Yes yes, the internet was a horrid wasteland before spam, thank the lord that spam came along to save the internet.
Just a point of clarification: before targeted, useful commercial e-mail became the norm, the Internet was a curiosity that was visited upon by tens of thousands of academics and professionals with mainframe accounts. Today, there are millions of people on the Internet. It is ridiculous to suggest that the bandwidth required to sustain those millions could be funded using the same sources as when the Internet was an obscure network that 99.99% of the population had never even heard of.
The money that you pay to your ISP is so that you can use the majority of their bandwidth for your personal purposes. There will be a portion of the remaining bandwidth that is used for advertising. That is a consequence of living in a free society.
Let me ask you this: are you aware of a cable or satellite TV provider that does not feed their customers advertisements, even though they pay a monthly service fee? Of course you aren't; such an entity does not exist. You pay for the bandwidth, and that includes the bandwidth that is used for advertising. That is how things work. Why aren't you boycotting CBS for showing Budweiser ads during the Super Bowl? (After all, you have to pay your cable company to view CBS, right?)
Advertising doesn't hurt anybody. Some people might find it inconvenient. But the key lies in making those people realize that without advertisments, the networks that they watch every day would not exist in the first place.
"Speed limiters?" Here in the States, we call them "governors" (that is, they govern how fast your vehicle can go, how fast alcohol can be poured from the bottle, etc.) The introduction of these devices into England would inevitably lead to Britons getting into each other's vehicles and greeting each other with inane phrases such as "How's your guv'nah, guv'nah?" "Ah, give us a kiss, guv'nah, and let's burn some petrol up to the guv'nah, and then Jack's a doughnut, we'll be there!"
This would make the British even less intelligible than they already are.:-(
This is like saying "I can murder you, if you're standing in my house."
Oh, geez. Yeah, that's right; taking somebody's picture on your property is roughly equivalent to murdering them. That makes perfect sense. I guess if you believe that the government should forcibly prevent private property owners from owning surveillance equipment to protect their own property, that's your own business. We must agree to disagree.
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you enter a private building of your own volition? If you wanted to set up a camera to take pictures of people on your property, shouldn't you have the right to do that? If so, then why doesn't that right extend to other property owners?
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property, I submit that it is you that is infringing on essential liberties, and you that are advocating a dangerous, authoritarian police state.
.. between having cameras taking pictures like this and having dozens of real live policemen standing at the entrance, looking at people "manually?" How, precisely does this constitute an "invasion of privacy" or a "sacrifice of liberty?" Jesus H. Christ, if I'm going to plunk down $2,000 for some ticket up in the shitty nosebleed seats, the very least I can ask for is some assurance that I'm not going to wind up between Hannibal Lecter and Heidi Fleiss. Well, Hannibal Lecter, at least.
Oh, I suppose there is the possibility that "Big Brother" might take the pictures of you entering the Super Bowl and use them to control your life. Imagine how it might end up wrecking an otherwise-successful job interview:
BOSS: Well, Ted, I must say that I am very impressed with your skills.
YOU: Thank you, sir.. that is very kind of you to say.
BOSS: We'll be in contact. I can't make any guarantees, but in all likelihood we'll be extending you a ridiculously lucrative offer within the next 24 hours. Furthermore..
The boss's assistant comes in and gives him a sheet of paper.
BOSS: Wait just a damned minute, what is this?
YOU: (shifting uncomfortably in chair)
BOSS: Is this a picture of you entering Super Bowl XXXV?
YOU:(hanging head in shame) Yes.
BOSS: Get the fuck out of my office.
Use your heads. A little less paranoia would go a long way.
No all people in the southern states are evangelical bigots who wish to restrict free speech. Nor do all Christians (evangelical or otherwise) harbour intolerant attitudes towards those with differing opinions or even aree with the opinions of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Conservatives and Christians to not have a monopoly on intolerant views and actions, and it is just as bad to supress or denigrate Christans as it is to do the same to Jews, Islamics, feminists or whoever else.
I'm not making any of these claims. You are.
Trust me, I just re-read what I wrote. It was an example. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I had suggested that there was some central server at UC Berkeley intended to censor all anti-liberal programming, would you have called me a liberophobe?
The following software packages were also released today:
kpr0nharvest v0.93b2 - A KDE application that mass-downloads material from the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* hierarchy of netnews
ines2600 v1.0 - An Atari 2600 emulator implemented as a Nintendo Entertainment System ROM image, suitable for use in iNES or the Nintendo emulator of your choice
gweatheraudio v0.23 - A GTK+-based application that downloads a JPEG of the North American cloud cover from the National Weather Service, converts it to PCM audio, and feeds it to/dev/dsp
qdildo v1.3 - A Qt-based program that uses your machine's serial port to control various household devices according to several preset patterns
billbros v2.0 - An X11 parody of Super Mario Brothers featuring Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer working their way through eight wacky and wonderful words of destruction and mayhem
budwm v0.3b2 - A new window manager that pipes "WAZZZZAAAAP" through your speakers every time you open a new application
crap-b-gon v1.13a - A filtering package that blocks material written by BSD users
kB1FF - A KDE application that pops up a window reading "Y0U H4V3 N3W M41L, D00D!" whenever a new mail message arrives in your mailbox
ModeratorBuddy v3.3 - A curses-based program that takes your ZIP code as input and determines the nearest available dealer of $3 crack
It seems a shame that with all of this software being released, Slashdot seems to have ignored nearly all of it in favor of those packages that are perceived as being "high-visibility." Let's get out to Freshmeat, people, and start downloading.
What exactly is meant by "PCMCIA flakiness?" I've not had any problems with PCMCIA devices on my Linux laptop (a Dell Latitude.) The cardmgr daemon detects the insertion and removal of PC cards just fine, and handles them appropriately. The only anomaly that I can find is if I boot up the system with the CD-ROM drive attached to the unit, and yank the card out sometime afterwards -- when I shut the system down, I get some error messages when PCMCIA services are being shut down. This doesn't affect the shutdown.
Are there general Linux PCMCIA issues that I need to be aware of?
Enterprise means management of several hundred installations of an operating system, which is something that Linux doesn't yet have an elegant tool for.
The problem with buzzwords like "enterprise" is that they have no hard and fast definition. Is an e-commerce (another buzzword, sorry) site that depends on a couple of Web servers an "enterprise" operation? I don't see any common usage of the term that restricts it to shops with hundreds of installations. In this respect I have to agree with the other poster.. in lieu of a better definition, "enterprise" can only mean one thing: "the ship in Star Trek."
You're right about Linux not having standard, mature, large-scale administration tools, though.
Regarding Linux on notebooks, I think you're missing the point. People tote around notebooks to do write memos while on the plane and do Powerpoint presentations at client offices. It's not that you can't install Linux on notebooks -- it's that the common applications and functions that you'd use a notebook for are better developed for Windows.
Read the article. His specific assertion vis-a-vis Linux and laptops was that Linux is inappropriate for laptops because it has poor hardware support. This is not true. I would also contend that you are pigeonholing laptop users; certainly there are many laptop users who use them primarily for things like PowerPoint, but there are scads of them who use them for things such as Web browsing and catching up on e-mail on the road (which can be done equally well in either Windows or Linux.) Then there's people like me who do Perl hacking and C programming on them.
At any rate, his objection was primarily related to hardware issues, not software issues.
BTW, your sig no longer works.
I know it doesn't. This is blatant Google censorship, and is an act of sheer, unadulterated hatred towards freedom-loving people everywhere. I can only hope that those responsible for this little "intercession" are located and made to pay for what they have done. Perhaps we should all write to Google and complain about how we don't like the way they index other sites, and can they pretty-please change their database for us? Morons, all of them.
If you look at the way that things have been going lately with regards to content distribution, it's easy to imagine precipitous and draconian scenarios involving unreasonable restrictions for set-top boxes. Take, for example, "standard" set-top boxes such as Tivo and ReplayTV. What would happen if conservative legislators passed a law requiring manufacturers of those devices to screen programs against a "black list" and refuse to show certain material?
You might wind up with a central server somewhere in the Deep South, operated by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson or another such people. When people want to use their Tivo to record certain television programs, that server is sent the name of the program, and can send back a rejection message if the program contains things such as nudity, feminism, or Islam. You might think this is a ridiculous example, but look at the way things are going. We've got some crippling potential restrictions on how HDTV signals can be used. We've got the MPAA saying that we don't have the right to use the data our own DVDs in our own home unless we use it the way they want us to. Don't expect things to get any better.
Our last refuge might lie in our ability to develop our own solutions. We can build the codecs. We can can throw in big honkin' hard drives. We own soldering irons. There is nothing (conceptually) that is stopping us from developing our own devices. And if the government and the corporate community insist on continually levying these ridiculous restrictions on us, it might be the only option we have left. In fact, you might see a large "black market" for unregulated set-top devices spring up. The threat of this possibility should give the corporate control-freaks some pause, because if geeks have demonstrated anything over the past few years, it is that they will not be regulated. And that is a Good Thing (TM).
Microsoft's typical method of dealing with competitors has been to either buy them out, strong-arm them, or yank the carpet out from under their feet with shifting standards and "embrace-and-extend" scenarios. Now that they have a competitor that they are virtually powerless to do anything about, there is little left for them to do than to try to spread a little bit of FUD around. This isn't new, after all. Microsoft realized (perhaps wisely) that attacking Linux's image is probably the only viable means that they have to go after Linux. We've seen this for a couple of years now.
So let's see where we're at:
"The Linux kernel lacks key enterprise elements.."
Reeeeeeaaalllly. What "key enterprise elements" are those? With the latest Linux developments, we've got everything from a journalling filesystem to enhanced multi-processor support. Sure, it's tough to make the claim that Linux is going to be superior to Solaris or other "big-iron" Unices for "big-iron" applications, but IMHO it's tough to make that claim about Windows, as well.
This, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that the vast majority of Linux installations (just like the vast majority of Windows installations) do not require these "key enterprise elements" that Ballmer is bleating about. And what are these elements, anyway? Mindlessly throwing out buzzwords might make "PC Magazine" swoon, but people who are interested in specifics are going to yawn and be on their merry way.
"You wouldn't want to install Linux on a laptop.."
Is that so? Funny; I just installed Mandrake 7.1 on a Dell laptop last week. The installation went flawlessly. I was up and running and connected to the Internet, reading Slashdot, within two minutes of finishing the installation. As a matter of fact, the PCMCIA modem that I'm using with the laptop was not recognized by Windows. Linux didn't have any problems with it. What was this nonsense about lack of drivers again?
"Free does not sustain a business.."
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the business. But the real issue here is the one that they missed; if every Linux-based business goes belly-up, that does nothing to hamper the continued development and release of the Linux system itself. Sure, companies such as Red Hat have got people working on value-added software such as RPM, but if Red Hat were to vanish from the face of the earth, it would not prevent the Linux kernel from evolving and undergoing continual development.
I think we can chalk this up to simple ignorance; people just don't get that there is no single, controlling corporation behind Linux. They look at Microsoft and see them as the source of the software that runs their computer(s). They don't understand the Linux development model (or if they do understand it, they don't like it because it is so far removed from their expectations.)
"Linux growth is leveling off.."
Show me the numbers, baby. At my workplace, we've got Linux replacing Windows NT on many of our development workstations. We've got Linux servers coming in the door to handle many specialized data applications. We're putting together Beowulf clusters to do distributed data processing. We're getting rid of clunky Oracle Forms-based user interfaces and replacing them with ones developed using Troll Tech's Qt toolkit. In short, we've seen a Linux explosion over the past year or so, and I know that the same is true of several other places.
I think the CEO of LinuxCare said it the best: the significant thing here is the degree to which Linux is registering on Microsoft's public radar. We must be doing something right, folks.. because if we weren't, they would be better off ignoring us. The challenge that we have to accept is combatting FUD like this in a logical and reasonable (read: non-emotional and non-combatative!) way. If we do that, Microsoft will remain as powerless to stop Linux as they are today. And that is a Good Thing (TM).
While I think that the idea of compensation for the "right to use Napster" is a good thing, I have to wonder if this type of setup really makes sense. You have to look at where the money will flow versus where it should flow. In this case, I think that the obvious recipient of any cash should be the person who is hosting the MP3s. After all, you're not downloading MP3s from Napster per se; you're downloading them from another anonymous Internet user who is providing the files as a service to the community as a whole. Up until now, that service has been provided for free.
Case in point: if some skinny earringed punk spends all night downloading Limp Bizkit MP3s from my machine over his 56K modem, and in so doing reduces my total available bandwidth for things such as 2.4 a kernel download, if anybody should be getting paid for it, it's me. Napster is the only widely-used Internet application that involves people just giving away large chunks of bandwidth for free without any form of compensation (either directly or indirectly through methods such as forced advertisement viewing.) There is no reason that this state of affairs needs to be maintained.
This could be worked out fairly easily, I think; all you would really need is to have everybody establish PayPal accounts and then modify the central Napster server so that it credits and debits appropriate amounts of money upon completion of a download. A dime a song? A quarter? These are numbers that we can work out. The important thing is getting the infrastructure in place. Once that is done, the rest of the pesky details can be worked out.
At any rate, money-to-the-hoster is the only fair and equitable scenario. It doesn't need to go to Napster itself; all they do is provide a simple online database that points you to the folks who are doing the real work. And it sure as hell doesn't need to go to the RIAA; the CDs that the songs were ripped from were already paid for once. You don't see the government tax you twice on the same income (except for inheritance taxes, perhaps, but that's a different debate.) You don't see the justice system attempt to try people twice for the same crime after they've been acquitted.
So if Napster is going to move to a pay-for-play model, good.. let's just make sure we get it right.
And what, exactly, is the problem with this? Is it that this hypothetical, evil "rich person" has a viable donor in case he needs one? I suppose that this will cause the downfall of Western Civilization as we know. Oh, woe be to us that those who have worked hard and proven their worth have sophisticated medical procedures at their fingertips! Can the downfall of humankind be far behind? Lord, help us!
Rich-bashing is a hobby that has gone out of style. Certain politicians have tried to revive it in certain recent elections, but those politicians have failed. Wealthy people have become tired of apologizing for being wealthy. In case you were not aware of it, wealthiness is not a crime, nor is it something to be ashamed of. Wealthiness is the result of a life of hard work or innovative thought. Your invented ethical "dilemma" about a wealthy person being able to clone himself to harvest organs is exactly that.. invented.
This is a fact of life: the wealthy will always have more at their disposal than the poor. That's the way things work. If you are espousing a system where the government forcibly equalizes everybody so that they conform to the lowest common denominator, then you are advocating socialism or, worse yet, communism, in which case you disqualify yourself from any and all civilized discourse. Pay attention to the news. The Berlin Wall has crumbled. These experiments have been miserable, embarassing failures.
Sorry for the rant, but the anti-wealthy hatred on Slashdot really bothers me.
I have to admit that I don't quite understand the ethical hysteria that has surrounded the issue of human cloning. It's not as if "cloning" will produce an exact replica of a person, right down to the last sub-atomic particle. All that cloning would do is produce a being that is genetically identical to the being that it was cloned from. Depending on the experiences that the clone has, it will differ from the being that it was cloned from. People don't claim that identical twins are the "same person", even though they may be visually indistinguishable.
The religious argument here is a non-issue. Scientists may be able to do genetic cloning, but the most important part of human beings is the soul, and the soul is divinely created (that is, it is separate from genetics.) A human clone would be genetically identical to the cloned subject, but it would presumably be soulless. In this respect it would almost be interesting to see what the results would be. The results of this experiment would be useful theological information.
It is reasonable to assume that a cloned human would be the theological equivalent of a cat or an emu or other such animal. In other words, they are a living, sentient being, but because their origins are man-made instead of divine, they (by definition) cannot have a soul. So what would they say? What would they do? Would they be capable of moral or ethical behavior, or would they operate on pure instinct as the animal kingdom does? These are important questions, and quite frankly, I'm willing to set aside any ethical considerations in order to see them answered.
I know it's probably a bit too much to expect journalistic integrity out of a site like Slashdot, but can you at least consider the possibility of perhaps posting at least one story that isn't chock-full of anti Microsoft/MCSE bigotry? In case you've forgotten, Slashdot has a huge readership, and you're likely to alienate a large percentage of that readership (and by extension, a large percentage of your banner ad viewership) with statements like the one you make about MCSEs. Has anybody ever explained the meaning of the word "objectivity" to you?
Sure, it's true that Microsoft includes a handkerchief with MCSE certificates so that graduates can wipe the drool off the corners of their mouths. Sure, MCSEs sometimes put their shoes on the wrong feet. Sure, they sometimes have difficulty remembering their middle names. But does any of that justify the sort of blind prejudice that you display in this article? The fact the the certificate is a useless piece of paper that will be obsolete in six months is no excuse for you to lash out at MCSEs the way that you have.
I've been an admirer of your work ever since I was exposed to it. How much of your material was inspired by earlier developers, such as Nine Inch Nails, Skinny Puppy, and Ministry?
Can you provide a concrete example that conclusively demonstrates the assertation that CNN is "left-leaning?" This is a network, after all, that is home to conservatives like Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, Rich Lowery, etc. Hell, this is a network that was home to Pat Buchanan, for Christ's sake. It has become clear to me that outraged shouts of "liberal media!" are a knee-jerk reaction from conservatives who cannot believe that respectable media outlets aren't reporting the same things that they heard on Rush Limbaugh or saw on the Drudge Report.
If you want to hear reports from a former friend of the neighbor of Hillary Clinton's hairdresser about how she once kicked a helpless, sickly dog in anger and then spit on the grave of Abraham Lincoln, you know where to find it. Most of us want a little bit more substance in our news.
The Judeo-Christian religions are probably the most responsible for human rights advances over the past 6000 years than any other single religious/philosophical arc available. Historically and culturally, they are the source of it all. Just for the record.
Are you trolling? Are you seriously suggesting that with regards to human rights, the "Judeo-Christian ethic" has been responsible for it all? (I guess it's a silly question, because that's exactly what you wrote.) Certainly, several aspects of the "Judeo-Christian ethic" have served to further human rights in the world, but there are plenty of religions and philosophies on this ball of rock and to claim that one (and one alone) has a monopoly on the Golden Rule (the basis of any measurable morality) is sheer lunacy.
Also, another clarification: The "United States" does not execute people.
You must just be making this stuff up as you go along. The United States does indeed have a federal death penalty. Between 1927 and 1963, the United States executed 34 people. In 1988, the death penalty was revived by adding a statute related to drug kingpin murder. In 1994, the Congress expanded this to some 60 other offenses.
David Paul Hammer, who was going to be the first federal prisonor executed since 1963, was granted a stay after a federal appeal (his execution date was originally set for November 15, 2000.) Just because the federal government doesn't run Ole Sparky 24/7 Texas-style doesn't mean it doesn't have death penalty provisions, because it does.
America claims to be the "Land of the Free", but a greater percentage of its citizens are in prison than in any other democracy.
A lot of this is because people have recklessly assumed that they have the right to introduce mind-altering substances into their systems. Clearly, this is immoral and should be illegal, unless the substance in question has a billion-dollar Congressional lobby, in which case consumption of the substance is to be celebrated and encouraged. After all, smoking cigarettes and drinking beer is the American Way, and those who think differently should pack up and move to Havana. (Just don't try to bring back any of those cigars when you come back to visit.)
Since the elections, I've heard people (particularly Republicans) state that America is not a democracy, its a republic. Fine, but don't try to pretend the people have any say.
Four (and eight) years ago, when Bill Clinton won the electoral college and popular vote but failed to win 50% of the total vote because of the presence of Ross Perot, many of these same Republicans were saying the same things that Democratic partisans are saying now. "Woe is us! How can we live in a country where a man is elected president without even winning a simple majority of the votes?" Of course now that their man has tiptoed into the Oval Office without even getting a plurality of the popular vote, their tune has changed. (It's not about, the popular vote, don'tcha know.)
The reason is simple: partisan Republicans are ridiculous, damnable hypocrites. Of course, so are partisan Democrats. Anybody with a partisan agenda is a hypocrite, because your vocation requires you to put a favorable spin on anything that goes (or doesn't go) your way, regardless of things that have been said or done in the past.
What other civilized country still excecutes people?
No civilized country executes people.
(My guess is that it has something to do with religion, but thats just me...)
Capital punishment is compatible with Scripture. The electric chair is completely and wholly inerrant.
You're correct when you say that the objects that scientists like to call "black holes" are nothing of the kind. They are sin receptacles created by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Just as His death on the cross cleansed Earthly believers of all their sins nearly 2000 years ago, His cosmic sin receptacles suck all of the sin out of the Universe itself, leaving a moral and wholesome cosmos for all to enjoy.
Non-issue. Linux supports all of the peripherals that I've got, and it supports them quite well. Obviously, if a hardware company is closely partnered with Microsoft, Windows is going to support new devices before Linux does. But for the 99% of Linux users who aren't living life on the bleeding edge of technology, it doesn't matter one bit if a driver for such-and-such device isn't available for Linux until next month. If it's popular, there will be Linux support for it, whether Bill likes it or not. Tough titty, as the kitty is reputed to have said.
2) Have a nice standard, easy to use and intuitive GUI
This is only an issue if your definition of "nice, standard, easy to use and intuitive GUI" is "the GUI that Microsoft uses with Windows." If this is the case, by all means, stick with Windows. There are plenty of window managers and desktop environments for Linux (and Unix in general) for people to choose from. To suggest that these are all "non-intuitive" because they're not the one you used in Keyboarding 101 is fallacious.
3) Using MS means you never have to hear stupid arguments about licenses or asinine definitions of "free"
Ditto for Linux. If you want to partake in these arguments, read Slashdot. Incidentally, the only time that I've ever been presented with intrusive dialog boxes threatening me to read the license "or else" and either click on Accept or Reject was for Windows applications. No OSS application I've ever downloaded and built has required me to quibble over terminology or sign my life away.
4) Plus it will be a cold day in hell before you have Office for Linux anyway...
Who cares? Not everybody does "office-type" tasks with their machines. And those who want to do such things under Linux have plenty of tools to choose from, many of which can read and write the "standard" office formats. But in the end, this is like your GUI issue.. if your definition of a "true OS" is "an OS that can run Microsoft Office", then by all means, stick with Windows. Microsoft needs your support. And keep those checks coming!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes yes, the internet was a horrid wasteland before spam, thank the lord that spam came along to save the internet.
Just a point of clarification: before targeted, useful commercial e-mail became the norm, the Internet was a curiosity that was visited upon by tens of thousands of academics and professionals with mainframe accounts. Today, there are millions of people on the Internet. It is ridiculous to suggest that the bandwidth required to sustain those millions could be funded using the same sources as when the Internet was an obscure network that 99.99% of the population had never even heard of.
The money that you pay to your ISP is so that you can use the majority of their bandwidth for your personal purposes. There will be a portion of the remaining bandwidth that is used for advertising. That is a consequence of living in a free society.
Let me ask you this: are you aware of a cable or satellite TV provider that does not feed their customers advertisements, even though they pay a monthly service fee? Of course you aren't; such an entity does not exist. You pay for the bandwidth, and that includes the bandwidth that is used for advertising. That is how things work. Why aren't you boycotting CBS for showing Budweiser ads during the Super Bowl? (After all, you have to pay your cable company to view CBS, right?)
Advertising doesn't hurt anybody. Some people might find it inconvenient. But the key lies in making those people realize that without advertisments, the networks that they watch every day would not exist in the first place.
"Speed limiters?" Here in the States, we call them "governors" (that is, they govern how fast your vehicle can go, how fast alcohol can be poured from the bottle, etc.) The introduction of these devices into England would inevitably lead to Britons getting into each other's vehicles and greeting each other with inane phrases such as "How's your guv'nah, guv'nah?" "Ah, give us a kiss, guv'nah, and let's burn some petrol up to the guv'nah, and then Jack's a doughnut, we'll be there!"
:-(
This would make the British even less intelligible than they already are.
This must be where deja vu comes from.
Didn't you post this before?
This is like saying "I can murder you, if you're standing in my house."
Oh, geez. Yeah, that's right; taking somebody's picture on your property is roughly equivalent to murdering them. That makes perfect sense. I guess if you believe that the government should forcibly prevent private property owners from owning surveillance equipment to protect their own property, that's your own business. We must agree to disagree.
How do you "lose your rights" by getting your damn picture taken when you enter a private building of your own volition? If you wanted to set up a camera to take pictures of people on your property, shouldn't you have the right to do that? If so, then why doesn't that right extend to other property owners?
If you would deny property owners the right to protect their property by imposing draconian limitations about what they can and cannot do on their own property, I submit that it is you that is infringing on essential liberties, and you that are advocating a dangerous, authoritarian police state.
Oh, I suppose there is the possibility that "Big Brother" might take the pictures of you entering the Super Bowl and use them to control your life. Imagine how it might end up wrecking an otherwise-successful job interview:
Use your heads. A little less paranoia would go a long way.
No all people in the southern states are evangelical bigots who wish to restrict free speech. Nor do all Christians (evangelical or otherwise) harbour intolerant attitudes towards those with differing opinions or even aree with the opinions of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Conservatives and Christians to not have a monopoly on intolerant views and actions, and it is just as bad to supress or denigrate Christans as it is to do the same to Jews, Islamics, feminists or whoever else.
I'm not making any of these claims. You are.
Trust me, I just re-read what I wrote. It was an example. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I had suggested that there was some central server at UC Berkeley intended to censor all anti-liberal programming, would you have called me a liberophobe?
Lighten up.
- kpr0nharvest v0.93b2 - A KDE application that mass-downloads material from the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* hierarchy of netnews
- ines2600 v1.0 - An Atari 2600 emulator implemented as a Nintendo Entertainment System ROM image, suitable for use in iNES or the Nintendo emulator of your choice
- gweatheraudio v0.23 - A GTK+-based application that downloads a JPEG of the North American cloud cover from the National Weather Service, converts it to PCM audio, and feeds it to
/dev/dsp
- qdildo v1.3 - A Qt-based program that uses your machine's serial port to control various household devices according to several preset patterns
- billbros v2.0 - An X11 parody of Super Mario Brothers featuring Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer working their way through eight wacky and wonderful words of destruction and mayhem
- budwm v0.3b2 - A new window manager that pipes "WAZZZZAAAAP" through your speakers every time you open a new application
- crap-b-gon v1.13a - A filtering package that blocks material written by BSD users
- kB1FF - A KDE application that pops up a window reading "Y0U H4V3 N3W M41L, D00D!" whenever a new mail message arrives in your mailbox
- ModeratorBuddy v3.3 - A curses-based program that takes your ZIP code as input and determines the nearest available dealer of $3 crack
It seems a shame that with all of this software being released, Slashdot seems to have ignored nearly all of it in favor of those packages that are perceived as being "high-visibility." Let's get out to Freshmeat, people, and start downloading.What exactly is meant by "PCMCIA flakiness?" I've not had any problems with PCMCIA devices on my Linux laptop (a Dell Latitude.) The cardmgr daemon detects the insertion and removal of PC cards just fine, and handles them appropriately. The only anomaly that I can find is if I boot up the system with the CD-ROM drive attached to the unit, and yank the card out sometime afterwards -- when I shut the system down, I get some error messages when PCMCIA services are being shut down. This doesn't affect the shutdown.
Are there general Linux PCMCIA issues that I need to be aware of?
g++ translates the input C++ code into FORTRAN and uses f77 to generate the actual assembly.
Close, though.
Enterprise means management of several hundred installations of an operating system, which is something that Linux doesn't yet have an elegant tool for.
.. in lieu of a better definition, "enterprise" can only mean one thing: "the ship in Star Trek."
The problem with buzzwords like "enterprise" is that they have no hard and fast definition. Is an e-commerce (another buzzword, sorry) site that depends on a couple of Web servers an "enterprise" operation? I don't see any common usage of the term that restricts it to shops with hundreds of installations. In this respect I have to agree with the other poster
You're right about Linux not having standard, mature, large-scale administration tools, though.
Regarding Linux on notebooks, I think you're missing the point. People tote around notebooks to do write memos while on the plane and do Powerpoint presentations at client offices. It's not that you can't install Linux on notebooks -- it's that the common applications and functions that you'd use a notebook for are better developed for Windows.
Read the article. His specific assertion vis-a-vis Linux and laptops was that Linux is inappropriate for laptops because it has poor hardware support. This is not true. I would also contend that you are pigeonholing laptop users; certainly there are many laptop users who use them primarily for things like PowerPoint, but there are scads of them who use them for things such as Web browsing and catching up on e-mail on the road (which can be done equally well in either Windows or Linux.) Then there's people like me who do Perl hacking and C programming on them.
At any rate, his objection was primarily related to hardware issues, not software issues.
BTW, your sig no longer works.
I know it doesn't. This is blatant Google censorship, and is an act of sheer, unadulterated hatred towards freedom-loving people everywhere. I can only hope that those responsible for this little "intercession" are located and made to pay for what they have done. Perhaps we should all write to Google and complain about how we don't like the way they index other sites, and can they pretty-please change their database for us? Morons, all of them.
If you look at the way that things have been going lately with regards to content distribution, it's easy to imagine precipitous and draconian scenarios involving unreasonable restrictions for set-top boxes. Take, for example, "standard" set-top boxes such as Tivo and ReplayTV. What would happen if conservative legislators passed a law requiring manufacturers of those devices to screen programs against a "black list" and refuse to show certain material?
You might wind up with a central server somewhere in the Deep South, operated by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson or another such people. When people want to use their Tivo to record certain television programs, that server is sent the name of the program, and can send back a rejection message if the program contains things such as nudity, feminism, or Islam. You might think this is a ridiculous example, but look at the way things are going. We've got some crippling potential restrictions on how HDTV signals can be used. We've got the MPAA saying that we don't have the right to use the data our own DVDs in our own home unless we use it the way they want us to. Don't expect things to get any better.
Our last refuge might lie in our ability to develop our own solutions. We can build the codecs. We can can throw in big honkin' hard drives. We own soldering irons. There is nothing (conceptually) that is stopping us from developing our own devices. And if the government and the corporate community insist on continually levying these ridiculous restrictions on us, it might be the only option we have left. In fact, you might see a large "black market" for unregulated set-top devices spring up. The threat of this possibility should give the corporate control-freaks some pause, because if geeks have demonstrated anything over the past few years, it is that they will not be regulated. And that is a Good Thing (TM).
So let's see where we're at:
- "The Linux kernel lacks key enterprise elements
.."
- "You wouldn't want to install Linux on a laptop
.."
- "Free does not sustain a business
.."
- "Linux growth is leveling off
.."
I think the CEO of LinuxCare said it the best: the significant thing here is the degree to which Linux is registering on Microsoft's public radar. We must be doing something right, folksReeeeeeaaalllly. What "key enterprise elements" are those? With the latest Linux developments, we've got everything from a journalling filesystem to enhanced multi-processor support. Sure, it's tough to make the claim that Linux is going to be superior to Solaris or other "big-iron" Unices for "big-iron" applications, but IMHO it's tough to make that claim about Windows, as well.
This, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that the vast majority of Linux installations (just like the vast majority of Windows installations) do not require these "key enterprise elements" that Ballmer is bleating about. And what are these elements, anyway? Mindlessly throwing out buzzwords might make "PC Magazine" swoon, but people who are interested in specifics are going to yawn and be on their merry way.
Is that so? Funny; I just installed Mandrake 7.1 on a Dell laptop last week. The installation went flawlessly. I was up and running and connected to the Internet, reading Slashdot, within two minutes of finishing the installation. As a matter of fact, the PCMCIA modem that I'm using with the laptop was not recognized by Windows. Linux didn't have any problems with it. What was this nonsense about lack of drivers again?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the business. But the real issue here is the one that they missed; if every Linux-based business goes belly-up, that does nothing to hamper the continued development and release of the Linux system itself. Sure, companies such as Red Hat have got people working on value-added software such as RPM, but if Red Hat were to vanish from the face of the earth, it would not prevent the Linux kernel from evolving and undergoing continual development.
I think we can chalk this up to simple ignorance; people just don't get that there is no single, controlling corporation behind Linux. They look at Microsoft and see them as the source of the software that runs their computer(s). They don't understand the Linux development model (or if they do understand it, they don't like it because it is so far removed from their expectations.)
Show me the numbers, baby. At my workplace, we've got Linux replacing Windows NT on many of our development workstations. We've got Linux servers coming in the door to handle many specialized data applications. We're putting together Beowulf clusters to do distributed data processing. We're getting rid of clunky Oracle Forms-based user interfaces and replacing them with ones developed using Troll Tech's Qt toolkit. In short, we've seen a Linux explosion over the past year or so, and I know that the same is true of several other places.
While I think that the idea of compensation for the "right to use Napster" is a good thing, I have to wonder if this type of setup really makes sense. You have to look at where the money will flow versus where it should flow. In this case, I think that the obvious recipient of any cash should be the person who is hosting the MP3s. After all, you're not downloading MP3s from Napster per se; you're downloading them from another anonymous Internet user who is providing the files as a service to the community as a whole. Up until now, that service has been provided for free.
.. let's just make sure we get it right.
Case in point: if some skinny earringed punk spends all night downloading Limp Bizkit MP3s from my machine over his 56K modem, and in so doing reduces my total available bandwidth for things such as 2.4 a kernel download, if anybody should be getting paid for it, it's me. Napster is the only widely-used Internet application that involves people just giving away large chunks of bandwidth for free without any form of compensation (either directly or indirectly through methods such as forced advertisement viewing.) There is no reason that this state of affairs needs to be maintained.
This could be worked out fairly easily, I think; all you would really need is to have everybody establish PayPal accounts and then modify the central Napster server so that it credits and debits appropriate amounts of money upon completion of a download. A dime a song? A quarter? These are numbers that we can work out. The important thing is getting the infrastructure in place. Once that is done, the rest of the pesky details can be worked out.
At any rate, money-to-the-hoster is the only fair and equitable scenario. It doesn't need to go to Napster itself; all they do is provide a simple online database that points you to the folks who are doing the real work. And it sure as hell doesn't need to go to the RIAA; the CDs that the songs were ripped from were already paid for once. You don't see the government tax you twice on the same income (except for inheritance taxes, perhaps, but that's a different debate.) You don't see the justice system attempt to try people twice for the same crime after they've been acquitted.
So if Napster is going to move to a pay-for-play model, good
And what, exactly, is the problem with this? Is it that this hypothetical, evil "rich person" has a viable donor in case he needs one? I suppose that this will cause the downfall of Western Civilization as we know. Oh, woe be to us that those who have worked hard and proven their worth have sophisticated medical procedures at their fingertips! Can the downfall of humankind be far behind? Lord, help us!
.. invented.
Rich-bashing is a hobby that has gone out of style. Certain politicians have tried to revive it in certain recent elections, but those politicians have failed. Wealthy people have become tired of apologizing for being wealthy. In case you were not aware of it, wealthiness is not a crime, nor is it something to be ashamed of. Wealthiness is the result of a life of hard work or innovative thought. Your invented ethical "dilemma" about a wealthy person being able to clone himself to harvest organs is exactly that
This is a fact of life: the wealthy will always have more at their disposal than the poor. That's the way things work. If you are espousing a system where the government forcibly equalizes everybody so that they conform to the lowest common denominator, then you are advocating socialism or, worse yet, communism, in which case you disqualify yourself from any and all civilized discourse. Pay attention to the news. The Berlin Wall has crumbled. These experiments have been miserable, embarassing failures.
Sorry for the rant, but the anti-wealthy hatred on Slashdot really bothers me.
I have to admit that I don't quite understand the ethical hysteria that has surrounded the issue of human cloning. It's not as if "cloning" will produce an exact replica of a person, right down to the last sub-atomic particle. All that cloning would do is produce a being that is genetically identical to the being that it was cloned from. Depending on the experiences that the clone has, it will differ from the being that it was cloned from. People don't claim that identical twins are the "same person", even though they may be visually indistinguishable.
The religious argument here is a non-issue. Scientists may be able to do genetic cloning, but the most important part of human beings is the soul, and the soul is divinely created (that is, it is separate from genetics.) A human clone would be genetically identical to the cloned subject, but it would presumably be soulless. In this respect it would almost be interesting to see what the results would be. The results of this experiment would be useful theological information.
It is reasonable to assume that a cloned human would be the theological equivalent of a cat or an emu or other such animal. In other words, they are a living, sentient being, but because their origins are man-made instead of divine, they (by definition) cannot have a soul. So what would they say? What would they do? Would they be capable of moral or ethical behavior, or would they operate on pure instinct as the animal kingdom does? These are important questions, and quite frankly, I'm willing to set aside any ethical considerations in order to see them answered.
I know it's probably a bit too much to expect journalistic integrity out of a site like Slashdot, but can you at least consider the possibility of perhaps posting at least one story that isn't chock-full of anti Microsoft/MCSE bigotry? In case you've forgotten, Slashdot has a huge readership, and you're likely to alienate a large percentage of that readership (and by extension, a large percentage of your banner ad viewership) with statements like the one you make about MCSEs. Has anybody ever explained the meaning of the word "objectivity" to you?
Sure, it's true that Microsoft includes a handkerchief with MCSE certificates so that graduates can wipe the drool off the corners of their mouths. Sure, MCSEs sometimes put their shoes on the wrong feet. Sure, they sometimes have difficulty remembering their middle names. But does any of that justify the sort of blind prejudice that you display in this article? The fact the the certificate is a useless piece of paper that will be obsolete in six months is no excuse for you to lash out at MCSEs the way that you have.
Shame on you.
I've been an admirer of your work ever since I was exposed to it. How much of your material was inspired by earlier developers, such as Nine Inch Nails, Skinny Puppy, and Ministry?
Can you provide a concrete example that conclusively demonstrates the assertation that CNN is "left-leaning?" This is a network, after all, that is home to conservatives like Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, Rich Lowery, etc. Hell, this is a network that was home to Pat Buchanan, for Christ's sake. It has become clear to me that outraged shouts of "liberal media!" are a knee-jerk reaction from conservatives who cannot believe that respectable media outlets aren't reporting the same things that they heard on Rush Limbaugh or saw on the Drudge Report.
If you want to hear reports from a former friend of the neighbor of Hillary Clinton's hairdresser about how she once kicked a helpless, sickly dog in anger and then spit on the grave of Abraham Lincoln, you know where to find it. Most of us want a little bit more substance in our news.
The Judeo-Christian religions are probably the most responsible for human rights advances over the past 6000 years than any other single religious/philosophical arc available. Historically and culturally, they are the source of it all. Just for the record.
Are you trolling? Are you seriously suggesting that with regards to human rights, the "Judeo-Christian ethic" has been responsible for it all? (I guess it's a silly question, because that's exactly what you wrote.) Certainly, several aspects of the "Judeo-Christian ethic" have served to further human rights in the world, but there are plenty of religions and philosophies on this ball of rock and to claim that one (and one alone) has a monopoly on the Golden Rule (the basis of any measurable morality) is sheer lunacy.
Also, another clarification: The "United States" does not execute people.
You must just be making this stuff up as you go along. The United States does indeed have a federal death penalty. Between 1927 and 1963, the United States executed 34 people. In 1988, the death penalty was revived by adding a statute related to drug kingpin murder. In 1994, the Congress expanded this to some 60 other offenses.
David Paul Hammer, who was going to be the first federal prisonor executed since 1963, was granted a stay after a federal appeal (his execution date was originally set for November 15, 2000.) Just because the federal government doesn't run Ole Sparky 24/7 Texas-style doesn't mean it doesn't have death penalty provisions, because it does.
America claims to be the "Land of the Free", but a greater percentage of its citizens are in prison than in any other democracy.
A lot of this is because people have recklessly assumed that they have the right to introduce mind-altering substances into their systems. Clearly, this is immoral and should be illegal, unless the substance in question has a billion-dollar Congressional lobby, in which case consumption of the substance is to be celebrated and encouraged. After all, smoking cigarettes and drinking beer is the American Way, and those who think differently should pack up and move to Havana. (Just don't try to bring back any of those cigars when you come back to visit.)
Since the elections, I've heard people (particularly Republicans) state that America is not a democracy, its a republic. Fine, but don't try to pretend the people have any say.
Four (and eight) years ago, when Bill Clinton won the electoral college and popular vote but failed to win 50% of the total vote because of the presence of Ross Perot, many of these same Republicans were saying the same things that Democratic partisans are saying now. "Woe is us! How can we live in a country where a man is elected president without even winning a simple majority of the votes?" Of course now that their man has tiptoed into the Oval Office without even getting a plurality of the popular vote, their tune has changed. (It's not about, the popular vote, don'tcha know.)
The reason is simple: partisan Republicans are ridiculous, damnable hypocrites. Of course, so are partisan Democrats. Anybody with a partisan agenda is a hypocrite, because your vocation requires you to put a favorable spin on anything that goes (or doesn't go) your way, regardless of things that have been said or done in the past.
What other civilized country still excecutes people?
No civilized country executes people.
(My guess is that it has something to do with religion, but thats just me...)
Capital punishment is compatible with Scripture. The electric chair is completely and wholly inerrant.
You're correct when you say that the objects that scientists like to call "black holes" are nothing of the kind. They are sin receptacles created by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Just as His death on the cross cleansed Earthly believers of all their sins nearly 2000 years ago, His cosmic sin receptacles suck all of the sin out of the Universe itself, leaving a moral and wholesome cosmos for all to enjoy.
I hope this clears a few things up.
1) Support tons of peripherals that Linux doesn't
.. if your definition of a "true OS" is "an OS that can run Microsoft Office", then by all means, stick with Windows. Microsoft needs your support. And keep those checks coming! :-)
Non-issue. Linux supports all of the peripherals that I've got, and it supports them quite well. Obviously, if a hardware company is closely partnered with Microsoft, Windows is going to support new devices before Linux does. But for the 99% of Linux users who aren't living life on the bleeding edge of technology, it doesn't matter one bit if a driver for such-and-such device isn't available for Linux until next month. If it's popular, there will be Linux support for it, whether Bill likes it or not. Tough titty, as the kitty is reputed to have said.
2) Have a nice standard, easy to use and intuitive GUI
This is only an issue if your definition of "nice, standard, easy to use and intuitive GUI" is "the GUI that Microsoft uses with Windows." If this is the case, by all means, stick with Windows. There are plenty of window managers and desktop environments for Linux (and Unix in general) for people to choose from. To suggest that these are all "non-intuitive" because they're not the one you used in Keyboarding 101 is fallacious.
3) Using MS means you never have to hear stupid arguments about licenses or asinine definitions of "free"
Ditto for Linux. If you want to partake in these arguments, read Slashdot. Incidentally, the only time that I've ever been presented with intrusive dialog boxes threatening me to read the license "or else" and either click on Accept or Reject was for Windows applications. No OSS application I've ever downloaded and built has required me to quibble over terminology or sign my life away.
4) Plus it will be a cold day in hell before you have Office for Linux anyway...
Who cares? Not everybody does "office-type" tasks with their machines. And those who want to do such things under Linux have plenty of tools to choose from, many of which can read and write the "standard" office formats. But in the end, this is like your GUI issue
Hah!
You want it all, but you can't have it.
It's in your face, but you can't grab it!