There's nothing hypocritical about cherishing free speech while refusing to listen to others' speech. The two are entirely independent. Free speech is about the absence of being silenced. Refusing to listen to speech does not silence it but merely ignore it.
And there's also nothing absolutely wrong with mere arrogance and insult -- they often provide some of the best entertainment in some views. What too many posters here forget is that different people interact in this forum with different purposes. Some are here for the news (although I can't imagine why, since most of these stories come over the AP bulletins days in advance). Some come for the insightful rantings of others. Some come for the humorous rantings of others. Some come to blow off steam with other nerds. It is not your prerogative to declare some of these motives orthodox and others verboten. Just be grateful that Rob and friends have set up a system that enforces the general orthodox views of the populace at large (which seem to agree with your own views).
Does it really hurt you so much to have to scroll by some obnoxious person's post? Does it really take that much longer to download the occasional piece of crap? (As for the really large "cut 'n paste" trolls, you might consider using the "penalty for obscenely large posts" option.)
Slashdot is now a commercial site and is more than capable of devoting the resources to manage the burden, and besides, the management probably likes the current system, since every crap post is an additional two ad impressions (composing the comment and verifying the submission).
There is no way to discourage those posts, so stop hoping. Censorship by content is never implementable without bias, and it's never desirable. There are idiots in this world, and it's often too hard to resist trying to silence others without realizing that one's own idiocy. Tempt not yourself into creating a system where "one more judgment, and I am undone".
In case anyone missed it, the German film Ecstasy which launched Hedy Lamarr's career had a nude scene. It's quite tasteful by today's standards, and no, there's no petrification involved.
And if it doesn't disturb you to ogle the body of someone who is now dead, you should perhaps reconsider. And if you find it disturbing that someone posted this comment, then you're probably right.
Just to clarify for the people who don't seem to grok this: this cell runs on methanol, not ethanol. Methanol is something you ought not to drink (unless you're Kitty Dukakis, although that may have been isopropyl IIRC). It causes blindness and other effects worse than those caused by ethanol, although cirrhosis and driving fatalities might give it a run for its money.
On the plus side, the fuel won't have to be denatured and there won't be any taxes enforced by the BATF.
The Zero-Knowledge software works using three servers, located at leased sites in scattered locations worldwide. Client software encrypts Internet access requests and information using three layers of public-key encryption software. Each of the three servers only knows part of the information needed to identify a user and the contents of an Internet session. Even Zero-Knowledge itself doesn't know the identity of the owner of particular pseudonyms, so it can't divulge that information if subpoenaed.
Of course implementation is everything, but I'm all in favor of any step towards ubiquitous encryption and pervasive privacy.
You can already steal music from the library without this service. Just bring the cd home and either burn a copy of it or rip some mp3s of the tracks on it. This my.mp3.com service adds nothing there. It doesn't even save you the trouble of burning your own mp3s, since it just streams them to you rather than letting you ftp them.
It's redundant because it simply rehashed what was said in the article's summary without adding anything of value. I agree that normally, "redundant" first-posts are contradictions in terms, but this one was properly moderated.
t's bad enough that the shopper-privacy-invasion card (or your ATM card, or your checking account number) keeps track of everything you buy, this would let Big Business see exactly when you ate it.
This is already happening in the US with supermarkets that provide certain UPCed cards that give the consumer a discount on some items while simultaneously logging all items purchased in a central database. It's mostly used for tracking trends on a population scale, but the privacy implications for individuals are still immense.
One of the few things that large corporations listen to is public embarassment. When people privately tell microsoft of a security flaw they've discovered, MS just sits on its hands until it gets leaked publicly.
Vandalism is petty crime, and far more people are hurt by incompetent companies that don't find they have reason enough to care about the security levels they inflict upon their patrons. A pointy reckoning to them all!
Mindshare is important, but it's not quite as important for commodities like Linux as it is for other products. When consumers decide they want Linux, they'll quite often be persuaded to buy a competing offering if it's "just like [RedHat] only $20 instead of $50". And because of the GPL, the consumer is pretty much guaranteed that the competing product will actually be equivalent.
Another point: most of the money that comes from selling OSes doesn't come from purchases off the shelf; it comes from OEM bundling with new computers. When Linux truly goes mainstream, there will be an incentive for computer manufacturers to go with RedHat in order to get use of their trademark, but that trademark must be worth a lot if it overrides the cheaper alternative of just bundling a RedHat-clone. Because of that interplay, RedHat will have to keep its prices down, which doesn't bode well for the success of its stock, which is what this thread is all about.
We have incurred operating losses in four of our previous five fiscal years, including our most recent fiscal year ended February 28, 1999, as well as in the nine months ended November 30, 1999. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future[.]
[W]e cannot be certain when or if we will achieve sustained profitability. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.
And neither am I certain, from this vantage (albeit from the vantage of someone who missed out on the initial ipo frenzy). I plan to continue to use RedHat's products for the near future, just as I do with many IPOed companies' products which are being sold as a loss-leader, but it'll be some time before I plan to buy any of their stock. I trust that Linux will win out in the long run, but I'm by no means certain that RedHat will be the ultimate victor -- the barrier to entry is just too small. The winner might not even exist on the field at this moment.
Methinks it'll be time soon for a mutual fund that invests exclusively in Linux companies and does so across the board.
You already shouldn't be trusting photographs, video clips, etc. since this technology has been out there for years, and this recent incarnation is only special because it works in real-time. Moreover, you fail to realize that in the future, people won't be interacting with images as objects in an otherwise objective and external universe. In the future, with implants and such headed where they're headed, people will be interacting with a modified (improved or depreciated, depending on your philosophy) view of the world. With technology like this, it won't be simply a matter of covering one logo with another. It'll be masking one's entire perception of the world.
Oooogy, oooogy, booogy. I came up with my conspiracy theory for the day; now it's your turn.
National security or not, if what you say does happen then it violates the 5th amendment's guarantee of compensation for government takings and which doesn't make an exception for national security. It ought to be easy enough for the government to compensate owners for their intellectual property without necessarily explaining how the intellectual property is being used or even which property is used.
I have some idealism in me yet. Wait, I can feel it draining away; slowly, slowly, done. Ah, cynicism, my dear friend, we meet again. How're the wife and kids? Mine'll all die, I see that now, even the ones I don't have yet. Personal rights and liberties? No, this is government work. Constitutions as a means of restraining government which by its very nature is unrestrainable? Justice Marshall got it wrong, I see that now. I can see a lot now. I think I hear a knock at my door. Ah, two young men in blue hats. They want to talk to me. I'll be back soon.
The GPL prohibits the use of code-obfuscation programs, but that doesn't mean they have to make their code particularly friendly to read, either. Maybe they have something really really subtle in mind. Or maybe they're actually sincere. Remember, this version is for THEIR networks, and they'd be insane to compromise those.
The NSA may be able to pay the contracting company enough money that they won't want to distribute the code, but if they do distribute, the NSA doesn't have recourse to retaliate under the GPL, since the GPL forbids a more restrictive liscense from being imposed on GPLed code or code linked against GPLed code. It's probably irrelevent, though, since the NSA can always resort to national-security concerns and trample the people's rights that way. It's worked in the past.
Somehow I'm reminded of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse when I hear that Bill Gates will be the chief software architect. Clearly he's had his fun, and now that the DOJ is going to rain on his parade, he's taking his ball and going home (just to mix a few metaphors). I can't help but wonder what Bill Gates II will do when the stock collapses, since what he does now is tend the Gates Foundation, which is likely to see a nosedive or two.
AOL is populated by martians. Surely we won't admit they're regular Merkins like the rest of us, right? Ok, maybe they're merkins, but surely not Americans? C'mon people, back me up on this....
I'm guessing they're trying to get some nostalgia clicks from martian AOLers pining for the motherland.
When Douglas Winslow says "I plan to party either way. I'll either end up watching or burning part of my DVD collection to celebrate the outcome of the hearing[...]" does he mean setting the DVDs on fire or "burning" new copies to distribute to others in mockery of the (adverse) ruling? I assume it's the former, in which case I'm curious about what fuel he plans to use: butane, propane, beer, what? These things are plastic coated aluminum, right? They don't burn so easily or so brightly. Maybe microwaving them would be more effective.
I'm patiently waiting for the folks at Universal Church of Sidus Julium (a bunch of people worshiping Julius Caesar as a deity) to launch a lawsuit against Apple, claiming a look-and-feel violation from Apple's use of Roman numerals in the name of OS X. After all, years of research and development that went into inventing the Roman-numeral system, and Apple is clearly a latecomer hoping to cash in on the numeral X's sexiness and consumer appeal.
I normally tend to support Apple, but this one is rediculous.
Washington DC, January 13 (AP) Today, the USPTO announced new guidelines for the genetic qualifications of new application hirings. Under the new guidelines, DNA samples of all prospective USPTO-bureaucrat applicants will be submitted and examined to exclude all Neanderthals and proto-simians. Todd Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, was quoted as saying: "Internal audits of personnel revealed a disturbing trend: too many employees are of subhuman intelligence. We hope these new guidelines will turn around our beleaguered agency."
When the government provides a public forum for the dissemination of information, it is consitutionally prohibited from exercising control over the content of the speech heard without a compelling state interest and without the control being narrowly tailored to achieve that proper goal. There is no compelling state interest to exercise prior restraint and prevent adults from viewing nonobscene online material, since the only possible justification -- cost -- actually cuts the other way: it's more expensive to install and maintain this software than it is to have no censorware.
And if your fellow voters vote themselves government-funded magazines, then they cannot prevent you from demanding "White Supremecist Monthly".
The only thing there's (unfortunately) no right to view is obscenity. Is all nudity that is characterized as porn obscene? No, but it all gets lumped together and banned by this software.
And don't forget about "hate speech" -- i.e. politically fringe and unpopular speech which is also banned by this software. This specifically attacks the substance of pure speech (whereas an attempt can be made to classify pornography as low-grade speech not conveying political ideas, an attempt that has typically failed [Booksellers v. Hudnut, etc.]).
All free speech is undermined when any speech is suppressed. Even hideous speech.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing hypocritical about cherishing free speech while refusing to listen to others' speech. The two are entirely independent. Free speech is about the absence of being silenced. Refusing to listen to speech does not silence it but merely ignore it.
And there's also nothing absolutely wrong with mere arrogance and insult -- they often provide some of the best entertainment in some views. What too many posters here forget is that different people interact in this forum with different purposes. Some are here for the news (although I can't imagine why, since most of these stories come over the AP bulletins days in advance). Some come for the insightful rantings of others. Some come for the humorous rantings of others. Some come to blow off steam with other nerds. It is not your prerogative to declare some of these motives orthodox and others verboten. Just be grateful that Rob and friends have set up a system that enforces the general orthodox views of the populace at large (which seem to agree with your own views).
Does it really hurt you so much to have to scroll by some obnoxious person's post? Does it really take that much longer to download the occasional piece of crap? (As for the really large "cut 'n paste" trolls, you might consider using the "penalty for obscenely large posts" option.)
Slashdot is now a commercial site and is more than capable of devoting the resources to manage the burden, and besides, the management probably likes the current system, since every crap post is an additional two ad impressions (composing the comment and verifying the submission).
There is no way to discourage those posts, so stop hoping. Censorship by content is never implementable without bias, and it's never desirable. There are idiots in this world, and it's often too hard to resist trying to silence others without realizing that one's own idiocy. Tempt not yourself into creating a system where "one more judgment, and I am undone".
In case anyone missed it, the German film Ecstasy which launched Hedy Lamarr's career had a nude scene. It's quite tasteful by today's standards, and no, there's no petrification involved.
And if it doesn't disturb you to ogle the body of someone who is now dead, you should perhaps reconsider. And if you find it disturbing that someone posted this comment, then you're probably right.
Just to clarify for the people who don't seem to grok this: this cell runs on methanol, not ethanol. Methanol is something you ought not to drink (unless you're Kitty Dukakis, although that may have been isopropyl IIRC). It causes blindness and other effects worse than those caused by ethanol, although cirrhosis and driving fatalities might give it a run for its money.
On the plus side, the fuel won't have to be denatured and there won't be any taxes enforced by the BATF.
can be found here. The interesting part is this:
The Zero-Knowledge software works using three servers, located at leased sites in scattered locations worldwide. Client software encrypts Internet access requests and information using three layers of public-key encryption software. Each of the three servers only knows part of the information needed to identify a user and the contents of an Internet session. Even Zero-Knowledge itself doesn't know the identity of the owner of particular pseudonyms, so it can't divulge that information if subpoenaed.
Of course implementation is everything, but I'm all in favor of any step towards ubiquitous encryption and pervasive privacy.
You can already steal music from the library without this service. Just bring the cd home and either burn a copy of it or rip some mp3s of the tracks on it. This my.mp3.com service adds nothing there. It doesn't even save you the trouble of burning your own mp3s, since it just streams them to you rather than letting you ftp them.
According to this page, it's also available for the macintosh. I know that doesn't help most linux folk, but c'est la vie.
Be the bee, be the wing, happy birthday Martin Luther King?
Tux is here; Gates to shear; Someone pass another beer!
It's redundant because it simply rehashed what was said in the article's summary without adding anything of value. I agree that normally, "redundant" first-posts are contradictions in terms, but this one was properly moderated.
t's bad enough that the shopper-privacy-invasion card (or your ATM card, or your checking account number) keeps track of everything you buy, this would let Big Business see exactly when you ate it.
This is already happening in the US with supermarkets that provide certain UPCed cards that give the consumer a discount on some items while simultaneously logging all items purchased in a central database. It's mostly used for tracking trends on a population scale, but the privacy implications for individuals are still immense.
One of the few things that large corporations listen to is public embarassment. When people privately tell microsoft of a security flaw they've discovered, MS just sits on its hands until it gets leaked publicly.
Vandalism is petty crime, and far more people are hurt by incompetent companies that don't find they have reason enough to care about the security levels they inflict upon their patrons. A pointy reckoning to them all!
Mindshare is important, but it's not quite as important for commodities like Linux as it is for other products. When consumers decide they want Linux, they'll quite often be persuaded to buy a competing offering if it's "just like [RedHat] only $20 instead of $50". And because of the GPL, the consumer is pretty much guaranteed that the competing product will actually be equivalent.
Another point: most of the money that comes from selling OSes doesn't come from purchases off the shelf; it comes from OEM bundling with new computers. When Linux truly goes mainstream, there will be an incentive for computer manufacturers to go with RedHat in order to get use of their trademark, but that trademark must be worth a lot if it overrides the cheaper alternative of just bundling a RedHat-clone. Because of that interplay, RedHat will have to keep its prices down, which doesn't bode well for the success of its stock, which is what this thread is all about.
We have incurred operating losses in four of our previous five fiscal years, including our most recent fiscal year ended February 28, 1999, as well as in the nine months ended November 30, 1999. We expect to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future[.]
[W]e cannot be certain when or if we will achieve sustained profitability. Failure to become and remain profitable may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.
And neither am I certain, from this vantage (albeit from the vantage of someone who missed out on the initial ipo frenzy). I plan to continue to use RedHat's products for the near future, just as I do with many IPOed companies' products which are being sold as a loss-leader, but it'll be some time before I plan to buy any of their stock. I trust that Linux will win out in the long run, but I'm by no means certain that RedHat will be the ultimate victor -- the barrier to entry is just too small. The winner might not even exist on the field at this moment.
Methinks it'll be time soon for a mutual fund that invests exclusively in Linux companies and does so across the board.
IMHO, it's an admonition not to be too conceited or egotistical in one's dealings with the rest of the world.
You already shouldn't be trusting photographs, video clips, etc. since this technology has been out there for years, and this recent incarnation is only special because it works in real-time. Moreover, you fail to realize that in the future, people won't be interacting with images as objects in an otherwise objective and external universe. In the future, with implants and such headed where they're headed, people will be interacting with a modified (improved or depreciated, depending on your philosophy) view of the world. With technology like this, it won't be simply a matter of covering one logo with another. It'll be masking one's entire perception of the world.
Oooogy, oooogy, booogy. I came up with my conspiracy theory for the day; now it's your turn.
National security or not, if what you say does happen then it violates the 5th amendment's guarantee of compensation for government takings and which doesn't make an exception for national security. It ought to be easy enough for the government to compensate owners for their intellectual property without necessarily explaining how the intellectual property is being used or even which property is used.
I have some idealism in me yet. Wait, I can feel it draining away; slowly, slowly, done. Ah, cynicism, my dear friend, we meet again. How're the wife and kids? Mine'll all die, I see that now, even the ones I don't have yet. Personal rights and liberties? No, this is government work. Constitutions as a means of restraining government which by its very nature is unrestrainable? Justice Marshall got it wrong, I see that now. I can see a lot now. I think I hear a knock at my door. Ah, two young men in blue hats. They want to talk to me. I'll be back soon.
NO CARRIER
The GPL prohibits the use of code-obfuscation programs, but that doesn't mean they have to make their code particularly friendly to read, either. Maybe they have something really really subtle in mind. Or maybe they're actually sincere. Remember, this version is for THEIR networks, and they'd be insane to compromise those.
The NSA may be able to pay the contracting company enough money that they won't want to distribute the code, but if they do distribute, the NSA doesn't have recourse to retaliate under the GPL, since the GPL forbids a more restrictive liscense from being imposed on GPLed code or code linked against GPLed code. It's probably irrelevent, though, since the NSA can always resort to national-security concerns and trample the people's rights that way. It's worked in the past.
Somehow I'm reminded of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse when I hear that Bill Gates will be the chief software architect. Clearly he's had his fun, and now that the DOJ is going to rain on his parade, he's taking his ball and going home (just to mix a few metaphors). I can't help but wonder what Bill Gates II will do when the stock collapses, since what he does now is tend the Gates Foundation, which is likely to see a nosedive or two.
CNN is owned by TimeWarner.
TimeWarner is merging with AOL.
AOL is populated by martians. Surely we won't admit they're regular Merkins like the rest of us, right? Ok, maybe they're merkins, but surely not Americans? C'mon people, back me up on this....
I'm guessing they're trying to get some nostalgia clicks from martian AOLers pining for the motherland.
When Douglas Winslow says "I plan to party either way. I'll either end up watching or burning part of my DVD collection to celebrate the outcome of the hearing[...]" does he mean setting the DVDs on fire or "burning" new copies to distribute to others in mockery of the (adverse) ruling? I assume it's the former, in which case I'm curious about what fuel he plans to use: butane, propane, beer, what? These things are plastic coated aluminum, right? They don't burn so easily or so brightly. Maybe microwaving them would be more effective.
I'm patiently waiting for the folks at Universal Church of Sidus Julium (a bunch of people worshiping Julius Caesar as a deity) to launch a lawsuit against Apple, claiming a look-and-feel violation from Apple's use of Roman numerals in the name of OS X. After all, years of research and development that went into inventing the Roman-numeral system, and Apple is clearly a latecomer hoping to cash in on the numeral X's sexiness and consumer appeal.
I normally tend to support Apple, but this one is rediculous.
Washington DC, January 13 (AP)
Today, the USPTO announced new guidelines for the genetic qualifications of new application hirings. Under the new guidelines, DNA samples of all prospective USPTO-bureaucrat applicants will be submitted and examined to exclude all Neanderthals and proto-simians. Todd Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, was quoted as saying: "Internal audits of personnel revealed a disturbing trend: too many employees are of subhuman intelligence. We hope these new guidelines will turn around our beleaguered agency."
I can dream, can't I?
When the government provides a public forum for the dissemination of information, it is consitutionally prohibited from exercising control over the content of the speech heard without a compelling state interest and without the control being narrowly tailored to achieve that proper goal. There is no compelling state interest to exercise prior restraint and prevent adults from viewing nonobscene online material, since the only possible justification -- cost -- actually cuts the other way: it's more expensive to install and maintain this software than it is to have no censorware.
And if your fellow voters vote themselves government-funded magazines, then they cannot prevent you from demanding "White Supremecist Monthly".
The only thing there's (unfortunately) no right to view is obscenity. Is all nudity that is characterized as porn obscene? No, but it all gets lumped together and banned by this software.
And don't forget about "hate speech" -- i.e. politically fringe and unpopular speech which is also banned by this software. This specifically attacks the substance of pure speech (whereas an attempt can be made to classify pornography as low-grade speech not conveying political ideas, an attempt that has typically failed [Booksellers v. Hudnut, etc.]).
All free speech is undermined when any speech is suppressed. Even hideous speech.