I am not an apologist for Slashdot censorship, out of band editorial moderation, "bitchslapping" by editorial staff, et all. Because/. editors don't need public defense, they OWN the fucking site! You don't like it, go troll somewhere else. Your little perl script amounts to a denial of service attack and as such is ILLEGAL. You don't have the right to shut down a popular web forum simply because you don't agree with decisions made by the editorial board. If you don't like it, go download slashcode or scoop and start your own fucking site. Script kiddies like you maybe ought to see the inside of a jail once or twice to straighten out your sense of proportion when it comes to injustice.
I really miss technocrat.net. I know you suggested kuro5hin, and it's a fine site. But I miss the home-sy mix of a small userbase of dedicated professionals that used to hang out there. S/N was gold on that site.
Hey, not to spoil the fun for those who might actually want to pay for a fixed disk and network card in order to install linux on their PS2's. If that's what you want, by all means let Sony know. But not me.
I bought my PS2 to get away from Linux. I love the fact that I can stick a CD in and play a game, without fuss or trouble. Even my techology challenged sister can use the damn thing. Sure, linux on the PS2 has great hack value and could be plenty of fun... but so is 68K/Sparc/PPC/Alpha/x86 (etc etc etc) linux. It just doesn't seem worth the trouble from my perspective. And what are you going to play, Tux Racer? That is, if someone ports hardware accelerated Mesa to the PS2 (which would be a cool project for those who actually want this kit). Me, I'll stick with Gran Turismo, which happens to be an amazing game.:-)
"
What's more, as a rising number of copyright owners and software developers turn to licensing models, librarians worry that they'll be forced to pay perpetual rent on a product or lose the work--a possibility that could endanger the important archival role of their institutions."
I can't imagine a better quote which describes how the very foundations of our civil society are under threat by huge media corporations in collusion with government (all three branches, both political parties) to undermine the factual basis of archival history. Of course, that's the eventual outcome -- not the presumed intent. So, from their perspective they can present a "rational" business and economic ethic showing short term gain, and "potential" long term loss if we don't "protect" their intellectual property from these library "thieves." What was Winston Smith's job again?
In the process, the scientific and academic communities (along with the poor) lose access to source materials, lose basic free speech "fair use" rights, and we all wind up forced to pay again and again for the most basic information one needs to be an informed citizen; in perpetuity. I can't imagine anything more destructive to the fundamentals of democracy than destroying libraries for the sake of publishers profits. A great deal for the plutocracy, a rotten deal for us rabble citizens.
Write your congressman, write the President, MAKE A STINK!
"
What is well understood is that computer models that are predicting the changes are woefully inadaquate."
You would have to be deeply involved in the climate science community to be able to back that assertion up justifiably. Or you have an interesting reference. The issue is not whether the computer models show error, but whether the error is significant enough to effect the outcome. I would like to see a link. Since I've read convincing proof of climate change, I consider this in the realm of "extraordinary claims", which require "extraordinary proof".
Ironic that I'm using a skeptics argument here, huh?
Tin foil hats? Friendly global corporations? UN as a socialist/Anti-capitalist organization promoting actors as scientists? Well, glad to see that you've set the record straight. Yup, go home now -- nothing more to see. --M
Also, who is to say that global warming isn't going to save the human race from the next ice age?
Who is to say that those pigs soaring through the air and those monkeys flying out of your butt don't use anti-gravity propulsion, but in fact rely upon the well known Bernoulli effect?
Climate fluctuation over geologic time scales is much larger than the change we're seeing over the last 50-100 years; true. What you fail to mention is that change over geologic time scales vs. change over 50-100 years is a meaningless comparison -- as in apples to oranges.
Extinction can be thought of as the effect from environmental change so radical and rapid that organisms previously well adapted in said environment become unable to reproduce and thus, instead of benefiting from selection pressure to evolve into the new environment, simply all die as a result. Vast numbers of species are going extinct the world over, which suggests radical environmental change at a very rapid pace. The change is permanent -- extinct creatures and the environment they create will never return. We are walking off a precipice without any safety ropes. From Rainforest clearcutting, Coral reef bleaching the world over (along with massive overfishing), and global climate change from industrial and energy production. I strongly doubt that we'll be able to survive without these basic habitats to maintain our food supply. JMO.
This is real and serious. Not only has the UN and the vast majority of climate scientists agreed that Global warming and climate change is upon us, but even the Bush Administration has been forced to face these facts. Please read the US National Assessment of the potential consequences of human generated climate change. This is the report the Bush administration commissioned to assess the validity of the UN report on climate change which concluded ten years ago that it is happening and that it represents a serious threat to not only the survival of our civilization, but earth's very biodiversity is under threat by mass extinction.
The business community would like us to put our heads in the sand and forget about all these pesky problems steamrolling our way. But the consequences of inaction could be devastating for life across the planet, and our species survival. To continue to trivialize the debate by turning the issue into one of belief instead of verifiable facts simply accepts the common US big media propaganda and spin. This is not a debate of the number of angels on the head of a pin, it's a scientific debate whereby the vast majority of academic scientists the world over have accepted a common view that global climate change is real and could be devastating to life on earth. Please also see: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development documents on the issue as well.
It's well known that the Bush administration replaced the entire team of lead attorneys at the justice department with junior lawyers who had never tried a significant anti-trust case. So, while the Justice Department didn't drop the case at executive request, they did manage to replace all competent staff associated with the original investigation with complete incompetents. That's how one kills an investigation behind the scenes. --M
I hope you aren't providing an ISO image of the CD shipped by the OpenBSD project as Theo retains that image under copyright and doesn't allow re-distribution. At least he didn't used to. However, if you've downloaded the tar files and created your own ISO image, it's probably perfectly legal.
Theo runs the OpenBSD project on a real shoestring and could use as many CD sales as he can get.
Florida State Presidential Election Rigging by Bush Jr. And Sr. through common CIA and Intelligence community tricks. Note the close similarity to of events to Coup d'etat, a HOWTO book written from the perspective of the American Intelligence community. I note that Bush Sr.was the former Director of Intelligence during the Carter administration, and has detailed experience with overthrowing many governments while managing the CIA. --Maynard
So, do we dismantle representative democracy then?
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 2
You make three broad claims -- complete generalizations -- without any factual basis to back these up. You argue that government -- by it's inherent nature -- makes bad laws. You argue that local jurisdictions allow an escape route for refugees. And you argue -- on ideological grounds alone -- that the larger the jurisdiction the "the stupider the actions of government become."
But you don't argue exactly with what we should replace government. I certainly won't claims nationalistic pride in the behavior of US policymakers (especially our foreign policy), but I'll gladly argue that many of our federal programs have done substantial good throughout the society. For example, the FDA has been tasked with providing a safe food source, and for the most part has done a good job. Medicare gave my father (while he was dying) access to necessary health services -- for him and the many millions of other elderly what do you recommend as the alternative?
For some good examples of government power imploding and leaving a vacuum see Somalia, Russia, Georgia... gangsterism institutionalized. While I don't argue that elected government is without corruption, I do argue that it's the only leverage citizens have against total domination by the wealthy and powerful.
Here's an interesting Chompsky quote: "Costs and risks are socialized, and the profit is privatized. That's called capitalism" When you see the HMO, Nuclear power, RIAA and MPAA industries lobbying congress for legal indemnification from lawsuits or other such perks that's exactly what this quote refers.
I don't consider that bias, I consider that the only acceptable form of government for a world elected body. As I've written elsewhere in this thread I think citizens should demand these things, and it should be driven by citizen needs. Not multinational corporations, not nationalist governments, not political parties -- citizens.
JMO.
--Maynard
Democracy is what *citizens* should demand
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 1
The world's leaders can go screw. I'm arguing that democratically elected government is by definition a more open and transparent system of regulation that what is currently in place at the WTO. What the world's leaders are creating -- right now -- is certainly NOT democratic or in the best interests of citizens. My "utopian dream" (as you so eloquently put it) amounts to a straight up democratic republic to set open market rules for the world. By your line of logic knitting together the United States would have been a utopian fantasy of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington -- yet they succeeded in founding the United States of America.
It's not only possible, it's necessary. We will all regret the outcome of futher corporate consolidation of power at the expense of elected government.
Do the world's nations then continue ceding soverign authority to private organizations like the WTO to form treaties like MAI without any public review? Is this a better solution to these problems than elected transparent government? I understand that a world elected body would be subject to all the problems of lobbying, abuse, and corruption which exist in any other congress or parliment, but it seems much better than just giving up and handing world policymaking over to unelected and undemocratic private institutions which meet and act in secret. --M
Though I would probably support a world capital gains and corporate income tax. --M
Re:If democratic and elected, not so sad after all
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 2
Your argument is that we should have a world government regulating things in order to protect our freedom? Absurd.
You bet. I trust elected bodies (about as far as I can throw the usual fat-ass legislators) far more than I trust private corporations. Frankly, companies meet in secret; keep their books secret; act with complete disregard to local communities, citizens, and even their employees; and they're completely immune to prosecution beyond levying fines.
Why I should "trust" a multinational corporation with an income greater than more third world nations yet distrust elected government because it's "inherently evil" is an equation I simply don't understand. Because they have the guns? You don't like it when a government owns guns (but it's OK for a orporation to have a private "security force")... well then, why not write to your congresscritter and ask him/her to disarm our military?
So yes, I consider elected government a more "free" institution than private corporations simply because as a citizen I have at least a say in how policy is enacted and enforced.
--Maynard
So limit a world congress authority to commerce.
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 1
Notice that nowhere did I state that the world body should have a sovereign right to enact laws beyond regulating commerce. You presuppose that a world elected body would have total authority to write any and every type of law -- our problem is not enforcing murder laws in every nation, but creating a standard for commerce in an open and transparent manner. Without some democratic elected body responsible for creating these regulations no citizen in the world should trust the regulatory body which currently possesses this power. I certainly don't.
--Maynard
If democratic and elected, not so sad after all.
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 4
The world of the future will have international laws that override local ones, international courts to interpret the law, international economic unions to do "what is best for the world" (instead of for a person's native country), international military forces (the UN's working on this), an international police force (i.e., the United States), and a council of probably-unelected international leaders who are concerned about "the greater good."
What gets lost? Individual rights and community rights. Americans will no longer be able to act as Americans, because of how it might affect a Korean, a Swede, a South African or a New Zealander.
I disagree completely. I'm not frightened by the prospect of a world unified government -- in fact I think we desperately NEED one. Global corporations are using jurisdictional differences between nations to avoid child labor and anti-slavery laws. They're misusing tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Through the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, MAI the goal is to reduce the power of elected government to a minimum while increasing the power of corporate control over public life. I think we need a world government in place to check the power of multinationals, and to set level playing field in the marketplace. Unfortunately, one can't have a consistent set of rules in a marketplace a government to oversee and regulate the market. It's clear to me that completely deregulated world markets will lead to global monopolies unlike anything we've seen yet, and this will lead to a catastrophe for the citizens of the world -- never mind democracy as an institution.
So, to me the issue is not should we implement a world government, but HOW? As far as I'm concerned it must be democratically elected, is must fairly represent all of the nations' interests throughout the world, and it should restrict itself to matters of commerce. Currently the WTO is an unelected body which holds the contents of it's meetings in secret. If the world business community continues to control international regulation through secret organizations like the WTO it doesn't matter one bit that you may have elected your officials to power; their ability to write laws in accordance with your (and citzen's wishes) will be circumvented by these unelected bodies for the purpose of "free trade" making local and national government moot.
That's the potential future I fear.
--Maynard
Your use of "Liberal Myth" is a generalization
on
OSX/Win2K Deathmatch
·
· Score: 2
"Global generalizations are a rediculous liberal myth. It is pointless for one to try to weigh the merits of a single OS against another without taking into account the types of applications with which the user will be working."
Can you point to me a single example of "global generalizations" being a "rediculous (sp) liberal myth"? Where did this myth arise, and how is it any different from common myths of any other ideology? How does the presumption that debating various features of various computer operating systems relate to comparisons of political ideology?
You may be sick of the pointless pissing contests over the "best" operating system platform between various factions of computer users and professionals; me, I'm sick of the civics-uninformed painting generalizations of political ideology like "liberalism" (or communism for that matter) across sectors of the public sphere where it bears no relation. The two are unrelated. And since your point about "liberalism" is itself a gross generalization, this would appear to negate your position on the pointlessness of these debates... you just brought up the ridiculousness of OS debates only to fan the flames of an even more ridiculous political ideology debate. So, what's your point?????
When the PS2 Linux developers kit comes out in America I'll seriously consider buying it. Hope it's compatible with whatever Disk/Networking expansion kits come out for the PS2. I'm quite impressed by this little box; I've wasted an uncountable number of hours playing Ring of Red, Star Wars Starfighter, SSX, Ridge Racer V, and just lately Red Faction. It's funny, I bought the damn thing to get away from Linux because I wanted a game machine which would work straight out of the box, no fussing. Now I'd like to get Linux up and running on the damn thing just for shits and giggles.
I doubt either the PS2 or the X-Box will make much headway as an internet appliance. At least not until HDTV becomes the norm -- NTSC/PAL TV resolution is just too poor to support web browsing.
Wow, I can't believe the pro MS propaganda which filled both the last Katz post and this. The fact that this post got modded up to a five above all others, along with nearly every other pro MS post, only goes to show that the moderation system is being badly mis-used by those with an (obvious) agenda.
You misrepresent the meaning of "Free" with respect to the difference between Mozilla and Internet Explorer. Mozilla is not only "free" as in gratis, it's also free as in "Free Speech"; source included. One can't say that for IE. Mozilla will *always* be free in this respect; IE is remains gratis at the whim of MS.
But you knew this, and you knew these were the responses you'd get. It doesn't matter, though -- it's still effective propaganda. One of the primary tennents of effective misrepresentation of facts is that if you repeat it enough, the general population will -- over time -- come to accept the blatently false as true. And here you are -- telling us that black is white, freedom is slavery, and IE is free.
MS is going to win; Katz is right. Those involved with the Free Software movement might be well advised to begin planning a move to a country which supports their free speech rights -- like The Netherlands. If MS can buy their way out of this then they can buy any damn legislation they want, just like the RIAA and MPAA. Welcome to hell.
And I quote, "Then one day he happened along the Microsoft Product Updates website. Hmm, he thought, here's an "important" security patch for Office. After reading the release notes for the patch, he realized that this security patch was a good thing."
Clearly you didn't read his post but instead replied with a snide and insulting knee jerk retort; completely baseless as well. Astonishing that you got modded up as an Anonymous Coward five times with such a rude comment. Equally surprising given that you clearly intended to insult the previous poster rather than presenting some rational argument in debate. Sometimes I don't know what to make of the/. reading and posting community any longer.... (community, isn't "community" akin to communism like the GPL??? ugh...):(
Slashdot Mirror
I am not an apologist for Slashdot censorship, out of band editorial moderation, "bitchslapping" by editorial staff, et all. Because /. editors don't need public defense, they OWN the fucking site! You don't like it, go troll somewhere else. Your little perl script amounts to a denial of service attack and as such is ILLEGAL. You don't have the right to shut down a popular web forum simply because you don't agree with decisions made by the editorial board. If you don't like it, go download slashcode or scoop and start your own fucking site. Script kiddies like you maybe ought to see the inside of a jail once or twice to straighten out your sense of proportion when it comes to injustice.
--Maynard
And you know what? Your opinion doesn't make a damn bit of difference. --M
Bruce,
I really miss technocrat.net. I know you suggested kuro5hin, and it's a fine site. But I miss the home-sy mix of a small userbase of dedicated professionals that used to hang out there. S/N was gold on that site.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Hey, not to spoil the fun for those who might actually want to pay for a fixed disk and network card in order to install linux on their PS2's. If that's what you want, by all means let Sony know. But not me.
:-)
I bought my PS2 to get away from Linux. I love the fact that I can stick a CD in and play a game, without fuss or trouble. Even my techology challenged sister can use the damn thing. Sure, linux on the PS2 has great hack value and could be plenty of fun... but so is 68K/Sparc/PPC/Alpha/x86 (etc etc etc) linux. It just doesn't seem worth the trouble from my perspective. And what are you going to play, Tux Racer? That is, if someone ports hardware accelerated Mesa to the PS2 (which would be a cool project for those who actually want this kit). Me, I'll stick with Gran Turismo, which happens to be an amazing game.
Cheers,--Maynard
In the process, the scientific and academic communities (along with the poor) lose access to source materials, lose basic free speech "fair use" rights, and we all wind up forced to pay again and again for the most basic information one needs to be an informed citizen; in perpetuity. I can't imagine anything more destructive to the fundamentals of democracy than destroying libraries for the sake of publishers profits. A great deal for the plutocracy, a rotten deal for us rabble citizens.
Write your congressman, write the President, MAKE A STINK!
--Maynard
Ironic that I'm using a skeptics argument here, huh?
--Maynard
Tin foil hats? Friendly global corporations? UN as a socialist/Anti-capitalist organization promoting actors as scientists? Well, glad to see that you've set the record straight. Yup, go home now -- nothing more to see. --M
Climate fluctuation over geologic time scales is much larger than the change we're seeing over the last 50-100 years; true. What you fail to mention is that change over geologic time scales vs. change over 50-100 years is a meaningless comparison -- as in apples to oranges.
Extinction can be thought of as the effect from environmental change so radical and rapid that organisms previously well adapted in said environment become unable to reproduce and thus, instead of benefiting from selection pressure to evolve into the new environment, simply all die as a result. Vast numbers of species are going extinct the world over, which suggests radical environmental change at a very rapid pace. The change is permanent -- extinct creatures and the environment they create will never return. We are walking off a precipice without any safety ropes. From Rainforest clearcutting, Coral reef bleaching the world over (along with massive overfishing), and global climate change from industrial and energy production. I strongly doubt that we'll be able to survive without these basic habitats to maintain our food supply. JMO.
--Maynard
The business community would like us to put our heads in the sand and forget about all these pesky problems steamrolling our way. But the consequences of inaction could be devastating for life across the planet, and our species survival. To continue to trivialize the debate by turning the issue into one of belief instead of verifiable facts simply accepts the common US big media propaganda and spin. This is not a debate of the number of angels on the head of a pin, it's a scientific debate whereby the vast majority of academic scientists the world over have accepted a common view that global climate change is real and could be devastating to life on earth. Please also see: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development documents on the issue as well.
--Maynard
It's well known that the Bush administration replaced the entire team of lead attorneys at the justice department with junior lawyers who had never tried a significant anti-trust case. So, while the Justice Department didn't drop the case at executive request, they did manage to replace all competent staff associated with the original investigation with complete incompetents. That's how one kills an investigation behind the scenes. --M
I hope you aren't providing an ISO image of the CD shipped by the OpenBSD project as Theo retains that image under copyright and doesn't allow re-distribution. At least he didn't used to. However, if you've downloaded the tar files and created your own ISO image, it's probably perfectly legal.
Theo runs the OpenBSD project on a real shoestring and could use as many CD sales as he can get.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Florida State Presidential Election Rigging by Bush Jr. And Sr. through common CIA and Intelligence community tricks. Note the close similarity to of events to Coup d'etat, a HOWTO book written from the perspective of the American Intelligence community. I note that Bush Sr.was the former Director of Intelligence during the Carter administration, and has detailed experience with overthrowing many governments while managing the CIA. --Maynard
You make three broad claims -- complete generalizations -- without any factual basis to back these up. You argue that government -- by it's inherent nature -- makes bad laws. You argue that local jurisdictions allow an escape route for refugees. And you argue -- on ideological grounds alone -- that the larger the jurisdiction the "the stupider the actions of government become."
But you don't argue exactly with what we should replace government. I certainly won't claims nationalistic pride in the behavior of US policymakers (especially our foreign policy), but I'll gladly argue that many of our federal programs have done substantial good throughout the society. For example, the FDA has been tasked with providing a safe food source, and for the most part has done a good job. Medicare gave my father (while he was dying) access to necessary health services -- for him and the many millions of other elderly what do you recommend as the alternative?
For some good examples of government power imploding and leaving a vacuum see Somalia, Russia, Georgia... gangsterism institutionalized. While I don't argue that elected government is without corruption, I do argue that it's the only leverage citizens have against total domination by the wealthy and powerful.
Here's an interesting Chompsky quote: "Costs and risks are socialized, and the profit is privatized. That's called capitalism" When you see the HMO, Nuclear power, RIAA and MPAA industries lobbying congress for legal indemnification from lawsuits or other such perks that's exactly what this quote refers.
Cheers,
--Maynard
I don't consider that bias, I consider that the only acceptable form of government for a world elected body. As I've written elsewhere in this thread I think citizens should demand these things, and it should be driven by citizen needs. Not multinational corporations, not nationalist governments, not political parties -- citizens.
JMO.
--Maynard
The world's leaders can go screw. I'm arguing that democratically elected government is by definition a more open and transparent system of regulation that what is currently in place at the WTO. What the world's leaders are creating -- right now -- is certainly NOT democratic or in the best interests of citizens. My "utopian dream" (as you so eloquently put it) amounts to a straight up democratic republic to set open market rules for the world. By your line of logic knitting together the United States would have been a utopian fantasy of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington -- yet they succeeded in founding the United States of America.
It's not only possible, it's necessary. We will all regret the outcome of futher corporate consolidation of power at the expense of elected government.
JMO
--Maynard
Do the world's nations then continue ceding soverign authority to private organizations like the WTO to form treaties like MAI without any public review? Is this a better solution to these problems than elected transparent government? I understand that a world elected body would be subject to all the problems of lobbying, abuse, and corruption which exist in any other congress or parliment, but it seems much better than just giving up and handing world policymaking over to unelected and undemocratic private institutions which meet and act in secret. --M
You call my views "biased" and "highly skewed" yet do not state in what way. Care to elaborate? --M
Though I would probably support a world capital gains and corporate income tax. --M
Why I should "trust" a multinational corporation with an income greater than more third world nations yet distrust elected government because it's "inherently evil" is an equation I simply don't understand. Because they have the guns? You don't like it when a government owns guns (but it's OK for a orporation to have a private "security force")... well then, why not write to your congresscritter and ask him/her to disarm our military?
So yes, I consider elected government a more "free" institution than private corporations simply because as a citizen I have at least a say in how policy is enacted and enforced.
--Maynard
Notice that nowhere did I state that the world body should have a sovereign right to enact laws beyond regulating commerce. You presuppose that a world elected body would have total authority to write any and every type of law -- our problem is not enforcing murder laws in every nation, but creating a standard for commerce in an open and transparent manner. Without some democratic elected body responsible for creating these regulations no citizen in the world should trust the regulatory body which currently possesses this power. I certainly don't.
--Maynard
Through the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, MAI the goal is to reduce the power of elected government to a minimum while increasing the power of corporate control over public life. I think we need a world government in place to check the power of multinationals, and to set level playing field in the marketplace. Unfortunately, one can't have a consistent set of rules in a marketplace a government to oversee and regulate the market. It's clear to me that completely deregulated world markets will lead to global monopolies unlike anything we've seen yet, and this will lead to a catastrophe for the citizens of the world -- never mind democracy as an institution.
So, to me the issue is not should we implement a world government, but HOW? As far as I'm concerned it must be democratically elected, is must fairly represent all of the nations' interests throughout the world, and it should restrict itself to matters of commerce. Currently the WTO is an unelected body which holds the contents of it's meetings in secret. If the world business community continues to control international regulation through secret organizations like the WTO it doesn't matter one bit that you may have elected your officials to power; their ability to write laws in accordance with your (and citzen's wishes) will be circumvented by these unelected bodies for the purpose of "free trade" making local and national government moot.
That's the potential future I fear.
--Maynard
You may be sick of the pointless pissing contests over the "best" operating system platform between various factions of computer users and professionals; me, I'm sick of the civics-uninformed painting generalizations of political ideology like "liberalism" (or communism for that matter) across sectors of the public sphere where it bears no relation. The two are unrelated. And since your point about "liberalism" is itself a gross generalization, this would appear to negate your position on the pointlessness of these debates... you just brought up the ridiculousness of OS debates only to fan the flames of an even more ridiculous political ideology debate. So, what's your point?????
--Maynard
When the PS2 Linux developers kit comes out in America I'll seriously consider buying it. Hope it's compatible with whatever Disk/Networking expansion kits come out for the PS2. I'm quite impressed by this little box; I've wasted an uncountable number of hours playing Ring of Red, Star Wars Starfighter, SSX, Ridge Racer V, and just lately Red Faction. It's funny, I bought the damn thing to get away from Linux because I wanted a game machine which would work straight out of the box, no fussing. Now I'd like to get Linux up and running on the damn thing just for shits and giggles.
I doubt either the PS2 or the X-Box will make much headway as an internet appliance. At least not until HDTV becomes the norm -- NTSC/PAL TV resolution is just too poor to support web browsing.
Wow, I can't believe the pro MS propaganda which filled both the last Katz post and this. The fact that this post got modded up to a five above all others, along with nearly every other pro MS post, only goes to show that the moderation system is being badly mis-used by those with an (obvious) agenda.
You misrepresent the meaning of "Free" with respect to the difference between Mozilla and Internet Explorer. Mozilla is not only "free" as in gratis, it's also free as in "Free Speech"; source included. One can't say that for IE. Mozilla will *always* be free in this respect; IE is remains gratis at the whim of MS.
But you knew this, and you knew these were the responses you'd get. It doesn't matter, though -- it's still effective propaganda. One of the primary tennents of effective misrepresentation of facts is that if you repeat it enough, the general population will -- over time -- come to accept the blatently false as true. And here you are -- telling us that black is white, freedom is slavery, and IE is free.
MS is going to win; Katz is right. Those involved with the Free Software movement might be well advised to begin planning a move to a country which supports their free speech rights -- like The Netherlands. If MS can buy their way out of this then they can buy any damn legislation they want, just like the RIAA and MPAA. Welcome to hell.
--Maynard
And I quote, "Then one day he happened along the Microsoft Product Updates website. Hmm, he thought, here's an "important" security patch for Office. After reading the release notes for the patch, he realized that this security patch was a good thing."
/. reading and posting community any longer.... (community, isn't "community" akin to communism like the GPL??? ugh...) :(
Clearly you didn't read his post but instead replied with a snide and insulting knee jerk retort; completely baseless as well. Astonishing that you got modded up as an Anonymous Coward five times with such a rude comment. Equally surprising given that you clearly intended to insult the previous poster rather than presenting some rational argument in debate. Sometimes I don't know what to make of the