"Busineses don't get special treatment under contract law. They're just parties, like individuals are."
That's exactly the problem. The reason that corporations are running roughshod over individuals is because they have the same rights as us, but scads more money.
I, for one, don't see any good reason that a corporation needs the same rights as me. Corporate america today seems like a bully who's too big for you to fight, and who relies on the fact that you're too scared to report him.
That's what comes with doing maitenance on any kind of critical systems... Paramedics are always on call, but practicing doctors have relatively short workdays.
Besides, how can a programmer have the same rank as you? You work on totally different projects. Just suck it up and take pride in the fact that your hard work keeps those soft programmers productive...
I disagree. I think that what makes art great, or even art art is the idea that you're getting an insight into the mind of another human being. Almost any art form can be broken down into an algorithmic approach, but what inspires the assembly of standardized parts is really what impacts you.
Think about 'Starry Night' as opposed to a photograph of the source material. Both can have a certain impact, especially if the photo catches the light in the right way, but the painting is basically what Van Gough thought up in his own mind. Seeing his interpretation of a beautiful scene is what inspires us.
Similarly, seeing a musician performance has a certain impact based simply on the energy of the artist. While a technically proficient piece can be inspiring, the same piece performed by a musician letting himself go in the music.
Part of the whole mistique of art is seeing something beautiful and realizing that a human mind created it, and then pondering that mind.
So, basically, this comes down to a question of the end versus the means. Take construction as an anology. There's architecture out there that the greater mass of people out there can appreciate - think the Notre Dame cathedral. There are also totally forgettable buildings whose primary purpose is functionality - tract housing, most schools, etc. They're all made out of some type of rock, which by itself (in most cases) isn't really that impressive, though a piece of granite probably looks neater than a uniform slab of concrete.
Now let's carry this metaphor over to programming. There's programs out there that ARE moving and incredible to see in action (demos, certain games, etc) that can be appreciated by a larger audience of programs. There's also programs that serve a mainly functional purpose (packet routing software, etc). Now, just like an architect could appreciate innovative techniques used to make a building that ultimately looks bland, us programmers can appreciate elegant code and neat algorithms, even if the end result isn't visually impressive.
There's art that the masses "get", and then there's art that only the artists fully comprehend. Take Perl - the first time I saw how easy it was to do text manipulation with it (as opposed to C or some such), I fell out of my chair.
Actually, Achilles was, if you've ever read the Iliad, somewhat of a bastard. It was his stubborness and refusal to fight that caused the death of his 'boyfriend' Pericles (I think, I may be wrong on the name). All in all he was arrogant, which eventually led to his downfall - that's the whole point of the story.
And Achilles wasn't really a homosexual... the greeks were especially liberal in their definition of sexuality. It was standard practice for Greek men to take up relationships with boys.
Anyways, saying Card is a homophobe on that basis is plain ludicrous.
The most addictive game has to be Slashdot.org - a massively multiplayer world where like-minded individuals struggle for surpremacy. Character classes such as the Troll, the Karma Whore, and the rare, revered Plus Five engage in savage flame wars, contesting the very basis of each others existence to gain philisophical leverage and wrest the precious Karma for themselves! But beware, your target could be a Moderator, whose eerie power can suck your hard earned points away!
Definitely the most addictive... see how hard I have to work just to get ahead here?
That's sort of an extra-venemous reply for a fairly innocuous topic, isn't it? I mean, for ME, U-U-D-D-L-R-L-R-B-A-Start is a symbol of my wasted hours of childhood. Most cheat codes don't mean a thing (though tell me you don't feel a pang of nostalgia from the pseudo-words "idspispopd" or "idkfa"), but that particular code is definitely folklore. Just about everyone who had a NES knew the code - heck, just about everyone who PLAYED a NES new the code. Contra itself didn't generate stories, but the code is certainly a concise symbol for a bygone age.
Heck, maybe ol' John himself played a couple games of Contra. Regardless, we shouldn't knee-jerk at topics that, as journalistically worthless as they may be, give us an opportunity to wax nostalgic.
Peace.
Boo hoo hoo. The MPAA is SUCH a victim here. They must feel violated - the rights that they could only wish for a few years ago were attacked. My sympathy for those poor, poor saps is overwhelming.
not.
2600 broke the law. But the point of this case was to contest a law that obviously treads on the rights of citizens. The fact is that CSS goes beyond the rights of the MPAA as purveyors of copyrighted materials. The fact is also that the MPAA is simply targeting a patsy with a bad reputation so they can get legislation in their favor.
there's more at stake here than i-was-right bragging rights. This case questions the constitutionality of the DCMA and the legality of the MPAA's actions with repsect to CSS. It's critical for the future of the internet and in determining if online publishing is a tool of the people or of corporations.
this rhetoric may be overblown, but the fact is that we believe the MPAA is in the wrong. As those who stand with a significant intellectual and emotional stake in this case, it's our duty to have an opinion, and as hackers it's our duty to stand up for our principles. This was the first field test of the DMCA, and a ruling in its favor is an attack on our beliefs.
and if you don't think so, think of a world where all your code is relegated to 'presidential assassination' status.
Well, now that our content is being pirated, it's perhaps time to reevaluate the rights of the creator as pertaining to his/her work. If we disagree with a way our works our being distributed, then why don't musicians get to have a say in how their music is (re)distributed?
I mean, what if (and this is hypothetical! don't flame me for this part!) freenet ended up being used for ONLY passing peoples' credit card numbers around, becoming a major tool of international fraud and nothing else ? Then yes, we'd be better off stopping it!
And if it did? This would perhaps be indicative of a flaw in the current credit card system, no? Perhaps leading to a new more secure system, not based off of a pirateable number?
Technology begets technology. To halt a new development because it invalidates an older one is myopic.
Instead of attacking everything new in sight, our dinosaurish corporate friends might want to invest in staying ahead of the curve. Not even ahead, neccesarily. But maybe, just maybe reevaluating a system every 30 years or so isn't a bad idea.
How about the scenario "Jimmy hacks a virus bomb?" saying a nanobot can turn the world into chocolate cake is just as alarmist as worrying about ebola bombs. Not the fact that they aren't frightening, but simply that something like that is hard to deliver on a world-threatening scale.
One can get into a discussion on the feasibility of pastry-manufacture nanotech (the power for the miraculous matter transmutation comes from where?), but the important part is that when you look at it, these dire warnings are just misunderstandings given form. All kinds of dire warnings have been issued regarding antrhax missiles and the like, but if you take a look at modern warfare, the pinnacle of destructive power is simple - a big, big bomb.
While it's human nature to be afraid of something new, this kind of doomsaying defies logic.
But it IS the point. Publius didn't encourage those utilities. Some anonymous user did. And who's to say they're only for use with publius? Maybe the program splits up files for you in the case you wanted to try doing raid-striping on your own or something...:)
Anyways, publius as an entity is free from attack if they don't create those utilities.
So we all know that Pulius is hackable. The safeguards are easily circumvented or whatnot. The point of Publius is not, as many here see it, to provide what is essentially an encrypted geocities site.
The purpose *is* to "strike a blow against censorship". By putting safeguards in place, Publius establishes an unassailable incarnation of free speech on the net. There isn't a bad-mojo buisiness plan behind closed doors to profit from copyrighted material. There aren't scads of copyrighted songs getting traded (though at some point there probably will be). Big Companies can't attack Publius.
What this means is that a bastion for digital distribution is being established, apart from corporations that have a huge interest in controlling this stuff.
So stop whining about the restrictions. If they piss you off, write a tool to split the files. Write (even more useful) a search engine. Publius is the skeleton by which we can build a legitimate file sharing system with a watertight defense.
The radeon runs at ~115 F... more than cool enough to do away with the fan.
The fan is put on the consumer Radeon because it's hard for some people to take a card without a fan seriously. ATI could easily remove it for an OEM application.
I'm sorry, sir, but i have to take issue with your simplified view of life.
Gnute, Gnutella, Freenet, Napster and their like are just a facilitation for crime.
Sony, BMG, Epic and other record companies are simply a facilitation for a producer with an already-fat paycheck to rob a creative and possibly brilliant artist of the proper proportion of their record sales.
Stealing from the poor and creative is the Open Market way.
Looking at your post, i can hardly believe you'd say these things without your tongue already poked through your cheek. "Getting rich at other's expense"? Good Lord, those are the very ieals this country was founded on (capitalism depends on labor, and labor recieves a very small portion of the proceeds).
That being said, i think you can rest easy from the fear of a flame war, since most people are too sick and tired of responding to nitwits.
What I want to know is, who's gonna respond? If Napster wants any legal ground to stand on at all (ie their service is merely to let users exchange files) then if one user offers bogus material, they won't do anything. If they want to win their case...
What I don't get are those who are up in arms about losing their 'right' to pirate. It doesn't matter if CD prices are too high, it's still illegal, and it's still denying the artists money they may well need to survive. If you're gonna do it, do it, but don't put up some bull pretense of protesting the music industry.
This is just the kind of knee-jerk flame we get all up in arms about whenever it's directed at us. Just because Jon Katz writes an article, someone's always sworn to curse him and the horse he came in on. So what if he stereotyped geeks a bit? It's easier to generalize than to break down the entire/. population into smaller (and equally incorrect) sub-stereotypes, and he needs *some* way to address us as a whole. Jon's just trying to congratulate a movie that dares to go where no one else does. He's reccomending that those of us who are anything like the 'JOLT-drinking' geek (and admit it, if you're reading slashdot, you've got something in common) should see the movie for the wicked attacks it makes on a hypocrytical pop culture. Just because it's South Park doesn't mean it's bad. Just because Jon Katz wrote this review doesn't mean it's bad. Give the guy a break, for chrissakes!
All 3dfx are doing is trying to protect their intellectual property. You don't see Creative releasing open source drivers for the SB Live, do you? They're just trying to retain their competitive advantage. Why on earth should 3dfx contribute to an effort that would give their competitors access to a market they essentially (at least to my understanding) have locked down? If GLide weren't a viable API, it'd be a different story, but many developers choose it over OpenGL (for whatever reason... i'd prefer a unilaterally supported API). If you yell at anyone, it should be 3dfx's competiors - if NVIDIA broke into linux with a good OpenGL implementaition, 3dfx would be forced to at least give it a shot. Also, if you hate GLide, yelling at 3dfx won't do anything. They LIKE having a proprietary API. It makes them money, and gives them a competitive advantage over the other companies out there. The people who have control in this matter are game developers. If no one develops for glide (and more developers are going towards openGL or D3D every day), then 3dfx will have to change their strategy.
And by the way, console development is an even worse nightmare than 3dfx. Would you rather use an API (ie GLide or openGL) for free, or pay over 50K for an SDK? Seems like the console strategy is even more despicable...
It's not that net 'space' is ever going to get scarce. The net has an almost infinite capacity for expansion... assuming hardware can keep up with demand.
What these people were paying for was convenience. Those characters had probably been developed since UO began. That takes a lot of time and dedication. Someone without the time to spend building up a character like that, or someone who's simply impatient would look for an easier way into the world. If all of a sudden, 200,000 more users signed up for UO, they'd probably just expand the game world, but getting that well established would still take considerable effort. It's the same reasoning behind hiring a consultant to do your web page, or buying a pre-made computer from Dell or Compaq. The premium is on the service, not neccesarily the composition of what you're buying. Sure, I could spend a while reading up on HTML or decide to code my own online game, but that's a large investment of time (at least coding the game is) that I probably don't have.
Because the net is so scalable, the only real value is attached to developed space, or unique properties (i.e, altavista.com).
I have seen Goths ruin their lives with drugs. I have seen jocks ruin their lives with drugs. I have seen hippies ruin their lives with drugs. I've seen 'normal' people fall off track. It can happen to anyone. Everyone has.
The point is, you can't associate self-destructive habits with a particular style of dress or a certain type of music. You can't assume that someone who dresses in black is automatically on the fast track to oblivion. You can't assume anything. You can hide a gun just as easily under one of those puffy Nautilus jackets as a trenchcoat.
By the same token you can't associate destructive habits to a particular culture either. I have known some Goth-types who, honestly, scared the bejeezus out of me. But i've known plenty more jocks who were just as abrasive. The only reason they didn't go out and get themselves an arsenal is because they were stronger than those they tormented.
Someone's exterior is just that, an exterior. Few people actually wear their hearts on their sleeves. Why is it that those who mold themselves to fit one particular image get less harrasment than those who chose another image? Someone who looks like Satan himself may just have a heart of gold, wheras the nice, well dressed gentleman next door may beat his wife every day.
It's easier to judge people on their exterior, but then again, it's also easy to vote for the first candidate on the list. Laziness is no excuse for myopia.
The "problem" with redhat, IMHO, is that they're making linux "user friendly". Now before anybody gets on their righteous high horse, i believe that redhat is a good thing. It's just that most of us folks dealt with the headache of installing (even using) Linux; it's sort of a trial by fire for us. As a result, many distributions try to appeal to the kind of user that likes mucking about with config files and such. Redhat does the opposite. The general opinion of people I know is that redhat, while better than no linux at all, is sort of "castrated" - that someone who doesn't deal with the guts is less of a man (or woman, i suppose). It's more of a joke than anything else, really...
Slashdot Mirror
Warning: Off-topic...
"Busineses don't get special treatment under contract law. They're just parties, like individuals are."
That's exactly the problem. The reason that corporations are running roughshod over individuals is because they have the same rights as us, but scads more money.
I, for one, don't see any good reason that a corporation needs the same rights as me. Corporate america today seems like a bully who's too big for you to fight, and who relies on the fact that you're too scared to report him.
---------
That's what comes with doing maitenance on any kind of critical systems... Paramedics are always on call, but practicing doctors have relatively short workdays.
Besides, how can a programmer have the same rank as you? You work on totally different projects. Just suck it up and take pride in the fact that your hard work keeps those soft programmers productive...
---------
*cartman voice*
Sega Dreamcast!
---------
I disagree. I think that what makes art great, or even art art is the idea that you're getting an insight into the mind of another human being. Almost any art form can be broken down into an algorithmic approach, but what inspires the assembly of standardized parts is really what impacts you.
Think about 'Starry Night' as opposed to a photograph of the source material. Both can have a certain impact, especially if the photo catches the light in the right way, but the painting is basically what Van Gough thought up in his own mind. Seeing his interpretation of a beautiful scene is what inspires us.
Similarly, seeing a musician performance has a certain impact based simply on the energy of the artist. While a technically proficient piece can be inspiring, the same piece performed by a musician letting himself go in the music.
Part of the whole mistique of art is seeing something beautiful and realizing that a human mind created it, and then pondering that mind.
---------
So, basically, this comes down to a question of the end versus the means. Take construction as an anology. There's architecture out there that the greater mass of people out there can appreciate - think the Notre Dame cathedral. There are also totally forgettable buildings whose primary purpose is functionality - tract housing, most schools, etc. They're all made out of some type of rock, which by itself (in most cases) isn't really that impressive, though a piece of granite probably looks neater than a uniform slab of concrete.
Now let's carry this metaphor over to programming. There's programs out there that ARE moving and incredible to see in action (demos, certain games, etc) that can be appreciated by a larger audience of programs. There's also programs that serve a mainly functional purpose (packet routing software, etc). Now, just like an architect could appreciate innovative techniques used to make a building that ultimately looks bland, us programmers can appreciate elegant code and neat algorithms, even if the end result isn't visually impressive.
There's art that the masses "get", and then there's art that only the artists fully comprehend. Take Perl - the first time I saw how easy it was to do text manipulation with it (as opposed to C or some such), I fell out of my chair.
THAT's art.
---------
Actually, Achilles was, if you've ever read the Iliad, somewhat of a bastard. It was his stubborness and refusal to fight that caused the death of his 'boyfriend' Pericles (I think, I may be wrong on the name). All in all he was arrogant, which eventually led to his downfall - that's the whole point of the story.
And Achilles wasn't really a homosexual... the greeks were especially liberal in their definition of sexuality. It was standard practice for Greek men to take up relationships with boys.
Anyways, saying Card is a homophobe on that basis is plain ludicrous.
---------
The most addictive game has to be Slashdot.org - a massively multiplayer world where like-minded individuals struggle for surpremacy. Character classes such as the Troll, the Karma Whore, and the rare, revered Plus Five engage in savage flame wars, contesting the very basis of each others existence to gain philisophical leverage and wrest the precious Karma for themselves! But beware, your target could be a Moderator, whose eerie power can suck your hard earned points away!
Definitely the most addictive... see how hard I have to work just to get ahead here?
---------
That's sort of an extra-venemous reply for a fairly innocuous topic, isn't it? I mean, for ME, U-U-D-D-L-R-L-R-B-A-Start is a symbol of my wasted hours of childhood. Most cheat codes don't mean a thing (though tell me you don't feel a pang of nostalgia from the pseudo-words "idspispopd" or "idkfa"), but that particular code is definitely folklore. Just about everyone who had a NES knew the code - heck, just about everyone who PLAYED a NES new the code. Contra itself didn't generate stories, but the code is certainly a concise symbol for a bygone age.
Heck, maybe ol' John himself played a couple games of Contra. Regardless, we shouldn't knee-jerk at topics that, as journalistically worthless as they may be, give us an opportunity to wax nostalgic. Peace.
---------
Boo hoo hoo. The MPAA is SUCH a victim here. They must feel violated - the rights that they could only wish for a few years ago were attacked. My sympathy for those poor, poor saps is overwhelming.
not.
2600 broke the law. But the point of this case was to contest a law that obviously treads on the rights of citizens. The fact is that CSS goes beyond the rights of the MPAA as purveyors of copyrighted materials. The fact is also that the MPAA is simply targeting a patsy with a bad reputation so they can get legislation in their favor.
there's more at stake here than i-was-right bragging rights. This case questions the constitutionality of the DCMA and the legality of the MPAA's actions with repsect to CSS. It's critical for the future of the internet and in determining if online publishing is a tool of the people or of corporations.
this rhetoric may be overblown, but the fact is that we believe the MPAA is in the wrong. As those who stand with a significant intellectual and emotional stake in this case, it's our duty to have an opinion, and as hackers it's our duty to stand up for our principles. This was the first field test of the DMCA, and a ruling in its favor is an attack on our beliefs.
and if you don't think so, think of a world where all your code is relegated to 'presidential assassination' status.
---------
Well, now that our content is being pirated, it's perhaps time to reevaluate the rights of the creator as pertaining to his/her work. If we disagree with a way our works our being distributed, then why don't musicians get to have a say in how their music is (re)distributed?
Just some food for thought.
---------
I'm sure everyone remembers StarWars Ascii-mation? Let's not let the memory of that great endeavor be sullied by some punk shoot-em-up!
Just to up the ante, though, i think i'm gonna recruit an all-ASCII boy band and promote them heavily on MTV...
top THAT, ascii-mators!
---------
I mean, what if (and this is hypothetical! don't flame me for this part!) freenet ended up being used for ONLY passing peoples' credit card numbers around, becoming a major tool of international fraud and nothing else ? Then yes, we'd be better off stopping it!
And if it did? This would perhaps be indicative of a flaw in the current credit card system, no? Perhaps leading to a new more secure system, not based off of a pirateable number?
Technology begets technology. To halt a new development because it invalidates an older one is myopic.
Instead of attacking everything new in sight, our dinosaurish corporate friends might want to invest in staying ahead of the curve. Not even ahead, neccesarily. But maybe, just maybe reevaluating a system every 30 years or so isn't a bad idea.
---------
Now hold on for one second there, partner...
How about the scenario "Jimmy hacks a virus bomb?" saying a nanobot can turn the world into chocolate cake is just as alarmist as worrying about ebola bombs. Not the fact that they aren't frightening, but simply that something like that is hard to deliver on a world-threatening scale.
One can get into a discussion on the feasibility of pastry-manufacture nanotech (the power for the miraculous matter transmutation comes from where?), but the important part is that when you look at it, these dire warnings are just misunderstandings given form. All kinds of dire warnings have been issued regarding antrhax missiles and the like, but if you take a look at modern warfare, the pinnacle of destructive power is simple - a big, big bomb.
While it's human nature to be afraid of something new, this kind of doomsaying defies logic.
---------
But it IS the point. Publius didn't encourage those utilities. Some anonymous user did. And who's to say they're only for use with publius? Maybe the program splits up files for you in the case you wanted to try doing raid-striping on your own or something... :)
Anyways, publius as an entity is free from attack if they don't create those utilities.
---------
So we all know that Pulius is hackable. The safeguards are easily circumvented or whatnot. The point of Publius is not, as many here see it, to provide what is essentially an encrypted geocities site.
The purpose *is* to "strike a blow against censorship". By putting safeguards in place, Publius establishes an unassailable incarnation of free speech on the net. There isn't a bad-mojo buisiness plan behind closed doors to profit from copyrighted material. There aren't scads of copyrighted songs getting traded (though at some point there probably will be). Big Companies can't attack Publius.
What this means is that a bastion for digital distribution is being established, apart from corporations that have a huge interest in controlling this stuff.
So stop whining about the restrictions. If they piss you off, write a tool to split the files. Write (even more useful) a search engine. Publius is the skeleton by which we can build a legitimate file sharing system with a watertight defense.
---------
The radeon runs at ~115 F... more than cool enough to do away with the fan.
The fan is put on the consumer Radeon because it's hard for some people to take a card without a fan seriously. ATI could easily remove it for an OEM application.
---------
Warning: Offtopic, etc.
I'm sorry, sir, but i have to take issue with your simplified view of life.
Gnute, Gnutella, Freenet, Napster and their like are just a facilitation for crime.
Sony, BMG, Epic and other record companies are simply a facilitation for a producer with an already-fat paycheck to rob a creative and possibly brilliant artist of the proper proportion of their record sales.
Stealing from the poor and creative is the Open Market way.
Looking at your post, i can hardly believe you'd say these things without your tongue already poked through your cheek. "Getting rich at other's expense"? Good Lord, those are the very ieals this country was founded on (capitalism depends on labor, and labor recieves a very small portion of the proceeds).
That being said, i think you can rest easy from the fear of a flame war, since most people are too sick and tired of responding to nitwits.
---------
What I want to know is, who's gonna respond? If Napster wants any legal ground to stand on at all (ie their service is merely to let users exchange files) then if one user offers bogus material, they won't do anything. If they want to win their case...
What I don't get are those who are up in arms about losing their 'right' to pirate. It doesn't matter if CD prices are too high, it's still illegal, and it's still denying the artists money they may well need to survive. If you're gonna do it, do it, but don't put up some bull pretense of protesting the music industry.
---------
This is just the kind of knee-jerk flame we get all up in arms about whenever it's directed at us. Just because Jon Katz writes an article, someone's always sworn to curse him and the horse he came in on. So what if he stereotyped geeks a bit? It's easier to generalize than to break down the entire /. population into smaller (and equally incorrect) sub-stereotypes, and he needs *some* way to address us as a whole. Jon's just trying to congratulate a movie that dares to go where no one else does. He's reccomending that those of us who are anything like the 'JOLT-drinking' geek (and admit it, if you're reading slashdot, you've got something in common) should see the movie for the wicked attacks it makes on a hypocrytical pop culture.
Just because it's South Park doesn't mean it's bad.
Just because Jon Katz wrote this review doesn't mean it's bad. Give the guy a break, for chrissakes!
---------
All 3dfx are doing is trying to protect their intellectual property. You don't see Creative releasing open source drivers for the SB Live, do you? They're just trying to retain their competitive advantage. Why on earth should 3dfx contribute to an effort that would give their competitors access to a market they essentially (at least to my understanding) have locked down? If GLide weren't a viable API, it'd be a different story, but many developers choose it over OpenGL (for whatever reason... i'd prefer a unilaterally supported API).
If you yell at anyone, it should be 3dfx's competiors - if NVIDIA broke into linux with a good OpenGL implementaition, 3dfx would be forced to at least give it a shot.
Also, if you hate GLide, yelling at 3dfx won't do anything. They LIKE having a proprietary API. It makes them money, and gives them a competitive advantage over the other companies out there. The people who have control in this matter are game developers. If no one develops for glide (and more developers are going towards openGL or D3D every day), then 3dfx will have to change their strategy.
And by the way, console development is an even worse nightmare than 3dfx. Would you rather use an API (ie GLide or openGL) for free, or pay over 50K for an SDK? Seems like the console strategy is even more despicable...
---------
...it's on the development in that space.
It's not that net 'space' is ever going to get scarce. The net has an almost infinite capacity for expansion... assuming hardware can keep up with demand.
What these people were paying for was convenience. Those characters had probably been developed since UO began. That takes a lot of time and dedication. Someone without the time to spend building up a character like that, or someone who's simply impatient would look for an easier way into the world. If all of a sudden, 200,000 more users signed up for UO, they'd probably just expand the game world, but getting that well established would still take considerable effort. It's the same reasoning behind hiring a consultant to do your web page, or buying a pre-made computer from Dell or Compaq. The premium is on the service, not neccesarily the composition of what you're buying. Sure, I could spend a while reading up on HTML or decide to code my own online game, but that's a large investment of time (at least coding the game is) that I probably don't have.
Because the net is so scalable, the only real value is attached to developed space, or unique properties (i.e, altavista.com).
---------
I have seen Goths ruin their lives with drugs. I have seen jocks ruin their lives with drugs. I have seen hippies ruin their lives with drugs. I've seen 'normal' people fall off track. It can happen to anyone. Everyone has.
The point is, you can't associate self-destructive habits with a particular style of dress or a certain type of music. You can't assume that someone who dresses in black is automatically on the fast track to oblivion. You can't assume anything. You can hide a gun just as easily under one of those puffy Nautilus jackets as a trenchcoat.
By the same token you can't associate destructive habits to a particular culture either. I have known some Goth-types who, honestly, scared the bejeezus out of me. But i've known plenty more jocks who were just as abrasive. The only reason they didn't go out and get themselves an arsenal is because they were stronger than those they tormented.
Someone's exterior is just that, an exterior. Few people actually wear their hearts on their sleeves. Why is it that those who mold themselves to fit one particular image get less harrasment than those who chose another image? Someone who looks like Satan himself may just have a heart of gold, wheras the nice, well dressed gentleman next door may beat his wife every day.
It's easier to judge people on their exterior, but then again, it's also easy to vote for the first candidate on the list. Laziness is no excuse for myopia.
---------
The "problem" with redhat, IMHO, is that they're making linux "user friendly". Now before anybody gets on their righteous high horse, i believe that redhat is a good thing. It's just that most of us folks dealt with the headache of installing (even using) Linux; it's sort of a trial by fire for us. As a result, many distributions try to appeal to the kind of user that likes mucking about with config files and such. Redhat does the opposite. The general opinion of people I know is that redhat, while better than no linux at all, is sort of "castrated" - that someone who doesn't deal with the guts is less of a man (or woman, i suppose). It's more of a joke than anything else, really...
Why not get a real server, rather than some intel garbage? Like a Sparc UE or something?
Even if it is a quad xeon 400, saying that NT posesses 'superior scalability' is like saying is has 'mature engineering' rather than code bloat...