but, could we liken spam to fire ants swarming over the victim, filling it with painful stings that last (indefinitely, in the case of the net.. until you can clean them all out of your inbox)?
Perhaps we could do some biological engineering and make packets that produce tunes (like tobacco plants that glow under fluorescent light bulbs).
No, I don't agree; "business.com" is too generic; linux, lego and sloppylargetitties are a little more specific, eh?
and in the grand scheme of things, it probably would be more helpful to the world to make your domain name more relevant. I mean.. www.business.com can mean any business in the world. A lot of things qualify as being businesses, so I'm wondering where they're expecting this domain to take them. It's so darned general, it almost makes you think it could be a search engine for business related sites (i.e. sites that sell stuff/are there to make money, because even though there are tons of them, there are as many or more sites that aren't there to make money or sell stuff).
so, imho, i think they're a big loopy for paying $7.5 million dollars for it. geez!
Anyhow, as with most things on the web, I suspect the law is at best unclear. I do feel, however, that the "open door" precedent is valid in this context so I would suggest that it is valid to restrict the clients. (It might be technically hard - or impossible - but that is another matter.)
I agree to the extent that, if it's your server, technically you have rights over it, and so I can see how someone could begin trying to justify the statement that you should be validated in your efforts to restrict access to your server. Isn't this similar to actions in the instant messaging scruffle between Microsoft and AOL? (I seem to recall something about one of them changing protocol so they couldn't connect... err.. I can't remember, but here's a link.) As someone else posted, this situation can also be likened to web browsers viewing pages; there are many different web browsers, but they can all connect to all web pages (unless it's down;-). Webmasters can't/don't restrict access to their servers based on what browser is used (AFAIK), so, by the same token, Napster can't/oughtn't restrict access to their servers based on client.
Then again, I wouldn't know all the legalities of this, the implications, consequences, etc. I just think, as others have mentioned, that we're all doing about the same thing... why not work together?
So entropy is only a measure of the probability of different things happening, and in a way thermodynamics just says that the most probable things are likely to happen.
Reminds me of Murphy's Law. Perhaps we should make up a new twist on it for the universe: Anything that can drift apart, will.
and why should they not release deltas? (or is it that by the time you reach delta, you should just be releasing a newer version? which, in one sense, would be delta.)
this is a silly post, so moderate it down if you feel the urge.
I'm sure the children of kernel-source-viewing world thank you, and the other contenders for first post are probably jealous (well, they would be if you had actually gotten first post.. perhaps next time, you shouldn't "count your chicks before they hatch")
In cases where patents have been rewarded (Linden's antenna algorithms) it seems to have been the author of the software, rather than the owner of the hardware who gets the patent.
That may well be,because, in my view, assuming you compiled it for the right OS, and had some hardware of your own to run it on, why would you patent it for the hardware? the hardware isn't what's creating the antennae, it's the software. yes, the hardware runs the software, but it's not just that particular piece/pieces of hardware that can run the software, no?
I hear reports of "Red Hat, distributor of the Linux Operating System," as if they are the only game in town. This isn't their fault, of course, but I'm sure they don't mind.
Perhaps they don't mind, and perhaps it's not that big of an issue, but I think they should make an effort to stop things like this when they happen. Sure, we all know that Red Hat isn't the only distro of Linux, but I'm sure there are people out there who don't. And even so.. for those who do know, hearing things like this on a regular basis will start to pound the idea into their brain and form an association that may/may not be bad. Personally, I'd like to be open-minded about it all, and not have my subconcious mind go behind my back and start droning Red Hat all the time.. (Ok,.. I started <ranting>.. oops)
I have a Logitech Marble + (2-button), and I like the thing. Works great. just have to clean it off every once in a while (really easy to do, as we all know)...
I prefer it over regular mice that must be rolled, da dee da.. and I wish mine had 3 buttons (goshdarnnit!!)
So, go get 'em, Tiger.. and enjoy.. (and hmm.. another item for my wish list);-)
No doubt Chnese rocketry was influenced by the Amricans, the Russians, the Germans, and perhaps, gasp, the Chinese, who invented rocketry centuries ago...:)
I just keep thinking about fireworks.. and.. didn't the chinese invent those? or.. develop a lot of the technology that became those?
Perhaps it could run an annual fund-raising drive, like public broadcasting stations do, to beef up its operating budge
I think this is an excellent idea. Just as NPR does, fund itself, and just as the OSS/FSF works (I hope this is a correct analogy, pardon me if it isn't), write itself. That would be the perfect magazine, because if you truly wanted to share the information, you would. You get download free OSes, etc, etc,.. you should be able to read free magazines. All we need is people inspired, dedicated, and willing to do this.. any takers?
Y2K has and will become "popular" because it embodies a threat many consumers already feel. Yes, the potential demons live in their own home - on their kitchentops as microwaves, and in the sockets on the walls. Media constantly capitalizes on people's innate fears - so it is natural that a TV series would be produced around this theme. Actually I'm rather surprised there hasn't been *more*.
More precisely, I think that "unknown" that people are afraid of (the thing that, innately, they fear) is what they cannot see. Now, if this is a correct assumption, then I know that others of you have already long ago realized this.. otherwise, I apologize for my incorrect generalization.
The thing is, people can't see what's in the sockets on the walls, they can't see what's being emitted on their kitchentops as microwaves, and they can't see the code where those little "00" et al live. The "average" consumer - the ones experiencing these innate fears - don't think about things like that, the simple things.. the code, the microwaves (no, not the machines), the electrons scooting down those copper wires, and they can't comprehend how simple it really is. Everything complex is really just many smaller, simpler systems put together. They don't stop to think about that, and so they get caught up in overall appearnance of it, and allow themselves to be overwhelmed, and let panic set in.
It would take too long, too much patience, and too many physics teachers to explain all of this to them (not that you have to have physics teachers, per se, but people who'll teach 'em the physics of it all) so that they can be educated and stop and analyze the problem before they run from it.
I had thought of that idea before, when I would muse to myself about things, and come across VR. I've never experienced VR before, and I had always wondered how they walked, not knowing that they always used a vehicle. My first thought of how they could possible walk was always some sort of treadmill that was circular and made so that the material you're walking on could rotate in any direction.
But, I'm wondering if a problem with that would be the cloth itself. I'm going to guess that, if it was a flat circle, wouldn't there be some difference in the shape/stretch of the fabric as it goes over the edge around to the underside of the surface you're walking on? wouldn't it make it harder for you to walk, having to stretch that material around the edge and under your feet as you walked over it? And what would you use to support such? wouldn't that cause an incredible amount of friction and make it very hard to walk? then you'd be almost running in real life.
Another thing.. if you really still wanted to do that, you could revert to what was mentioned as walking on a sphere, but, as they mentioned, it'd have to be enormous for there to not be a noticeable curvature of the floor (remember the Battle School in Ender's Game?).
I wonder if some sort of air supported, moveable platform would work, but I'm sure that wouldn't. Unless there was still someway to make it move under you so that you were actually still stationary in Euclidean space. hmm...
Of course, once true nanotech is online, we'll be all less worried about the speed of quake XI and more about adjusting to living for a couple of thousand years. I hope.
But then, it won't be _us_ living, it'll be the nano-tech. By that time, for us to be able to live that long, it'll be because, if all you nano-tech yappers are right, we'll have so darned many nano-thingies inside of us, healing us, taking care of us, the list of claimed accomplishments goes on. Therefore, it is not the humans who have triumphed in prolonging our lives, it is the humans who have triumphed in prolonging the operation of robots, decreasing their size, and prolonging the existence of our flesh. that's not living folks, not in my mind. (I realize we all don't think like I do, so.. moderate this down, if you wish.) But, I feel that, by having all of those nano-bots inside of us, we're just making ourselves weaker, more dependent, and more vulnerable. What if we get a virus in our nano-bots? What then? eh? And that's not just it.. what if they have a power failure, a BSOD, a kernel panic, dump a core?
did you expect the money to go once the package was sent? I mean.. it's not like they take that "insurance money" and hire a bodyguard for the package, and pay him just that amount to guard it til it gets to you. Insurance $ is only an extra; we're assuming/hoping that UPS can get your package where it's going safe and sound. Insurance just makes sure you get compensated if they make a boo-boo. So, if all goes according to plan, they won't ever mess it up (we all know they do/will, sometimes), and then what? You've paid them money, they've done their job, and they've got some extra cash. So, it's theirs, they can do what they want with it, no? What did you expect them to do with it, refund it to you because your package was alright? (Then that would defeat the purpose of it's serving as a backup/compensation for their errors.) Did you expect them to just.. throw the money into thin air and pretend like they never got it? I don't see your point here, and I don't see how you can support a claim that "The money I pay to insure parcels better go to insure the parcel, and nothing else."
This is probably going to be moderated as "Flamebait" so.. all apologies.
I'd like to begin by stating the fact that I realize this will probably be moderated down to flamebait, so, if you'd like, go ahead and skip reading this....
To only consider your own view is selfish. Many others will be severly impacted by your decision. At least recognize that.
I realize this. And I also realize that you're only asking the person considering suicide to recognize that their decision will impact others. To me, that's the most obvious effect of a suicide. But, what is recognizing that supposed to do? From one angle, recognizing that your suicide will have an impact can't change a darn thing, because if you want to commit suicide, then you're going to, it's going to have an effect, etc. etc. I mean, what is recognizing that supposed to do in the context of the problem? Make the person think, "Oh, this might make some people sad. Perhaps I should forgo suicide just so they'll be happy."? I hope not. Or, is it supposed to motivate them to let people know, concretely, that they're planning on committing suicide so that (a)the people can prepare themselves for the sorrow or (b)so that the person can be psychologically evaluated, etc, to try to make them not commit suicide?
As you said, "To only consider your own view is selfish." so.. if that's true, then, would it be better to follow the grand scheme of life (be selfless, or at least NOT selfish) and not commit suicide just because it impacts other people? Your life belongs to you, and therefore, you have the right to do with it as you please. Of course, I'm not advocating suicide, and I also realize that those who are Christians (I am a Christian) will likely take the viewpoint that, as a Christian, one's life belongs to God, and therefore, we are not "in control" of our lives in that sense (we can't just cut it off, since it's not ours to cut off). Well, that may be so, but, in the grand scheme of things, if I felt the urge to commit suicide, I wouldn't stop and say, "what will happen to others as a result of this?" If I did, I don't see what effect that would have, or should have, because, all that is is just a consideration; an acknowledgement that what I am about to do will affect someone. What more should i do? Go let that person know so they can get ready? Have a family planning session so that we can all cope with it, and get ready, and have a party because I'm commiting suicide?
I guess I'm just thinking about it from the wrong angle. and yes, this isn't a good post, so I'm sorry. I felt the urge to bring this up, so I did. Thanks for your time.
I seem to recall that the Microsoft patch page said something like
Eyedog is used by diagnostic packages to collect hardware information on the machine that they are running on.
I'm wondering.. how are they going to re-code it to control The unchecked buffer in Eyedog ? How does one do that? Isn't that similar to the buffer overflows people talk about when trying to crack into a box? (i'm lost here)
There is, on one plane, a war. Yes, we want to win. Not necessarily, as we all know, to force everyone to use Linux/*nix, but something other than only M$; to let people know that there is an alternative, etc, etc, etc (although I think it'd be just as well we didn't use M$ at all....)
but, on another plane, there is no war. As long as there is at least _one_ person out there not using M$ stuff, there is an open forum. The rest of the world is, on this plane, in shackles, (and basically, they are on that plane too) but that one person, on that alternate plane, is free. Freer than air. Freer than the smallest quark (whatever is smaller than a quark should be inserted here). That person is free because they are exercising their right to do as they please, and there is no war as long as there is no law that says that we have to use M$ products. Moving to the Internet,.. hell, if M$ "takes over" the Internet.. well, sheesh! lets just make our own network of computers running our own stuff, and just.. "bypass"/"ignore" those M$ people. I mean, yeah, that's not necessarily a good idea, and it won't really help free more people, but the thing is, we can only let them win if we think they win. They can't! They'll fall under their own weight/stupidity/bad code. so. cheer up!
Ok, so, I can read german, and so I'm thinking I know what that says (literally, "people-flesh"), but, would you care to enlighten us a bit on the Wumpscut bit? Thanks
Why is it that the Free Mind must dislike that which the majority wants? Personally, I like landscapes. They are relaxing. Do I like abstracts and the like? Some, yes. Tastes vary. All the same, as a Free Mind, I can pick whichever painting I damn well please and I think you missed that point.
You're right.. I did. And I apologize for that. The Free Mind may like what it wishes to like. I was stereotyping by making the generalization that people, by becoming a majority and liking a certain painting/type of painting were not exercising their Free Mind. Really, though, they were, unless they all got together and said "hey, we'll all vote this way." (Which they probably didn't do.) I guess I got stuck on "most-popular," "landscape," and what appeared to me to be the extreme uniformity of it all. But hey, if people like that, I'm glad. Someone has to. But yes, the Free Mind may choose whichever painting I damn well please, and darnit, if you like that, more power to you.
one side note: one of the thing that we can do to help unix market share is to stuff those students' computer with unix. They never had thier own box before, and you seems to be such a geek they would just do what you tell them to. I have "force fed" a Kanyan friend of mine a Sparcstation LX, only a few weeks after he came to me and said he wanted to buy a PC with microsoft on it. He's happy cuz he only paid 1/3 of what he expected.
I think that things like that are good... we should expose people to the alternatives to begin with, instead of allowing them to stumble through something like microsoft (though yes, I still use it often, tsk-tsk on me..) and because it's free, open, and wonderful. What I think would be neat is to have some sort of big conference thing over in a place like, say, China (hey, we're on the topic aren't we) whereby a great deal of the big names in OSS go over there (to whatever country it's held in.. and this is also assuming that many of these folks haven't already been over there, otherwise, it's no big deal so the thrill is lost) and work with the people and have their own "Comdex" of OSS, hang out, demonstrate, get sponsors and give out free stuff!
Is that a good idea, or am I just rambling on again?
Slashdot Mirror
but, could we liken spam to fire ants swarming over the victim, filling it with painful stings that last (indefinitely, in the case of the net.. until you can clean them all out of your inbox)?
;-)
Perhaps we could do some biological engineering and make packets that produce tunes (like tobacco plants that glow under fluorescent light bulbs).
Or maybe I should just lay off the chocolate
from my not-so-knowledgeable point of view.. I think that could work. that was basically what I was thinking. GMTA.
No, I don't agree; "business.com" is too generic; linux, lego and sloppylargetitties are a little more specific, eh?
and in the grand scheme of things, it probably would be more helpful to the world to make your domain name more relevant. I mean.. www.business.com can mean any business in the world. A lot of things qualify as being businesses, so I'm wondering where they're expecting this domain to take them. It's so darned general, it almost makes you think it could be a search engine for business related sites (i.e. sites that sell stuff/are there to make money, because even though there are tons of them, there are as many or more sites that aren't there to make money or sell stuff).
so, imho, i think they're a big loopy for paying $7.5 million dollars for it. geez!
Anyhow, as with most things on the web, I suspect the law is at best unclear. I do feel, however, that the "open door" precedent is valid in this context so I would suggest that it is valid to restrict the clients. (It might be technically hard - or impossible - but that is another matter.)
;-). Webmasters can't/don't restrict access to their servers based on what browser is used (AFAIK), so, by the same token, Napster can't/oughtn't restrict access to their servers based on client.
I agree to the extent that, if it's your server, technically you have rights over it, and so I can see how someone could begin trying to justify the statement that you should be validated in your efforts to restrict access to your server. Isn't this similar to actions in the instant messaging scruffle between Microsoft and AOL? (I seem to recall something about one of them changing protocol so they couldn't connect... err.. I can't remember, but here's a link.) As someone else posted, this situation can also be likened to web browsers viewing pages; there are many different web browsers, but they can all connect to all web pages (unless it's down
Then again, I wouldn't know all the legalities of this, the implications, consequences, etc. I just think, as others have mentioned, that we're all doing about the same thing... why not work together?
what happens when you try to overclock? fry yourself?
So entropy is only a measure of the probability of different things happening, and in a way
thermodynamics just says that the most probable things are likely to happen.
Reminds me of Murphy's Law. Perhaps we should make up a new twist on it for the universe: Anything that can drift apart, will.
and why should they not release deltas? (or is it that by the time you reach delta, you should just be releasing a newer version? which, in one sense, would be delta.)
this is a silly post, so moderate it down if you feel the urge.
thanks
Indeed.
And what if it's only on a LAN, with no outside connection, eh?
and what if the computer doesn't belong to an Australian?
I'm sure the children of kernel-source-viewing world thank you, and the other contenders for first post are probably jealous (well, they would be if you had actually gotten first post.. perhaps next time, you shouldn't "count your chicks before they hatch")
In cases where patents have been
rewarded (Linden's antenna algorithms) it seems to have been the author of the software, rather
than the owner of the hardware who gets the patent.
That may well be,because, in my view, assuming you compiled it for the right OS, and had some hardware of your own to run it on, why would you patent it for the hardware? the hardware isn't what's creating the antennae, it's the software. yes, the hardware runs the software, but it's not just that particular piece/pieces of hardware that can run the software, no?
I hear reports of "Red Hat, distributor of the Linux Operating System," as if they are the only game in town. This isn't their fault, of course, but I'm sure they don't mind.
Perhaps they don't mind, and perhaps it's not that big of an issue, but I think they should make an effort to stop things like this when they happen. Sure, we all know that Red Hat isn't the only distro of Linux, but I'm sure there are people out there who don't. And even so.. for those who do know, hearing things like this on a regular basis will start to pound the idea into their brain and form an association that may/may not be bad. Personally, I'd like to be open-minded about it all, and not have my subconcious mind go behind my back and start droning Red Hat all the time.. (Ok,.. I started <ranting>.. oops)
I have a Logitech Marble + (2-button), and I like the thing. Works great. just have to clean it off every once in a while (really easy to do, as we all know)...
;-)
I prefer it over regular mice that must be rolled, da dee da.. and I wish mine had 3 buttons (goshdarnnit!!)
So, go get 'em, Tiger.. and enjoy.. (and hmm.. another item for my wish list)
No doubt Chnese rocketry was influenced by the Amricans, the Russians, the Germans, and perhaps, gasp, the Chinese, who invented rocketry centuries ago... :)
I just keep thinking about fireworks.. and.. didn't the chinese invent those? or.. develop a lot of the technology that became those?
Perhaps it could run an annual fund-raising drive, like public broadcasting stations do, to beef up its operating budge
I think this is an excellent idea. Just as NPR does, fund itself, and just as the OSS/FSF works (I hope this is a correct analogy, pardon me if it isn't), write itself. That would be the perfect magazine, because if you truly wanted to share the information, you would. You get download free OSes, etc, etc,.. you should be able to read free magazines. All we need is people inspired, dedicated, and willing to do this.. any takers?
Y2K has and will become "popular" because it embodies a threat many consumers already feel. Yes, the potential demons live in their own home - on their
kitchentops as microwaves, and in the sockets on the walls. Media constantly capitalizes on people's innate fears - so it is natural that a TV series would be
produced around this theme. Actually I'm rather surprised there hasn't been *more*.
More precisely, I think that "unknown" that people are afraid of (the thing that, innately, they fear) is what they cannot see. Now, if this is a correct assumption, then I know that others of you have already long ago realized this.. otherwise, I apologize for my incorrect generalization.
The thing is, people can't see what's in the sockets on the walls, they can't see what's being emitted on their
kitchentops as microwaves, and they can't see the code where those little "00" et al live. The "average" consumer - the ones experiencing these innate fears - don't think about things like that, the simple things.. the code, the microwaves (no, not the machines), the electrons scooting down those copper wires, and they can't comprehend how simple it really is. Everything complex is really just many smaller, simpler systems put together. They don't stop to think about that, and so they get caught up in overall appearnance of it, and allow themselves to be overwhelmed, and let panic set in.
It would take too long, too much patience, and too many physics teachers to explain all of this to them (not that you have to have physics teachers, per se, but people who'll teach 'em the physics of it all) so that they can be educated and stop and analyze the problem before they run from it.
Fish! They're all Fish!
I had thought of that idea before, when I would muse to myself about things, and come across VR. I've never experienced VR before, and I had always wondered how they walked, not knowing that they always used a vehicle. My first thought of how they could possible walk was always some sort of treadmill that was circular and made so that the material you're walking on could rotate in any direction.
But, I'm wondering if a problem with that would be the cloth itself. I'm going to guess that, if it was a flat circle, wouldn't there be some difference in the shape/stretch of the fabric as it goes over the edge around to the underside of the surface you're walking on? wouldn't it make it harder for you to walk, having to stretch that material around the edge and under your feet as you walked over it? And what would you use to support such? wouldn't that cause an incredible amount of friction and make it very hard to walk? then you'd be almost running in real life.
Another thing.. if you really still wanted to do that, you could revert to what was mentioned as walking on a sphere, but, as they mentioned, it'd have to be enormous for there to not be a noticeable curvature of the floor (remember the Battle School in Ender's Game?).
I wonder if some sort of air supported, moveable platform would work, but I'm sure that wouldn't. Unless there was still someway to make it move under you so that you were actually still stationary in Euclidean space. hmm...
Of course, once true nanotech is online, we'll be all less worried about the speed of quake XI and more about adjusting to living for a couple of thousand years. I hope.
But then, it won't be _us_ living, it'll be the nano-tech. By that time, for us to be able to live that long, it'll be because, if all you nano-tech yappers are right, we'll have so darned many nano-thingies inside of us, healing us, taking care of us, the list of claimed accomplishments goes on. Therefore, it is not the humans who have triumphed in prolonging our lives, it is the humans who have triumphed in prolonging the operation of robots, decreasing their size, and prolonging the existence of our flesh. that's not living folks, not in my mind. (I realize we all don't think like I do, so.. moderate this down, if you wish.) But, I feel that, by having all of those nano-bots inside of us, we're just making ourselves weaker, more dependent, and more vulnerable. What if we get a virus in our nano-bots? What then? eh? And that's not just it.. what if they have a power failure, a BSOD, a kernel panic, dump a core?
just my little piece of grey matter
did you expect the money to go once the package was sent? I mean.. it's not like they take that "insurance money" and hire a bodyguard for the package, and pay him just that amount to guard it til it gets to you. Insurance $ is only an extra; we're assuming/hoping that UPS can get your package where it's going safe and sound. Insurance just makes sure you get compensated if they make a boo-boo. So, if all goes according to plan, they won't ever mess it up (we all know they do/will, sometimes), and then what? You've paid them money, they've done their job, and they've got some extra cash. So, it's theirs, they can do what they want with it, no? What did you expect them to do with it, refund it to you because your package was alright? (Then that would defeat the purpose of it's serving as a backup/compensation for their errors.) Did you expect them to just.. throw the money into thin air and pretend like they never got it? I don't see your point here, and I don't see how you can support a claim that "The money I pay to insure parcels better go to insure the parcel, and nothing else."
This is probably going to be moderated as "Flamebait" so.. all apologies.
I'd like to begin by stating the fact that I realize this will probably be moderated down to flamebait, so, if you'd like, go ahead and skip reading this....
To only consider your own view is selfish. Many others will be severly impacted by your decision. At least recognize that.
I realize this. And I also realize that you're only asking the person considering suicide to recognize that their decision will impact others. To me, that's the most obvious effect of a suicide. But, what is recognizing that supposed to do? From one angle, recognizing that your suicide will have an impact can't change a darn thing, because if you want to commit suicide, then you're going to, it's going to have an effect, etc. etc. I mean, what is recognizing that supposed to do in the context of the problem? Make the person think, "Oh, this might make some people sad. Perhaps I should forgo suicide just so they'll be happy."? I hope not. Or, is it supposed to motivate them to let people know, concretely, that they're planning on committing suicide so that (a)the people can prepare themselves for the sorrow or (b)so that the person can be psychologically evaluated, etc, to try to make them not commit suicide?
As you said, "To only consider your own view is selfish." so.. if that's true, then, would it be better to follow the grand scheme of life (be selfless, or at least NOT selfish) and not commit suicide just because it impacts other people? Your life belongs to you, and therefore, you have the right to do with it as you please. Of course, I'm not advocating suicide, and I also realize that those who are Christians (I am a Christian) will likely take the viewpoint that, as a Christian, one's life belongs to God, and therefore, we are not "in control" of our lives in that sense (we can't just cut it off, since it's not ours to cut off). Well, that may be so, but, in the grand scheme of things, if I felt the urge to commit suicide, I wouldn't stop and say, "what will happen to others as a result of this?" If I did, I don't see what effect that would have, or should have, because, all that is is just a consideration; an acknowledgement that what I am about to do will affect someone. What more should i do? Go let that person know so they can get ready? Have a family planning session so that we can all cope with it, and get ready, and have a party because I'm commiting suicide?
I guess I'm just thinking about it from the wrong angle. and yes, this isn't a good post, so I'm sorry. I felt the urge to bring this up, so I did. Thanks for your time.
I seem to recall that the Microsoft patch page said something like
Eyedog is used by diagnostic packages to collect hardware information on the machine that they are running on.
I'm wondering.. how are they going to re-code it to control The unchecked buffer in Eyedog ? How does one do that? Isn't that similar to the buffer overflows people talk about when trying to crack into a box? (i'm lost here)
There is, on one plane, a war.
.. hell, if M$ "takes over" the Internet.. well, sheesh! lets just make our own network of computers running our own stuff, and just.. "bypass"/"ignore" those M$ people. I mean, yeah, that's not necessarily a good idea, and it won't really help free more people, but the thing is, we can only let them win if we think they win. They can't! They'll fall under their own weight/stupidity/bad code.
Yes, we want to win. Not necessarily, as we all know, to force everyone to use Linux/*nix, but something other than only M$; to let people know that there is an alternative, etc, etc, etc (although I think it'd be just as well we didn't use M$ at all....)
but, on another plane, there is no war. As long as there is at least _one_ person out there not using M$ stuff, there is an open forum. The rest of the world is, on this plane, in shackles, (and basically, they are on that plane too) but that one person, on that alternate plane, is free. Freer than air. Freer than the smallest quark (whatever is smaller than a quark should be inserted here). That person is free because they are exercising their right to do as they please, and there is no war as long as there is no law that says that we have to use M$ products. Moving to the Internet,
so. cheer up!
Ok, so, I can read german, and so I'm thinking I know what that says (literally, "people-flesh"), but, would you care to enlighten us a bit on the Wumpscut bit? Thanks
Why is it that the Free Mind must dislike that which the majority wants? Personally, I like landscapes. They are relaxing. Do I like abstracts and the like? Some, yes. Tastes vary. All the same, as a Free Mind, I can pick whichever painting I damn well please and I think you missed that point.
You're right.. I did. And I apologize for that. The Free Mind may like what it wishes to like. I was stereotyping by making the generalization that people, by becoming a majority and liking a certain painting/type of painting were not exercising their Free Mind. Really, though, they were, unless they all got together and said "hey, we'll all vote this way." (Which they probably didn't do.) I guess I got stuck on "most-popular," "landscape," and what appeared to me to be the extreme uniformity of it all. But hey, if people like that, I'm glad. Someone has to. But yes, the Free Mind may choose whichever painting I damn well please, and darnit, if you like that, more power to you.
one side note: one of the thing that we can do to help unix market share is to stuff those students' computer with unix. They never had thier own box before, and
you seems to be such a geek they would just do what you tell them to. I have "force fed" a Kanyan friend of mine a Sparcstation LX, only a few weeks after he
came to me and said he wanted to buy a PC with microsoft on it. He's happy cuz he only paid 1/3 of what he expected.
I think that things like that are good... we should expose people to the alternatives to begin with, instead of allowing them to stumble through something like microsoft (though yes, I still use it often, tsk-tsk on me..) and because it's free, open, and wonderful. What I think would be neat is to have some sort of big conference thing over in a place like, say, China (hey, we're on the topic aren't we) whereby a great deal of the big names in OSS go over there (to whatever country it's held in.. and this is also assuming that many of these folks haven't already been over there, otherwise, it's no big deal so the thrill is lost) and work with the people and have their own "Comdex" of OSS, hang out, demonstrate, get sponsors and give out free stuff!
Is that a good idea, or am I just rambling on again?
sorry, I don't watch much t.v.