Slackware uses the BSD-tyle init scripts (/etc/rc.d/rc.M, rc.inet1, rc.inet2) which, IMO, is easier for newbie and guru alike to use.
I have so often wondered why debian, redhat, suse, et al have gone with Sys V style init scripts. BSD init is so much more concsise and easier to maintain it just seems the logical choice to go with.
Yet again companies are trying to get US law enforced on other soveriegn nations. This parallels the ICraveTV and DeCSS fiascos, not to mention brings up the legality of "click wrap" licenses.
Obviously the US court has no jurisdiction, but will render a verdict anyways. I just have to wonder how US citizens like their tax payer money being spent on operating courts whose judgement has no relevance? This would piss me off to no end if I were american.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:what i dont understand, please enlighten me
on
Geographic Screening
·
· Score: 2
The complaint lists William R. Craig, George Simons, William R. Craig Consulting ("WRC"), and iCraveTV and TVRadio Now, Corp. as defendents. Craig and Simons are, according to the complaint, Pittsburgh residents; the WRC Consulting principal business address is in Pittsburgh, and the domain name for iCrave is registered to a Pittsburgh address. It is pretty clear that the Pennsylvania court had jurisdiction over a suit brought against the first three defendants.
No, it didn't.
Whats happened here is these people, US residents or US registered businesses or not did NOT perform these actions in the US, period. That's like smoking a joint in the netherlands where it's legal and being busted for narcotics use when you get back to the US.
The US here is effectively trying to extend its jurisdiciton, when infact it holds no water either way. The actions were in Toronto, Canadian soil, a US court has no authority there.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:what i dont understand, please enlighten me
on
Geographic Screening
·
· Score: 1
You can't receive cable over the airwaves, that's why it's called cable.;)
They rebroadcast any channels they can get over the airwaves over their cable networks, including US ones. This is why this law was written, to allow rural places to also have cable from rural cable companies.
Not only this, sometimes they get broadcasts from other cable companies which have rebroadcast channels they recieved.
Is the MPAA and the US Broadcasters Assoc going to sue all these little rural canadian cable co's now for rebroadcasting "their" signals?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:what i dont understand, please enlighten me
on
Geographic Screening
·
· Score: 2
In this particular case, iCrave was violating US laws in US jurisdiction, because their (re)broadcasts were accessable in the US. In other words, they were breaking US laws in the US.
Where did you learn logic? You seem to have it flawed.
Better start suing a bunch of Canadian cable companies, its quite standard practice to do this over regular airwaves, which, no doubt can be recieved in the US.
The fact that it was accessable in the US, as it was in many other countries, is of little relevance, they were doing this in Canada, under Canadian law, had a crude screening system, but still it was there. Even if they had no screening system, its still none of the US's business to interfere with Canadian businesses.
It was a Canadian company, operating in Canada, under Canadian jurisdiction. None of the US's business.
The "Enter your Canadian Area Code:" prompt at iCraveTV's website was a joke. Any US retard with 5 minutes on his hands could get around this protection, and while a lot of us may like it that way, it's breaking laws. Canada may allow rebroadcasting, but the US does not.
And since when does US law cover the world?
Man, American arrogance really gets me sometimes, it was a Canadian company operating in Canada under Canadian law, no law was being broken, hell they didn't even have to put ANY screening system on there and they STILL wouldn't be breaking any laws, because they were doing it in... Canada.
Why they didn't contest this is beyond me, why they even bothered to show up in that PA courtroom is also beyond me. The US has no jurisdiction over Canadian businesses, period.
I've been looking at the Glassbook formats, it seems it uses PDF's, however they're encrypted, or cyphered with EBX. Seems pretty straight forward, I've got a way to pirate the books from one persons reader to anothers already... So much for encrypted access control. Do people never learn?
If you don't want to download everything, you don't have to. You just need to rerun a script on the desired RPMS directory to set up the new list of available packages.
Then the question begs to be asked, why doesn't the installer run it itself instead of making the user do it? Way to go Redhat Inc., the oh-so-million dollar IPO worthy company.
Real geeks don't want to spend all day compiling some new toy, and the next few days trying to wipe it from their system.
Real geeks wouldn't have to wipe it from their system.
When I'm really hungry, I don't make my own dough, grow my own veggies, slaughter my own pigs and press my own sausage--I pick up the phone and call Pizza Hut.
If you were a cook or a farmer you would.
Since when are you the spokesman for geeks? I actually like compiling my own stuff, it gives me control in how its built, what options are set and how it handles the filesystem.
Huh? I'd say Slackware is the *least* "download friendly" distribution. They don't even provide an FTP install. I can install RedHat, Debian, etc. with at most 3 floppies
FTP install != Download friendly.
I'm talking about downloading it FIRST, BEFORE the install, not during. I've tried some of the ftp installs, and they are quite HORRIBLE on a modem connection, and if it screws up or you get your connection dropped you're done, gotta start over.
However, if you download the files first, you can put em on zip disk, cd, hd, whatever and not be worried about dropped connections, etc. You try downloading debian or redhat first (not ISO) before installing and if you only download the packages you want/need (enjoy looking up dependancies manually) you'll be greeted with a "Cannot find package: Packagename.rpm" msg window you have to hit enter to get by for every of the hundreds of packages you didn't download.
Hi Pat, I've been using slackware for years now, it was my first distribution back in the 2.x era and other then my little stint with debian for about a month I've been running it ever since.
It's been my observation that slackware has been the most "download friendly" distribution, by that I mean it's segmented into disk sets and you only need to download the ones you want to install it. Other distributions seem to obfuscate this process (redhat complains during install if it cannot absolutely find every package, as do many others).
The reason behind this I think is that they want people to buy it, so they obfuscate and make it difficult to download the distribution.
Now wil Slackware apparently getting spun off into a seperate company, will there be more pressure to sell more units, and will this "download friendliness" change?
In a press conference held today by Real Inc., Vice President of Marketing Seymour Butts stated "Only 10 months after our Real Player G2 Alpha for Linux was released we unveil Real Player 7 Beta for Linux!"
"We have made great strides to bring our newest stats grab, er, player to Linux, and we hope to be well received in the Linux community."
When asked why no stable player has been released for Linux since version 5, Mr. Butts resolves "Actually the beta is the final version, we just can't say that or else we'd have to support it."
"Our next version of the Linux Real Player will be 8 Gamma, followed by 9 Delta, 10 Echo and continuing on like that. It's a pretty ingenious way to get out of supporting a product, don't you think? Our lawyers thought it up."
Mills. Enhanced agriculture. Printing press (ok, ok, but the Chinese kept it to themselves). Law. Rationalism. The nation state. Cars. Flight. Rockets.
You forgot: Clones, IP over Power Grid, audio casettes, museums, the telescope, democracy, and metal knives.
Either you haven't seen or been associated with drug users or you haven't been around to take the long view of things.
Wrong, I know many successful people who have used or do use drugs, of course there are also those who can't handle it, there will always be them. Should we make them illegal because of it? No I don't think so. Many people can't handle many things.
It is not an exageration when I say that nearly all of the people I knew in highschool who did drugs has ruined their lives and often the lives of others. At least five are dead, two are in jail, several including my brother are so far in the shitter they couldn't get out if they wanted to, at least 16 fucked up kids including two of my nephews, countless times of hurting innocent people....
Sorry to hear about your circumstances, however I still belive drugs should not be illegal.
I assume when we say drugs we are talking about illegal drugs or illegal use of drugs. Tell what you say to the millions of other citizens rotting away in jail and prison as we speak. Tell it to your kid when he visits on the weekend. Yes I think drug addicts sould be treated if they want treatment. No I don't think they should be in jail for that alone. If they get stoned and harm someone else then they certainly need punishment. But the reality is that if you get caught you will definetly pay a lot of money, you may lose your job and you may go straight to jail.
Just like MS spreads FUD about Linux and other operating systems, the government, but more importantly, the tobacco industry, has spread FUD about drugs, pot in particular.
Just like you can drink alcohol responsibly you can also take many drugs responsibly. Everything is an addiction, TV, computers, the internet, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, music, games, work, sex, food. Addictions are not necessarily bad things.
There are problems with drugs, just like there are problems with alcohol, I will not deny this as to would be impossible. There are problems with everything, this doesn't mean it should be illegal.
I'd like to state right now however, that I do not use drugs, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, etc, however, as long as people do them and they don't harm me then I see no fault in it. Pot has gotten a very bad reputation at the hands of the tobacco industry, that's why it's illegal, not because its harmful.
And no, the law seldom fails. People fail. Either in upholding or following it.
And people create, maintain, uphold, and interpret the law, and the law is dependant on these people to do just that, therefore the law fails.
Law is a human creation, it is inherently flawed because of it.
For the most part though, in my case I don't normally consciously fail the law or teach my children to either. Unless taking a stand against a bad law is more important.
I will oppose to my dying breath any and all laws I deem wrong, and I have no quam about doing so, because if I don't, who will? And then what do we have? A country full of bad laws no one stood against.
The laws against non-violent drug offenders definitelt fits the bill but not to the point that I would risk my family over it.
"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem."
My point is that you try to control what your child has access to until they have the maturity and understanding to really comprehend what they are seeing.
I don't try. It's my position that seeing, hearing, experiencing adversity makes them stronger people. It's the "shelter mentality" that has gotten our society to this position.
Yet another fact is that supposing you are doing drugs, if you have a responsible position or other responsibilities like kids then you obviously have a serious problem.
And if you take Halls and perform a breathalyzer test you will fail. Come on now. What drugs are you talking about here? There are so many which have such different effects on the body that you cannot make a blanket generalization like that.
Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, they are all human constructs and they are all subjective. What is good for some is not good for others, what one person perceives as right another vemently denounces.
The spirit of the law is to do the greatest good while doing the least harm, and sometimes it fails, horribly. This "war on drugs" and narcotics laws are only one instance, another is the DMCA, yet another is the UCITA, I could go on and on about how the law fails miserably. However in each case it is good for some and bad for others.
Good and Bad, Right and Wrong are subjective human constructs and they should be treated as such, this is how the law fails.
If you're not specifically looking for it, its very hard to come across, especially for kids under 10, who will no doubt be looking for pokemon sites and whatever. Kids 10-16, if they do go looking for it, what do you think their reaction will be? "Ewww Sick" or they laugh it off.
This kind of content doesn't have as much effect on children as some people would have you belive.
Giving reasons helps also. "Don't do drugs because drugs are for losers. Every person I grew up with who started doing drugs in HS is either dead or working the takeout at McDonalds."
Carl Sagan (and a lot of successful people I know) smoke(d) pot.:)
Depends on the drugs really, some are as harmful as cigarettes, others are pretty harmless, some are rather destructive..
I think most people agree that, in certain ways, "censorware" can be useful. No one really wants kids to easily see hard core porn, do they?
To be perfectly honest with you, if I had children, I wouldn't care one way or the other if they see hard core porn.
Why you ask?
Because all kids do it, I know when I was 10 or 11 I found my brothers porn mags and looked through them, curiously. It didn't scar me for life, it didn't make me go into violent convultions, it didn't kill me.
For gods sake here, all it is is a couple of naked bodies having sex, who cares! Kids can undress and look at themselves too ya know. These puritan mores in our society sicken me.
When it's all said and done, it's not about sheilding your children from nudity and sex, because they are going to see it eventually whether you like it or not. It's about bringing up well adjusted children who are able to handle it.
"They're definately from water all right," said Dr. Willie Makeit, Scientist from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, "Well, either that or massive quantities of hot grits, but come on, that wouldn't be possible..."
30 years after finding the canals scientists concluded today that they could have been created from flowing water, to what do they attribute the lag time?
"Pong," says Makeit, "when the initial data came back in the 70's Pong had just came out and we were all playing it on the big screens here at the Center, we must have missed it and shelved the data."
Still, there is much controvercy, not all the scientists here at Goddard belive they were created by flowing water.
Jimmy de Loche, a newcommer at NASA thinks there was a more interesting explaination to the canals formation.
"If you look at the ridges, they're not smooth, kindof jagged, this suggests fragmantations, a blast of some sort, what I think happened is that a civilization not unlike our own nuked itself into extinction on Mars, poor bastards. No doubt a war over hot grits and Natilie Portman open sourced and Petrified statues."
When pressed on the issue of where he came to this conclusion, Mr. Makeit goes into convulsions, rants almost incoherently about slashdot, troll tuesday, and "Will Rob fucking impliment submit box moderation already!". This reporter was very taken aback with these words.
What do they mean? Who is Rob? Trolls in this day and age?
Tune in tomorrow for answers to these and other important questions, same Linux-Time, same Linux-Channel.
Possibly, but don't you think it's more likely that if they DID screw it up, the dates would be later then actual, and not earlier? This means that if the date is screwed up there's a higher possibility of the OpenBSD guys actually registering before the date in the whois database, further showing that: they snooze, they lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Slackware uses the BSD-tyle init scripts (/etc/rc.d/rc.M, rc.inet1, rc.inet2) which, IMO, is easier for newbie and guru alike to use.
I have so often wondered why debian, redhat, suse, et al have gone with Sys V style init scripts. BSD init is so much more concsise and easier to maintain it just seems the logical choice to go with.
-- iCEBaLM
Yet again companies are trying to get US law enforced on other soveriegn nations. This parallels the ICraveTV and DeCSS fiascos, not to mention brings up the legality of "click wrap" licenses.
Obviously the US court has no jurisdiction, but will render a verdict anyways. I just have to wonder how US citizens like their tax payer money being spent on operating courts whose judgement has no relevance? This would piss me off to no end if I were american.
-- iCEBaLM
The complaint lists William R. Craig, George Simons, William R. Craig Consulting ("WRC"), and iCraveTV and TVRadio Now, Corp. as defendents. Craig and Simons are, according to the complaint, Pittsburgh residents; the WRC Consulting principal business address is in Pittsburgh, and the domain name for iCrave is registered to a Pittsburgh address. It is pretty clear that the Pennsylvania court had jurisdiction over a suit brought against the first three defendants.
No, it didn't.
Whats happened here is these people, US residents or US registered businesses or not did NOT perform these actions in the US, period. That's like smoking a joint in the netherlands where it's legal and being busted for narcotics use when you get back to the US.
The US here is effectively trying to extend its jurisdiciton, when infact it holds no water either way. The actions were in Toronto, Canadian soil, a US court has no authority there.
-- iCEBaLM
You can't receive cable over the airwaves, that's why it's called cable. ;)
They rebroadcast any channels they can get over the airwaves over their cable networks, including US ones. This is why this law was written, to allow rural places to also have cable from rural cable companies.
Not only this, sometimes they get broadcasts from other cable companies which have rebroadcast channels they recieved.
Is the MPAA and the US Broadcasters Assoc going to sue all these little rural canadian cable co's now for rebroadcasting "their" signals?
-- iCEBaLM
In this particular case, iCrave was violating US laws in US jurisdiction, because their (re)broadcasts were accessable in the US. In other words, they were breaking US laws in the US.
Where did you learn logic? You seem to have it flawed.
Better start suing a bunch of Canadian cable companies, its quite standard practice to do this over regular airwaves, which, no doubt can be recieved in the US.
The fact that it was accessable in the US, as it was in many other countries, is of little relevance, they were doing this in Canada, under Canadian law, had a crude screening system, but still it was there. Even if they had no screening system, its still none of the US's business to interfere with Canadian businesses.
It was a Canadian company, operating in Canada, under Canadian jurisdiction. None of the US's business.
-- iCEBaLM
The "Enter your Canadian Area Code:" prompt at iCraveTV's website was a joke. Any US retard with 5 minutes on his hands could get around this protection, and while a lot of us may like it that way, it's breaking laws. Canada may allow rebroadcasting, but the US does not.
And since when does US law cover the world?
Man, American arrogance really gets me sometimes, it was a Canadian company operating in Canada under Canadian law, no law was being broken, hell they didn't even have to put ANY screening system on there and they STILL wouldn't be breaking any laws, because they were doing it in... Canada.
Why they didn't contest this is beyond me, why they even bothered to show up in that PA courtroom is also beyond me. The US has no jurisdiction over Canadian businesses, period.
-- iCEBaLM
I've been looking at the Glassbook formats, it seems it uses PDF's, however they're encrypted, or cyphered with EBX. Seems pretty straight forward, I've got a way to pirate the books from one persons reader to anothers already... So much for encrypted access control. Do people never learn?
-- iCEBaLM
If you don't want to download everything, you don't have to. You just need to rerun a script on the desired RPMS directory to set up the new list of available packages.
Then the question begs to be asked, why doesn't the installer run it itself instead of making the user do it? Way to go Redhat Inc., the oh-so-million dollar IPO worthy company.
-- iCEBaLM
Real geeks don't want to spend all day compiling some new toy, and the next few days trying to wipe it from their system.
Real geeks wouldn't have to wipe it from their system.
When I'm really hungry, I don't make my own dough, grow my own veggies, slaughter my own pigs and press my own sausage--I pick up the phone and call Pizza Hut.
If you were a cook or a farmer you would.
Since when are you the spokesman for geeks? I actually like compiling my own stuff, it gives me control in how its built, what options are set and how it handles the filesystem.
-- iCEBaLM
Huh? I'd say Slackware is the *least* "download friendly" distribution. They don't even provide an FTP install. I can install RedHat, Debian, etc. with at most 3 floppies
FTP install != Download friendly.
I'm talking about downloading it FIRST, BEFORE the install, not during. I've tried some of the ftp installs, and they are quite HORRIBLE on a modem connection, and if it screws up or you get your connection dropped you're done, gotta start over.
However, if you download the files first, you can put em on zip disk, cd, hd, whatever and not be worried about dropped connections, etc. You try downloading debian or redhat first (not ISO) before installing and if you only download the packages you want/need (enjoy looking up dependancies manually) you'll be greeted with a "Cannot find package: Packagename.rpm" msg window you have to hit enter to get by for every of the hundreds of packages you didn't download.
-- iCEBaLM
Hi Pat,
I've been using slackware for years now, it was my first distribution back in the 2.x era and other then my little stint with debian for about a month I've been running it ever since.
It's been my observation that slackware has been the most "download friendly" distribution, by that I mean it's segmented into disk sets and you only need to download the ones you want to install it. Other distributions seem to obfuscate this process (redhat complains during install if it cannot absolutely find every package, as do many others).
The reason behind this I think is that they want people to buy it, so they obfuscate and make it difficult to download the distribution.
Now wil Slackware apparently getting spun off into a seperate company, will there be more pressure to sell more units, and will this "download friendliness" change?
-- iCEBaLM
In a press conference held today by Real Inc., Vice President of Marketing Seymour Butts stated "Only 10 months after our Real Player G2 Alpha for Linux was released we unveil Real Player 7 Beta for Linux!"
"We have made great strides to bring our newest stats grab, er, player to Linux, and we hope to be well received in the Linux community."
When asked why no stable player has been released for Linux since version 5, Mr. Butts resolves "Actually the beta is the final version, we just can't say that or else we'd have to support it."
"Our next version of the Linux Real Player will be 8 Gamma, followed by 9 Delta, 10 Echo and continuing on like that. It's a pretty ingenious way to get out of supporting a product, don't you think? Our lawyers thought it up."
-- iCEBaLM
Mills. Enhanced agriculture. Printing press (ok, ok, but the Chinese kept it to themselves). Law. Rationalism. The nation state. Cars. Flight. Rockets.
You forgot: Clones, IP over Power Grid, audio casettes, museums, the telescope, democracy, and metal knives.
-- iCEBaLM
Either you haven't seen or been associated with drug users or you haven't been around to take the long view of things.
Wrong, I know many successful people who have used or do use drugs, of course there are also those who can't handle it, there will always be them. Should we make them illegal because of it? No I don't think so. Many people can't handle many things.
It is not an exageration when I say that nearly all of the people I knew in highschool who did drugs has ruined their lives and often the lives of others. At least five are dead, two are in jail, several including my brother are so far in the shitter they couldn't get out if they wanted to, at least 16 fucked up kids including two of my nephews, countless times of hurting innocent people....
Sorry to hear about your circumstances, however I still belive drugs should not be illegal.
-- iCEBaLM
I assume when we say drugs we are talking about illegal drugs or illegal use of drugs. Tell what you say to the millions of other citizens rotting away in jail and prison as we speak. Tell it to your kid when he visits on the weekend. Yes I think drug addicts sould be treated if they want treatment. No I don't think they should be in jail for that alone. If they get stoned and harm someone else then they certainly need punishment. But the reality is that if you get caught you will definetly pay a lot of money, you may lose your job and you may go straight to jail.
Just like MS spreads FUD about Linux and other operating systems, the government, but more importantly, the tobacco industry, has spread FUD about drugs, pot in particular.
Just like you can drink alcohol responsibly you can also take many drugs responsibly. Everything is an addiction, TV, computers, the internet, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, music, games, work, sex, food. Addictions are not necessarily bad things.
There are problems with drugs, just like there are problems with alcohol, I will not deny this as to would be impossible. There are problems with everything, this doesn't mean it should be illegal.
I'd like to state right now however, that I do not use drugs, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, etc, however, as long as people do them and they don't harm me then I see no fault in it. Pot has gotten a very bad reputation at the hands of the tobacco industry, that's why it's illegal, not because its harmful.
And no, the law seldom fails. People fail. Either in upholding or following it.
And people create, maintain, uphold, and interpret the law, and the law is dependant on these people to do just that, therefore the law fails.
Law is a human creation, it is inherently flawed because of it.
For the most part though, in my case I don't normally consciously fail the law or teach my children to either. Unless taking a stand against a bad law is more important.
I will oppose to my dying breath any and all laws I deem wrong, and I have no quam about doing so, because if I don't, who will? And then what do we have? A country full of bad laws no one stood against.
The laws against non-violent drug offenders definitelt fits the bill but not to the point that I would risk my family over it.
"If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem."
-- iCEBaLM
My point is that you try to control what your child has access to until they have the maturity and understanding to really comprehend what they are seeing.
I don't try. It's my position that seeing, hearing, experiencing adversity makes them stronger people. It's the "shelter mentality" that has gotten our society to this position.
Yet another fact is that supposing you are doing drugs, if you have a responsible position or other responsibilities like kids then you obviously have a serious problem.
And if you take Halls and perform a breathalyzer test you will fail. Come on now. What drugs are you talking about here? There are so many which have such different effects on the body that you cannot make a blanket generalization like that.
Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, they are all human constructs and they are all subjective. What is good for some is not good for others, what one person perceives as right another vemently denounces.
The spirit of the law is to do the greatest good while doing the least harm, and sometimes it fails, horribly. This "war on drugs" and narcotics laws are only one instance, another is the DMCA, yet another is the UCITA, I could go on and on about how the law fails miserably. However in each case it is good for some and bad for others.
Good and Bad, Right and Wrong are subjective human constructs and they should be treated as such, this is how the law fails.
-- iCEBaLM
Just pour hot grits down your pants, it works for most trolls..
-- iCEBaLM
Think about this realisticly here...
If you're not specifically looking for it, its very hard to come across, especially for kids under 10, who will no doubt be looking for pokemon sites and whatever. Kids 10-16, if they do go looking for it, what do you think their reaction will be? "Ewww Sick" or they laugh it off.
This kind of content doesn't have as much effect on children as some people would have you belive.
-- iCEBaLM
Giving reasons helps also. "Don't do drugs because drugs are for losers. Every person I grew up with who started doing drugs in HS is either dead or working the takeout at McDonalds."
:)
Carl Sagan (and a lot of successful people I know) smoke(d) pot.
Depends on the drugs really, some are as harmful as cigarettes, others are pretty harmless, some are rather destructive..
-- iCEBaLM
I think most people agree that, in certain ways, "censorware" can be useful. No one really wants kids to easily see hard core porn, do they?
To be perfectly honest with you, if I had children, I wouldn't care one way or the other if they see hard core porn.
Why you ask?
Because all kids do it, I know when I was 10 or 11 I found my brothers porn mags and looked through them, curiously. It didn't scar me for life, it didn't make me go into violent convultions, it didn't kill me.
For gods sake here, all it is is a couple of naked bodies having sex, who cares! Kids can undress and look at themselves too ya know. These puritan mores in our society sicken me.
When it's all said and done, it's not about sheilding your children from nudity and sex, because they are going to see it eventually whether you like it or not. It's about bringing up well adjusted children who are able to handle it.
-- iCEBaLM
"They're definately from water all right," said Dr. Willie Makeit, Scientist from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, "Well, either that or massive quantities of hot grits, but come on, that wouldn't be possible..."
30 years after finding the canals scientists concluded today that they could have been created from flowing water, to what do they attribute the lag time?
"Pong," says Makeit, "when the initial data came back in the 70's Pong had just came out and we were all playing it on the big screens here at the Center, we must have missed it and shelved the data."
Still, there is much controvercy, not all the scientists here at Goddard belive they were created by flowing water.
Jimmy de Loche, a newcommer at NASA thinks there was a more interesting explaination to the canals formation.
"If you look at the ridges, they're not smooth, kindof jagged, this suggests fragmantations, a blast of some sort, what I think happened is that a civilization not unlike our own nuked itself into extinction on Mars, poor bastards. No doubt a war over hot grits and Natilie Portman open sourced and Petrified statues."
When pressed on the issue of where he came to this conclusion, Mr. Makeit goes into convulsions, rants almost incoherently about slashdot, troll tuesday, and "Will Rob fucking impliment submit box moderation already!". This reporter was very taken aback with these words.
What do they mean? Who is Rob? Trolls in this day and age?
Tune in tomorrow for answers to these and other important questions, same Linux-Time, same Linux-Channel.
-- iCEBaLM
They seem to be back... unfortunately...
-- iCEBaLM
damn.... No banners is so much better :P
-- iCEBaLM
I mean, I think you all could afford it.
/.?
Especially now that they seem to have enough money to remove the banner ads, anyone else notice that there are no more banner ads on
-- iCEBaLM
Possibly, but don't you think it's more likely that if they DID screw it up, the dates would be later then actual, and not earlier? This means that if the date is screwed up there's a higher possibility of the OpenBSD guys actually registering before the date in the whois database, further showing that: they snooze, they lose.
-- iCEBaLM