by bwalter:
No, don't charge people. Bottom line: rub it out. Make it illegal. It's illegal to approach someone's home and pester them if they've got a 'No Solicitor's' sign out front in a few US States, so why can't spam be counted in that?
You can set up special rules you want; in the end the spam still uses the bandwidth. Think of your email, and what percentage of it is spam.
Put an end to it. Kill it. There's no middle ground for this kind of personal affront.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
I agree with Rob in that folks should be free to send clearly labeled spam. However, I also think that spammers should foot the bill for sending it instead of the ISP. With tracking software what it is today, it would be really easy for ISPs to charge spammers, who might be less likely to use this tactic if they had to pay for it.
Posted by NJViking:
Put de chicken in de pot!
Bjork! Bjork! Bjork!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
DON'T legalize labelled spam. It isn't just mailboxes filling up that's the problem. You apparently have a dim idea that this is the case since you made that sendmail comment, but the spam would still be running over the network.
STOP spam!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
..."release early and often"?
It isn't enough to make the source available. You have to make it usable in stages.
That is, Milestones should be points of increased functionality for stable portions, not points of increased stability for all portions.
Posted by Macaw25:
1. Go to web site that sells the software I am to buy.
2. Purcahse software.
3. Download software.
4. Install software.
Easy.
Posted by Andrew Swaine:
Have you ever tried to control a command line interface by speech recognition? It's not easy, and it's very slow as command lines are optimised for minimum keystrokes and are generally totally unpronouncible. GUIs on the other hand can be controlled nearly as fast by speech as with a mouse if the speech recognition system can be made aware of the names of the menus, buttons, tabs and other controls available on the screen. Dragon Dictate managed to find these and add them to the vocabulary dynamically so you could click on items by just saying their name. Where this failed (ActiveX changed the interface) accelerator keys could be used.
My point is that it is not impossible to do, it just needs some thought and standard interfaces.
I used to be unable to type due to RSI, but I found Windows significantly quicker and easier to operate by speech than any command line (and faster than the traditional mouse/keyboard approach for some tasks).
Posted by ParaMetalHead:
Aren't we being a bit pessimistic here? To relate to earlier posts: I am a programmer, I don't do drugs, I don't have a girlfriend, I have no trouble in interacting with people. But: I don't consider drug users to be morons/losers/whatever, it's your choice, goddammit! If you want to make that choice, do so, I am happy with my after work-beer, and if you are unhappy about your decision, choose again - life doesn't stop just because you do something wrong.
Posted by ParaMetalHead:
Goddamn true! Especially when riding the roads on a motorcycle - that makes you feel _alive_!
Posted by ParaMetalHead:
>are there ANY sane coders who DON'T smoke weed?
-I quite firmly believe so... Of course, as for me, I may not be entirely sane - but who is? And I don't do drugs. I don't see why I should, because I'm a programmer? Nah, don't think so.
>anyone who says you can't code while stoned >obviously doesn't smoke enough buds!
I guess I don't...