Everything is wrong with that -- it's not "kind", it's just a good way to piss off companies, that might otherwise support Linux, by sending them mixed messages.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I think XFree86 is doing the right thing by allowing binary-only releases. They seem to have a genuine concern for how "some companies feel yada yada yada". But you're right - if they're going to allow this sort of thing, then they (and everyone else here on Slashdot) need to stop bitching about it.
It's like saying "You can write your drivers anyway you like. But if you don't write them the way we like, we're going to boycott you. But, seriously, you can do whatever you like... no pressure."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I don't know what to tell you, except that the majority of their customers aren't computer geeks. I'm not sure why you'd think that -- maybe because a lot of computer geeks play 3D games? Most of NVidia's customers are companies like Dell, that put NVidia's cards into their PCs. As for end-users, I think you'll find that only a small number of their sales come from individual consumer purchases.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Very true. Although with the availability of high-speed connectivity, email and web-browsing becomes more of a wanted feature in set-top boxes. The Dreamcast comes with it's own browser CD, and you can buy a keyboard for it. The trick is making the browser implicitly simple to use, so that it's as easy as figuring out a video-game.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Sort of offtopic, but the Dreamcast is not really telnet-able. Although there was a story about it here on Slashdot, the editor's note that said it was a hoax was posted too late for most people to notice. So, in short, you can't really telnet into a Dreamcast, and none of the ports are actually open.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:More money = better grade at the end?
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 2
No no - having a computer at school is very beneficial. Having school revolve around that computer, though, is not. And my point about tacking on an extra (we'll go with your mark) $2000 still remains: Money is money. Most people who end up paying these large amounts do it either through aid or loans. Having to spend an extra couple thousand that you don't have is a slap in the face. Although, to be fair, many people already buy desktop machines to bring with them.
I guess I have mixed feelings on this issue -- although I do agree with you that having a laptop at college is a worthwhile cause, I don't believe it should be an integral part of one's education. Simply because a good education has so little to do with a laptop. It's a handy tool, but the focus should remain on more imporant things.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I have to agree. Not for the "equal-opportunity" part, but the last point. What's the point in allowing a class to take a test with the entire Internet at their disposal? What then are you really testing? If they're pulling the knowledge from somewhere else, then you aren't really testing their merit in that class. Unless, of course, that class happens to be "Webcrawling 101".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:More money = better grade at the end?
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 3
Yeah, there's nothing like tacking three or four thousand dollars onto already exhorbitant education fees. And there's no sense even comparing the two costs -- a good college education is intended to last the rest of your life (relatively speaking) whereas a laptop is guaranteed to be obsolete by the time you graduate.
And all for what? What does a student really learn from having a laptop? How to take care of a laptop? That's about it. Sometimes technology is just for technology's sake and it often has no place in our education system.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Unexpected? Yeah, I'll buy that. But don't confuse "unexpected" with "unintentional". Lots of people worked their asses off getting those IPOs together and they didn't do it for the community.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Being written in Pascal is not a downside. The VCL (under Windows anyway) can be accessed by C++ programs just like any Win32 library. This is how C++ Builder works with compiled VCL from Delphi. I imagine it will be much the same way with Linux.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well I personally run at 1600x1200 and I can tell you that when you're dealing with monitors that big, there's almost no webpage that looks "right" when netscape is maximized... but at 1600 horizontal pixels, I'd just as soon have two browsers open at 800 each. It's all good.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
A lot of people run around/. screaming "Moderation is a joke!", but the truth is that the moderation system (much like Napster!) is just a tool, and it's the users who are jokes.
I think it's clear by now that anybody can get moderated up just by saying something that *sounds* good; If a post has a good vibe to it, it will be bumped up. Don't get me wrong -- I agreed with your point above, but I try not to take moderation seriously, and I always browse at -1.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I don't want to judge the tool here. You're right; Napster is probably one of, if not *the* best distributed file transfer network ever implemented on the Internet. It's certainly the most popular.
Clearly users must take some responsibility here for pira^H^H^H^H sharing illegal media. Hell, I use Napster all the time. But I acknowledge the fact that I'm doing it, and recognize that this is the sole purpose of Napster; A distributed kernel network would, of course, not have this issue. I don't want to get rid of Napster, but I do want to see people admit that it's tool with really only one use. Granted it could be used for legal sharing, but the overwhelming truth is that it isn't.
That's all I want -- to stop hearing people say that Napster is squeaky-clean just because it has the capacity to be used properly. Obviously this isn't something that is actually happening. So who's the bad guy here? Are we going to say "Hey, AOL is bad bad company because they wouldn't let those Nullsoft hackers further the proliferation of illegal music!"
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, it is a "good fucking point". FTP clients are not to blame for warez. They are generic programs that serve a general purpose: transferring files. It's incidental that they also can be used for illegal purposes. Same applies for Napster, right?
Of course not! Napster is not "general purpose". Napster only shares MP3 files. Granted, not all MP3s are pirated media, but nearly 100% of the MP3s on Napster are. What I don't understand is why people are so intent on parading Napster around as something it's clearly not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Fine - that was an observational hyperbole. 99.999% is not a scientifically based number, but let me document my estimate:
I've spent quite a bit of time on and off college campuses in the last year and every single person I know, within the ages of 17 and 30, has some sort of Napster client on their PC. All of them. That's probably not a suprise to anyone though, since we all agree that Napster is incredibly popular.
All these people that I just mentioned? They're using Napster to illegally download pirated songs, rather than purchase the CDs themselves. Is that a suprise? OF COURSE NOT! Hey, if you're the one person out there whose never used Napster to download a pirated song, then I profusely apologize. Since I would bet money that you aren't, I don't plan on making any apologies.
Bottom line? Napster can have a use as a generic file transfer agent, but it doesn't. It's a tool built with the intention and purpose of sharing pirated music -- I love Napster, I use it everyday. But I don't lie to myself and others, trying to convince them that Napster is something that it's not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No no, there was another Java client; not QuickBuddy (which is a piece of garbage). You could download it and use it just like AIM, only you have to have a JDK on your system. It was really a decent application, and I always wished they'd release another version. Oh well, I just use GAIM now.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Oh come off it - Napster is used 99.999% of the time to download *illegal* music. Yeah, you could theoretically use it to distribute legal MP3s, but in practice it doesn't happen all that often. We're all very well aware of what Napster is for; you don't need to go spreading lies and propaganda to make yourself feel better about piracy... take a little responsibility for your actions.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Circle Logic (ish): Sloppy SCMS and DMCA
on
Geographic Screening
·
· Score: 2
That's interesting - I wasn't aware of the SCMS. Probably because it's such a weak scheme which, as you describe, requires voluntary enforcement. I would assume that the reason manufacturers violate it is to keep a competitive edge with other manufacturers. I mean, seriously, would you buy a SCMS-compliant player if you thought you wouldn't be able to copy digital audio off it?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Theo is the guy who started the OpenBSD project. He used to be a core member of the NetBSD development team, but there were certain personality "conflicts" within the group, and eventually his CVS access was revoked. You can read the whole spiel in his email logs, which he has saved somewhere on openbsd.org (I think). Needless to say, he forked the code and started his own BSD, which is now arguably more popular and traditionally thought of as more secure.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well I've got it downloaded but I haven't installed 4.0 yet. If it's anything like 3.x though, you'll find the installation very similar to Slackware. At least, what I remember Slackware's install being like. Circa 1996-97 or so. I suppose that's not much help.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That was really pretty. Like a fuzzy little kitty cat chasing tiny white moths through tall green grass on a warm spring day. Thank you for the prettiness, you are truly a muse.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No offense, but if you don't honestly see the difference then I think you're obtuse. A CD player is fundamentally different than DeCSS. A CD has absolutely no read/copy protection scheme built into it. DVDs have a very clear and forthright protection scheme. Now, regardless of how bad that scheme is, it is still a legitimate protection. The nature of the DMCA makes the explicit circumvention of these schemes illegal.
No, using a CDR would not be illegal in this sense. There are plenty of uses for a CDR that would not violate the DMCA's copy-protection laws. DMCA doesn't make copying data illegal, it makes copying protected data illegal. Get it?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You aren't setting it straight, you're setting it the way you think it should be. CSS is a copy protection scheme. Sure, you can copy the bytes of a DVD without a decoder, but they aren't useable in that fashion.
Of course CSS is about controlling DVD players - that's the whole idea behind almost all copy protection schemes: to control the media. That doesn't change the nature of the DMCA though.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Slashdot Mirror
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's like saying "You can write your drivers anyway you like. But if you don't write them the way we like, we're going to boycott you. But, seriously, you can do whatever you like... no pressure."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I guess I have mixed feelings on this issue -- although I do agree with you that having a laptop at college is a worthwhile cause, I don't believe it should be an integral part of one's education. Simply because a good education has so little to do with a laptop. It's a handy tool, but the focus should remain on more imporant things.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
And all for what? What does a student really learn from having a laptop? How to take care of a laptop? That's about it. Sometimes technology is just for technology's sake and it often has no place in our education system.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I think it's clear by now that anybody can get moderated up just by saying something that *sounds* good; If a post has a good vibe to it, it will be bumped up. Don't get me wrong -- I agreed with your point above, but I try not to take moderation seriously, and I always browse at -1.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Clearly users must take some responsibility here for pira^H^H^H^H sharing illegal media. Hell, I use Napster all the time. But I acknowledge the fact that I'm doing it, and recognize that this is the sole purpose of Napster; A distributed kernel network would, of course, not have this issue. I don't want to get rid of Napster, but I do want to see people admit that it's tool with really only one use. Granted it could be used for legal sharing, but the overwhelming truth is that it isn't.
That's all I want -- to stop hearing people say that Napster is squeaky-clean just because it has the capacity to be used properly. Obviously this isn't something that is actually happening. So who's the bad guy here? Are we going to say "Hey, AOL is bad bad company because they wouldn't let those Nullsoft hackers further the proliferation of illegal music!"
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Of course not! Napster is not "general purpose". Napster only shares MP3 files. Granted, not all MP3s are pirated media, but nearly 100% of the MP3s on Napster are. What I don't understand is why people are so intent on parading Napster around as something it's clearly not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I've spent quite a bit of time on and off college campuses in the last year and every single person I know, within the ages of 17 and 30, has some sort of Napster client on their PC. All of them. That's probably not a suprise to anyone though, since we all agree that Napster is incredibly popular.
All these people that I just mentioned? They're using Napster to illegally download pirated songs, rather than purchase the CDs themselves. Is that a suprise? OF COURSE NOT! Hey, if you're the one person out there whose never used Napster to download a pirated song, then I profusely apologize. Since I would bet money that you aren't, I don't plan on making any apologies.
Bottom line? Napster can have a use as a generic file transfer agent, but it doesn't. It's a tool built with the intention and purpose of sharing pirated music -- I love Napster, I use it everyday. But I don't lie to myself and others, trying to convince them that Napster is something that it's not.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No, using a CDR would not be illegal in this sense. There are plenty of uses for a CDR that would not violate the DMCA's copy-protection laws. DMCA doesn't make copying data illegal, it makes copying protected data illegal. Get it?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Of course CSS is about controlling DVD players - that's the whole idea behind almost all copy protection schemes: to control the media. That doesn't change the nature of the DMCA though.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."