You're right. Drake doesn't offer anything to paying people at all.
Except for, well... professional support that's not all condescending if you don't copy-paste lsmod and lspci in all your questions... and non-slashdotted servers with which you can download the files so it doesn't grind to a halt like the one I'm downloading off of (I think I broke 4 kB/s... Woohoo!)
Nope. Nothing useful at all.
Or, heh... you know... maybe people could choose to support a company because they're not all proprietary and demand that you pay for their product, thus making people that want to use it for free criminals... But no, that would be stupid and naieve. I mean, think of all the pr0n sites you could visit with that whole $40/year.
People like you are why I feel ashamed of the world today.
How in God's name did this get modded up to 5 Insightful? It's not in any way. People have been saying this for years. It's nothing new or insightful at all.
On that note, the term "hacking around" has been around ages longer than the media ever picked it up, and not just in reference to computer/hardware nerds. A "hack" has always been a workaround, prank or nifty set-up. A "hacker" has always been someone that plays around with things to make innovative systems (be they computer, electrical or otherwise).
I still use the word as I always have, before I ever even got into computers. Somebody asks what I'm doing whilst trying to recompile custom kernels, I say "hacking around with some kernels" and they understand what I'm talking about. Or I'll say I'm doing some "Linux hacking". Point of the matter is, by using the word "Hacker" to talk about the hax0rz, all you're doing is inflating the egos of 15-year-old script kiddies who can't get laid. Personally, I'd rather that the field professionals pick the terminology than some pimply kid. I mean, christ, if it's the same social dynamic that spawned words like "bling-bling" then please give me some intellectually sound reason why I should pay attention to it?
It's jargon and ebonics all rolled into Internet culture, and it's bloody sickening. I don't really care how 31337 you may be, but a cracker will never necessitate a hacker.
90:1 odds they give them the new development Microsoft code and MS uses it as a cheap way to getting hole patches.
I especially like the fact that that doesn't actually work that way. 99% of the crackers have no clue how OS's work. All it takes is one person of a couple million to find the whole, by the next day everybody knows about it....
Security fixes come out in the real world because someone tells you that there's a hole in it. This is why programming companies hire testers. Telling the programmers to find it themselves is silly... How about training on how to _avoid_ making security holes in the first place?
Bad analogy. Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad BAD analogy.
Anyways. For every single negative use of port scanning I can think of about 10 that would make my life hellish if I was without. Troubleshooting servers. Computer security. Filter testing. IPtable testing. etc. etc. etc.
Quite often friends bug me for help with their servers, the first thing I do is nmap their machine. If said friend happens to live behind the Great Firewall of China, then I have problems, don't I?
Neal Stephenson was the first I heard who used the car-analogy, but it was to describe Windows, MacOS, BeOS and Linux...
Windows was a station wagon, MacOS was a sedan (with the hood welded shut), BeOS was Batmobiles, and Linux was a used lot where a bunch of volunteers were making tanks and lining them up on the side of the street with the keys in the ignition.
I honestly think this is what SCO intends. They realize that they're Linux model is going down the crapper. They realize that they're in the field for high-end IBM-type monolithic computer solutions.
But they're also getting the crap kicked out of them by the major competition... Red Hat's got them beat insofar as OS sales go, IBM's got them beat for major system solutions, and the list goes on and on of people SCO cannot compete with.
So they cut their losses by being bought out. Very simple. Shareholders get a big chunk of their money back so that they at least stay in until the death of the company. It would be more devastating for them to have to declare bankruptcy by the look of it.
So they do something ludicrous and don't even bother hoping for a settlement.... they want to be bought out.
However, from what it looks like, IBM has no intent to buy or settle, so the gamble looks like it's going to end in a blaze of glory and SCO is going to go crumbling.
Furthermore, if IBM stays it out in court and publicly defends all of the case, then it gets a chance to publically exorcise all of the FUD and myth that could possibly be exploited by Microsoft and the like that's surrounding Linux in general as a result of this.
Plus it'll serve SCO right. I'm tired of bullshit political tactics that exploit governmental systems and it's about time a corporation gets kicked in the butt for taking a stable government for granted.
However, all it would take is a whistleblower or a contradictory changelog for that to be brought to the forefront, destroying SCO, and devastating any possibility that a major corporation would cut SCO's losses and buy them out... much like IBM seems to be in an especially advantageous position to do so now that SCO is suing them.
I'm from Canada and I already pay money for my hard drives, my CDs and all my other storage space that goes to the RIAA. I personally don't feel that I need to pay any more so that I can use this media for the same intent (downloading/copying) as I've already paid for.
If they're gonna tax me for piracy, then it's my goddamned right to pirate.
I'm going to use p2p services and download all that I want, and it'll be perfectly legal, seeing as how I've already paid the RIAA, so why shouldn't I have a right to it?
Why do you suppose they are fighting the internet as a distribution method? Because it is more efficient than current methods. They don't want better efficiency, because profit is made in the friction of distribution.
I think this coincides with what I'm saying. It's moreso the overeager capatalist ventures in mind. It's moreso that there's a lot of execs who are more interested in keeping things under their control than branching out and being more interactive about it. It's interesting, because there's this general belief that Communism doesn't work because everybody's too greedy to make it work. I think the same is true under capitalism. Capitalism can drive towards new ventures and the like because... get this... THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT! The entire idea behind capitalism is that you supply what is demanded at a reasonable price. The problem with this being that it's not what's happening. People don't want to shell out $20 for a CD anymore. However, now the corporations are more interested in quarterly returns and the like, so they're just gonna go for short-term effects that placate everybody within the company. So they not only undercut general development but the capitalist system itself.
Apologies for the left-wing rant there. I suppose there's not too much we can do about it, but I'm just offering possibilities. I'm neither a Business Major nor do I understand much about business management beyond a couple of classes. But it's my opinion... your mileage may vary.
Seem plausible, but what's to say that it's not the other way around? (Anybody that's studied correlations can tell you that correlations say nothing of causality...)
What if the economy is in the crapper because US corporations are more enthused about keeping the status quo than of pushing new and innovative technologies. Even bloody Intel is saying "bah... 64 bit processing is too much trouble than it's worth to really push the technology"
The RIAA is going crazy over MP3 sharers instead of understanding that digital encoding and mp3s are the wave of the future, not to mention the internet is a highly more effective distribution center than anything else out there.
Microsoft still refuses to believe in any uses towards Open-source programming, when what you're doing is combining the needs of regular every day power-users... even now Linux amongst other projects is looking towards the desktop and slowly rendering Microsoft a $150 waste of time.
Even our good friend Dubya would rather spend a crapload of money on fighting in the Middle East over oil than push technologies that would render necessity for Middle-Eastern Oil completely useless.
There's a lot of evidence to suggest that lack of Technological push is what's going to bring down the American Economy... so a correlation doesn't necessarily imply that America's low technological push is simply a state of the environment.
World I come from, it costs $20 per full album (which is way more than 4 songs and gives you "professional" packaging).
Not to mention, I already pay a $0.20 tax on each CD I buy that goes to the RIAA, so I'm perfectly legally allowed to download ANY MP3S I WANT TO, considering I've already paid for them.
$.20 per CD is a shitload of a better deal than $5 per song...
Christ, $5 per song is a horrible deal ANYWHERE. Only possible way you could coerce me into buying that is if I was getting vinyls. Something tells me that's not what Apple is selling...
A lot more people, though, are willing to download videos for free than are willing to pay $20 for a DVD, or $14 for a movie ticket.
But that doesn't mean that the MPAA is losing money because people are now seeing movies they weren't going to buy anyways... And they say it's money they _lost_.... You can't account for every single person on a p2p system to believe that they don't already own the movie, or that they're going to keep said movie for a long time.
I know a good number of people who will download a movie, watch it, and if they like it go and buy said DVD.
The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in lost sales
I'd honestly like to just take a statistics University Class and have them look over the methodology of it, and get them to report any breaks in logic. Where in god's name did this team get their figures from? How do you measure something like this...
I know it's not in sales drops, because I know that last year MPAA reports that they've had excellent sales lately...
I've never seen any kind of study that actually reports how much piracy is going on around the internet, so I can only really assume that they're going on estimations. Which is ludicrous... that's like counting the number of people in Russia and estimating the world's population based on those results... It's bloody insane!
The only way I think they can possibly justify this amount of money that's being lost is a) When the MPAA pays money to hire people to do silly estimations like this. b) When these companies' stock goes down because they lose some court case in which they were trying to sue some guy who wrote a program for ripping DVDs.... not to mention the lawyer costs behind these lawsuits.... how much do you think they put per year into prosecuting people like this?
Would it kill people to think a little critically when reading blind statistics like this?
It wasn't funny. The all your base thing ceased to be funny on its own about 2 years ago.... Then the variations on it.... even saying stuff like "All your funny are belong to 2 years ago" and "Someone set up us the dead horse" stopped being funny about a year ago....
I'm gonna see this one out (cuz I'm a stubborn bastard)
See, Motherboards are one thing.
Video cards, sound cards, ethernet cards and a whole thwack of peripherals are something entirely different.
Sure, AMD or whoever might make a couple, but more often than not these won't be as powerful as the type of stuff ATI, Creative Labs, etc. are hoping to make. And I'm willing to bet, the people who really want to exploit the use of 64-bit processing are going to want to use those moreso than the AMD hack-n-slash clones... _That_ is the type of hardware support I'd expect Apple to have before AMD does.
I dunno. I might be wrong.... these are just my humble predictions... but I stand by 'em.
Right back at you for the whole Mac Fanboy bit... I'm a linux fanboy if anything.
Anyways... Apple's going to have the hardware support before anybody else. Most of the power-users who work off of x86 architecture will tend to upgrade their computers rather than buy a brand new system, which means a bit of lag between the Hammer and the hardware support for it. One of the main advantages that apple has over everybody else is their general control over the hardware in their systems. As a result, they can pump out machines with high-quality fully-integrated systems (READ: SYSTEMS, not chips... there's a lot more to it than just the processor) for 64-bit processing faster than x86 companies will most likely be able to.
I'll concede the Itanium shit. I tried to look up the Itanium 2 stuff, got confuzzled and tried to interpolate the rest. My apologies for my presumptuousness.
I think that the iMac would be marketable to the general geek, though... it quite possibly could be the flagship for fully integrated 64-bit hardware, don't you think? Maybe not necessarily the iMac, I guess, but they definately could pull out a bit like they did with the G4 Cube or something like that...
In any case, I think Steve Jobs won't have too much of a problem marketing the 64-bit processor in a happy little package that'll be the "first ever 64-bit fully supported system for the personal computer" or something like that....
Apple: - Well, now that they're most recently Going out of business, in steps IBM to save the day for them... a new line of iMacs is going to do insanely well, considering it's going to be the only fully-functional line of 64-bit personal computing, because I can pretty much guarantee Apple's going to have full-fledged 64-bit standardizing before anybody else. Apple's going to have an insane surge in users, a lot of the multimedia software that's been migrating to PCs is going to be happy with the better, faster and more powerful 64-bit hardware support and go back to developing for Macs... basically, Macs regain a lot of the status they've been falling behind in quickly.
AMD: - Hammer sales go up! If they're really lucky, Intel will either do a harsh (and hopefully inferior) yet still more expensive knock-off of Hammer, or they're going to release Itanium in a hurry because they realize businesses like the idea of progress so they're starting to hop over to 64-bit architectures. So AMD will reclaim its status it lost about a year and a bit ago when the P4 got the title of "Best x86 on the market". Good on them.
Linux: - Business as usual. Increased PPC support. Cool new Hammer patches, as well as the usual suspects (i386 still harshly dominating)
Microsoft: - Well, maybe not everybody's jumping for joy... A lot of migration to PPC. But otherwise, they're still busy saying that "The Next New Windows Will Be Secure, And This Time We Mean It!" (tm).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Drake doesn't offer anything to paying people at all.
Except for, well... professional support that's not all condescending if you don't copy-paste lsmod and lspci in all your questions... and non-slashdotted servers with which you can download the files so it doesn't grind to a halt like the one I'm downloading off of (I think I broke 4 kB/s... Woohoo!)
Nope. Nothing useful at all.
Or, heh... you know... maybe people could choose to support a company because they're not all proprietary and demand that you pay for their product, thus making people that want to use it for free criminals... But no, that would be stupid and naieve. I mean, think of all the pr0n sites you could visit with that whole $40/year.
People like you are why I feel ashamed of the world today.
How in God's name did this get modded up to 5 Insightful? It's not in any way. People have been saying this for years. It's nothing new or insightful at all.
On that note, the term "hacking around" has been around ages longer than the media ever picked it up, and not just in reference to computer/hardware nerds. A "hack" has always been a workaround, prank or nifty set-up. A "hacker" has always been someone that plays around with things to make innovative systems (be they computer, electrical or otherwise).
I still use the word as I always have, before I ever even got into computers. Somebody asks what I'm doing whilst trying to recompile custom kernels, I say "hacking around with some kernels" and they understand what I'm talking about. Or I'll say I'm doing some "Linux hacking". Point of the matter is, by using the word "Hacker" to talk about the hax0rz, all you're doing is inflating the egos of 15-year-old script kiddies who can't get laid. Personally, I'd rather that the field professionals pick the terminology than some pimply kid. I mean, christ, if it's the same social dynamic that spawned words like "bling-bling" then please give me some intellectually sound reason why I should pay attention to it?
It's jargon and ebonics all rolled into Internet culture, and it's bloody sickening. I don't really care how 31337 you may be, but a cracker will never necessitate a hacker.
You gotta be kidding me.
90:1 odds they give them the new development Microsoft code and MS uses it as a cheap way to getting hole patches.
I especially like the fact that that doesn't actually work that way. 99% of the crackers have no clue how OS's work. All it takes is one person of a couple million to find the whole, by the next day everybody knows about it....
Security fixes come out in the real world because someone tells you that there's a hole in it. This is why programming companies hire testers. Telling the programmers to find it themselves is silly... How about training on how to _avoid_ making security holes in the first place?
Try our good friend CleverNickName
Except Saddam isn't asking the UN for help.
The UN is giving it.
What is with people and bad analogies today? Christ.
Saddam is like a celery stick, and the UN is cream cheese. Now, the US missiles, those are the raisins... now watch happens when I... eat... them....
Bad analogy. Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad BAD analogy.
Anyways. For every single negative use of port scanning I can think of about 10 that would make my life hellish if I was without. Troubleshooting servers. Computer security. Filter testing. IPtable testing. etc. etc. etc.
Quite often friends bug me for help with their servers, the first thing I do is nmap their machine. If said friend happens to live behind the Great Firewall of China, then I have problems, don't I?
I never said he was...
Neal Stephenson was the first I heard who used the car-analogy, but it was to describe Windows, MacOS, BeOS and Linux...
Windows was a station wagon, MacOS was a sedan (with the hood welded shut), BeOS was Batmobiles, and Linux was a used lot where a bunch of volunteers were making tanks and lining them up on the side of the street with the keys in the ignition.
I honestly think this is what SCO intends. They realize that they're Linux model is going down the crapper. They realize that they're in the field for high-end IBM-type monolithic computer solutions.
But they're also getting the crap kicked out of them by the major competition... Red Hat's got them beat insofar as OS sales go, IBM's got them beat for major system solutions, and the list goes on and on of people SCO cannot compete with.
So they cut their losses by being bought out. Very simple. Shareholders get a big chunk of their money back so that they at least stay in until the death of the company. It would be more devastating for them to have to declare bankruptcy by the look of it.
So they do something ludicrous and don't even bother hoping for a settlement.... they want to be bought out.
However, from what it looks like, IBM has no intent to buy or settle, so the gamble looks like it's going to end in a blaze of glory and SCO is going to go crumbling.
Furthermore, if IBM stays it out in court and publicly defends all of the case, then it gets a chance to publically exorcise all of the FUD and myth that could possibly be exploited by Microsoft and the like that's surrounding Linux in general as a result of this.
Plus it'll serve SCO right. I'm tired of bullshit political tactics that exploit governmental systems and it's about time a corporation gets kicked in the butt for taking a stable government for granted.
Yes. Yes they could.
This would also be what is known as "illegal".
They can very well do that.
However, all it would take is a whistleblower or a contradictory changelog for that to be brought to the forefront, destroying SCO, and devastating any possibility that a major corporation would cut SCO's losses and buy them out... much like IBM seems to be in an especially advantageous position to do so now that SCO is suing them.
I'm from Canada and I already pay money for my hard drives, my CDs and all my other storage space that goes to the RIAA. I personally don't feel that I need to pay any more so that I can use this media for the same intent (downloading/copying) as I've already paid for.
If they're gonna tax me for piracy, then it's my goddamned right to pirate.
I'm going to use p2p services and download all that I want, and it'll be perfectly legal, seeing as how I've already paid the RIAA, so why shouldn't I have a right to it?
Why do you suppose they are fighting the internet as a distribution method? Because it is more efficient than current methods. They don't want better efficiency, because profit is made in the friction of distribution.
I think this coincides with what I'm saying. It's moreso the overeager capatalist ventures in mind. It's moreso that there's a lot of execs who are more interested in keeping things under their control than branching out and being more interactive about it. It's interesting, because there's this general belief that Communism doesn't work because everybody's too greedy to make it work. I think the same is true under capitalism. Capitalism can drive towards new ventures and the like because... get this... THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT! The entire idea behind capitalism is that you supply what is demanded at a reasonable price. The problem with this being that it's not what's happening. People don't want to shell out $20 for a CD anymore. However, now the corporations are more interested in quarterly returns and the like, so they're just gonna go for short-term effects that placate everybody within the company. So they not only undercut general development but the capitalist system itself.
Apologies for the left-wing rant there. I suppose there's not too much we can do about it, but I'm just offering possibilities. I'm neither a Business Major nor do I understand much about business management beyond a couple of classes. But it's my opinion... your mileage may vary.
Seem plausible, but what's to say that it's not the other way around? (Anybody that's studied correlations can tell you that correlations say nothing of causality...)
What if the economy is in the crapper because US corporations are more enthused about keeping the status quo than of pushing new and innovative technologies. Even bloody Intel is saying "bah... 64 bit processing is too much trouble than it's worth to really push the technology"
The RIAA is going crazy over MP3 sharers instead of understanding that digital encoding and mp3s are the wave of the future, not to mention the internet is a highly more effective distribution center than anything else out there.
Microsoft still refuses to believe in any uses towards Open-source programming, when what you're doing is combining the needs of regular every day power-users... even now Linux amongst other projects is looking towards the desktop and slowly rendering Microsoft a $150 waste of time.
Even our good friend Dubya would rather spend a crapload of money on fighting in the Middle East over oil than push technologies that would render necessity for Middle-Eastern Oil completely useless.
There's a lot of evidence to suggest that lack of Technological push is what's going to bring down the American Economy... so a correlation doesn't necessarily imply that America's low technological push is simply a state of the environment.
My bad... frikkin' fonts...
Looked like it said 5.99 not $.99
Still, I'm not paying twice for the same thing...
What planet did you grow up on?
World I come from, it costs $20 per full album (which is way more than 4 songs and gives you "professional" packaging).
Not to mention, I already pay a $0.20 tax on each CD I buy that goes to the RIAA, so I'm perfectly legally allowed to download ANY MP3S I WANT TO, considering I've already paid for them.
$.20 per CD is a shitload of a better deal than $5 per song...
Christ, $5 per song is a horrible deal ANYWHERE. Only possible way you could coerce me into buying that is if I was getting vinyls. Something tells me that's not what Apple is selling...
A lot more people, though, are willing to download videos for free than are willing to pay $20 for a DVD, or $14 for a movie ticket.
But that doesn't mean that the MPAA is losing money because people are now seeing movies they weren't going to buy anyways... And they say it's money they _lost_.... You can't account for every single person on a p2p system to believe that they don't already own the movie, or that they're going to keep said movie for a long time.
I know a good number of people who will download a movie, watch it, and if they like it go and buy said DVD.
From the article:
The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in lost sales
I'd honestly like to just take a statistics University Class and have them look over the methodology of it, and get them to report any breaks in logic. Where in god's name did this team get their figures from? How do you measure something like this...
I know it's not in sales drops, because I know that last year MPAA reports that they've had excellent sales lately...
I've never seen any kind of study that actually reports how much piracy is going on around the internet, so I can only really assume that they're going on estimations. Which is ludicrous... that's like counting the number of people in Russia and estimating the world's population based on those results... It's bloody insane!
The only way I think they can possibly justify this amount of money that's being lost is
a) When the MPAA pays money to hire people to do silly estimations like this.
b) When these companies' stock goes down because they lose some court case in which they were trying to sue some guy who wrote a program for ripping DVDs.... not to mention the lawyer costs behind these lawsuits.... how much do you think they put per year into prosecuting people like this?
Would it kill people to think a little critically when reading blind statistics like this?
Lack of correlation does not imply a negative correllation.
Doesn't anybody go to college anymore?
Um.... reverse engineer?
They released the source to them.
There's no need to reverse engineer it...
I wouldn't chalk that so much to Intelligence, though, as I would to skill....
I don't care how on topic it is.
It wasn't funny. The all your base thing ceased to be funny on its own about 2 years ago.... Then the variations on it.... even saying stuff like "All your funny are belong to 2 years ago" and "Someone set up us the dead horse" stopped being funny about a year ago....
I'm gonna see this one out (cuz I'm a stubborn bastard)
See, Motherboards are one thing.
Video cards, sound cards, ethernet cards and a whole thwack of peripherals are something entirely different.
Sure, AMD or whoever might make a couple, but more often than not these won't be as powerful as the type of stuff ATI, Creative Labs, etc. are hoping to make. And I'm willing to bet, the people who really want to exploit the use of 64-bit processing are going to want to use those moreso than the AMD hack-n-slash clones... _That_ is the type of hardware support I'd expect Apple to have before AMD does.
I dunno. I might be wrong.... these are just my humble predictions... but I stand by 'em.
Right back at you for the whole Mac Fanboy bit... I'm a linux fanboy if anything.
Anyways... Apple's going to have the hardware support before anybody else. Most of the power-users who work off of x86 architecture will tend to upgrade their computers rather than buy a brand new system, which means a bit of lag between the Hammer and the hardware support for it. One of the main advantages that apple has over everybody else is their general control over the hardware in their systems. As a result, they can pump out machines with high-quality fully-integrated systems (READ: SYSTEMS, not chips... there's a lot more to it than just the processor) for 64-bit processing faster than x86 companies will most likely be able to.
I'll concede the Itanium shit. I tried to look up the Itanium 2 stuff, got confuzzled and tried to interpolate the rest. My apologies for my presumptuousness.
I think that the iMac would be marketable to the general geek, though... it quite possibly could be the flagship for fully integrated 64-bit hardware, don't you think? Maybe not necessarily the iMac, I guess, but they definately could pull out a bit like they did with the G4 Cube or something like that...
In any case, I think Steve Jobs won't have too much of a problem marketing the 64-bit processor in a happy little package that'll be the "first ever 64-bit fully supported system for the personal computer" or something like that....
Apple:
- Well, now that they're most recently Going out of business, in steps IBM to save the day for them... a new line of iMacs is going to do insanely well, considering it's going to be the only fully-functional line of 64-bit personal computing, because I can pretty much guarantee Apple's going to have full-fledged 64-bit standardizing before anybody else. Apple's going to have an insane surge in users, a lot of the multimedia software that's been migrating to PCs is going to be happy with the better, faster and more powerful 64-bit hardware support and go back to developing for Macs... basically, Macs regain a lot of the status they've been falling behind in quickly.
AMD:
- Hammer sales go up! If they're really lucky, Intel will either do a harsh (and hopefully inferior) yet still more expensive knock-off of Hammer, or they're going to release Itanium in a hurry because they realize businesses like the idea of progress so they're starting to hop over to 64-bit architectures. So AMD will reclaim its status it lost about a year and a bit ago when the P4 got the title of "Best x86 on the market". Good on them.
Linux:
- Business as usual. Increased PPC support. Cool new Hammer patches, as well as the usual suspects (i386 still harshly dominating)
Microsoft:
- Well, maybe not everybody's jumping for joy... A lot of migration to PPC. But otherwise, they're still busy saying that "The Next New Windows Will Be Secure, And This Time We Mean It!" (tm).
That about it?