Re:Unix _isn't_ an operating system . . .
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
So if UNIX is a culture, what happens when a large number of people who know nothing about that culture start using an operating system based on UNIX? Mac OS X is UNIX, but the vast majority of its users will not be a part of the UNIX culture.
NPL, MPL, GPL... If my abbacus is working right, the Mozilla code base is triple licensed.
Yes, you're right; thanks for pointing that out.
IMHO, triple licensing is needlessly complex, and renders all 3 licenses essentially meaningless.
However, it certainly doesn't render them meaningless. I still can't take the Mozilla source code, make my own modifications, and distribute a compiled binary without providing the source. AOL can (and will), but nobody else.
b) It's very possible to display poorly/improperly written HTML. In theory, you're supposed to close the <TD> tags in tables, but both IE and Netscape will display them fine without...
As SamBeckett said, you're wrong. The following code will render fine in IE, but not in Netscape:
I mean, just think how great The Sims would have been if Maxis went bankrupt and the title was bought out by id!!
Come to think of it, that might have been kinda interesting...
Reminds me of a blurb my friend submitted to PC Magazine many years ago that they printed on their back page: "Did you hear that id Software and Brøderbund are merging? They're working on a new game called 'Where In Hell is Carmen Sandiego?'."
If you don't raise a stink, then there is no difference between you or the other sysadmin.
He's holding a CyberPatrol box, and is all in favor of censoring anything that someone might object to. You're a Slashdoter advocating free speech. No difference? Explain yourself.
It does not matter whether you only censor 5% of the sites and he censors 95%.
Tell me, which of these numbers is closer to zero?
The public never hears about it and censorship becomes just a little more acceptable.
Yeah, unless you talk to people about it, and explain what the problem is. It's a lot harder to do that when you're out of a job.
On the gripping hand, quitting your job and publicaly stating your reasons can often do far more to change attitudes than simply quietly working within the system. By quietly working to reduce the amount of censorship, you are still censoring.
The laundromat management says there must be censorship now. If you satisfy their requirements now, you're in a better position to educate them about censorship and its problems than if you just walk out. Surely blocking a hand-picked list of a few porn sites is better than letting someone else install CyberPatrol and reaffirm management's current ideas about filtering software?
You are not making a stand against it, nor are you doing anything that will likely bring attention to the issue.
I said nothing about not doing anything about the issue. If you agree to set up a basic filtering mechanism but voice your opinions about censorship at the same time, you can educate your boss about the issue without first getting yourself fired.
All the while the crusders for the moral right will advance their agendas further and further.
They're not doing anything drastic enough right now that a few more months will make a difference.
Social change usually doesn't happen by people quietly sriving against the system. It works by publically and willingly getting your butt kicked in the name of the cause.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes, though, it's possible to fight for the cause without getting your butt kicked.
It ain't easy, and it ain't fun. But you have to ask yourself which is more important; you're comfy life, or the betterment of your Fellow Man? In some instances it may be teh former, but sometimes it will be the latter. The final decision is up to the individual. We already know which side of the fence the corporate oligopoly has decided upon.
We also know which voice most people are listening to. One person can make a difference - so do you want to make a difference, right here, right now, by talking to your boss about the problems with censorship, compiling statistics about the effectiveness of filtering software, etc., or do you want to run off on some grand crusade while your former boss hires some Microsoft-certified lackey fresh out of college to install CyberPatrol so the neighborhood parents won't boycott his store?
What you do is stick to your ideals. It may be inconvenient. It may result in losing a job. But if it is something you feel strongly about, you must not surrender your conscience.
On the other hand, if you truly believe in your cause, then you'll do what you can to make sure there's a little censorship as possible going on at this laundromat. If you fail to meet the requirements of the management, they will find someone else to replace you, and that other person may simply install CyberPatrol. It may be best to compromise your ideals in order to maintain your influencial position.
A "work for hire" copyright is owned by the "hirer", not the original artist. So the RIAA companies currently own the bulk of the recorded music in the country?
That's correct. Pick up a CD and check the fine print. Or watch the credits at the end of a movie (at the very end of the credits, usually).
That means Metallica does not have the right to sue Napster; they don't currently own the music they're suing over.
Wrong. Metallica somehow managed to sue their record company for the rights to their music, and won. I don't know the details, but as a result of a legal battle, Metallica in fact does own the rights to their music, and therefore can sue Napster.
Don't you LOVE the IDIOTS that try to get First Post using their account logins? I think it's hilarious.
It really shows the mentality/maturity behind some of our "peers".
I find it commendable. If he's going to post a comment, he should be willing to take responsibility for it through moderation and know that his reputation will be affected.
to tiny69: Get a life. I for one hope you get your account cancelled, and have your IP address blocked from accessing this site. Not necessarily because you are a "FIRST POSTER!" (that is a big part however), but that you were *stupid* enough to do it LOGGED IN!
You're replying to a first post, flaming the poster not for his comment, but for not checking the "Post Anonymously" box. And you think he needs a life? A bit hypocritical, don't you think? I also have to point out that this doesn't make his +5 Insightful comment is any less interesting.
First Posting is childish. But to use your account is just plain stupid. From here out, everyone knows *exactly* how to judge everything you say.
Hope it was worth it.
Slashdot does have a moderation system. It works. If the moderators agree that First Posting is childish, he'll get modded down, and those of us who browse at +1 won't have to see it.
What we really need around here is a meta-meta-meta-moderator. Someone who could really care less about anything that goes on in the discussions, but whose job it is to identify the carpers and the whiners who make the infrastructure itself an off-topic in discussions. After tabulating maybe a half dozen offenses like the above post, the account should be silently blocked. By 'silently blocked' I mean a feature that used to be present in the Oracomm BBS package. A person would be allowed to continue to post as many comments as they liked, but only they would be able to read their comments. After a few days of nobody at all responding to their comments ever again, they would give up and go away.
Why not, if your karma drops below -10 or so, you automatically post at a moderation of 0? Similar to the +1 bonus if you're over 25, this would be a -1 bonus, sort of.
Sure, all the trolls would just get new accounts. Slashdot does require a valid e-mail address, though, doesn't it? I'd think that after awhile this would taper off.
Granted, posting at 0 doesn't mean nobody will ever read your post, but it would help. Actually posting at -1 would be stupid, since Anonymous Cowards get that and anybody can be Anonymous.
I start to wonder whether that is a hard limit, or just a: if(karma > 50) displayed_karma = 50; sort of thing...
I wonder this too, or if they put it back to the way it was, whether all the karma changes (resulting from moderations, etc.) will suddenly take effect.
The Free Software Foundation helps pay for certain things in the Free Software community, correct? Then why doesn't it take donations to buy a TLD and then just run a Domain Name Server based on their TLD. The Free Software community could just set it up themselves and avoid the middleman of having to go through other TLD's to begin with.
uhh..
Maybe because you can't buy a TLD?
New gTLDs have to be approved by ICANN, and the FSF already proposed a.gnu TLD. ccTLDs have to correspond to actual countries, and are theoretically supposed to be used by those countries (although most smaller countries like Christmas Island and Tonga have decided to simply sell off second-level domains to whoever will pay them money).
Who the Ffsck do these American wankers think they are telling the rest of the world that the US court is the only way to get justice and "fairness"? Who the hell is the US congress to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, and do our business?
MAPS is based in the United States. If you don't like it, start your own damn RBL. Nobody's forcing you to use theirs (which is exactly the point of all of this).
What advantage does AIM have over ICQ, other than the fact that it's used by millions of AOL users (no comment on that one:)?
I never really got into ICQ. I started using AIM instead because I know many people who use AIM or AOL, and very few people who use ICQ, and I have yet to meet someone I want to talk to who uses ICQ and doesn't also use AIM. So yes, those millions of users really are a good reason. Well, some of the millions anyway.
I've heard about a LOT of security issues with ICQ. Everything's client-to-client, so you can get everyone's IP address. With AIM, messages are send client-to-server, so there's no way for someone to get your IP address if you don't want them to have it. They recently added file transfers, voice chats and IM images, which are all client-to-client, but it asks you before accepting a connection, so if you don't want them getting your IP, you can just say no.
Wasn't some group working on a unified messaging protocol? Is any progress being made on that front? The last thing I want to mess with is having multiple messaging apps on my desktop.
AOL actually submitted a proposal for how to send IMs back and forth between different providers (AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, etc.). I look forward to seeing it implemented; their proposal seems sound. Of course, everyone seems to see AOL as a bully in this issue, but really, what have they actually done that they shouldn't have? I won't say I particularly like them (and the AOL service itself certainly sucks), but I have to defend them on this.
I heard a rumor that they were working on a Linux port of AOL 6.0, and that there had been an alpha release. I haven't been able to find any mention of this anywhere. Does anyone know anything about this?
Does that make the Mac version "MAIM"? It'd be fantasgreat if they had a Maim button in AIM. When Warn and Block don't do the trick, just press Maim to tear off an arm. Or maybe just bloody their Buddy Icon...
Actually I've been longing for a Kick button, or maybe Punt. Ahh, if only they hadn't fixed the ̂ bug in AIM for Windows....
Slashdot Mirror
--
Yes, you're right; thanks for pointing that out.
IMHO, triple licensing is needlessly complex, and renders all 3 licenses essentially meaningless.
However, it certainly doesn't render them meaningless. I still can't take the Mozilla source code, make my own modifications, and distribute a compiled binary without providing the source. AOL can (and will), but nobody else.
--
As SamBeckett said, you're wrong. The following code will render fine in IE, but not in Netscape:
<HTML>
<BODY>
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TD>
Netscape won't display this.
--
That's $22/month, actually.
--
Come to think of it, that might have been kinda interesting...
Reminds me of a blurb my friend submitted to PC Magazine many years ago that they printed on their back page: "Did you hear that id Software and Brøderbund are merging? They're working on a new game called 'Where In Hell is Carmen Sandiego?'."
--
He's holding a CyberPatrol box, and is all in favor of censoring anything that someone might object to. You're a Slashdoter advocating free speech. No difference? Explain yourself.
It does not matter whether you only censor 5% of the sites and he censors 95%.
Tell me, which of these numbers is closer to zero?
The public never hears about it and censorship becomes just a little more acceptable.
Yeah, unless you talk to people about it, and explain what the problem is. It's a lot harder to do that when you're out of a job.
--
The laundromat management says there must be censorship now. If you satisfy their requirements now, you're in a better position to educate them about censorship and its problems than if you just walk out. Surely blocking a hand-picked list of a few porn sites is better than letting someone else install CyberPatrol and reaffirm management's current ideas about filtering software?
You are not making a stand against it, nor are you doing anything that will likely bring attention to the issue.
I said nothing about not doing anything about the issue. If you agree to set up a basic filtering mechanism but voice your opinions about censorship at the same time, you can educate your boss about the issue without first getting yourself fired.
All the while the crusders for the moral right will advance their agendas further and further.
They're not doing anything drastic enough right now that a few more months will make a difference.
Social change usually doesn't happen by people quietly sriving against the system. It works by publically and willingly getting your butt kicked in the name of the cause.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes, though, it's possible to fight for the cause without getting your butt kicked.
It ain't easy, and it ain't fun. But you have to ask yourself which is more important; you're comfy life, or the betterment of your Fellow Man? In some instances it may be teh former, but sometimes it will be the latter. The final decision is up to the individual. We already know which side of the fence the corporate oligopoly has decided upon.
We also know which voice most people are listening to. One person can make a difference - so do you want to make a difference, right here, right now, by talking to your boss about the problems with censorship, compiling statistics about the effectiveness of filtering software, etc., or do you want to run off on some grand crusade while your former boss hires some Microsoft-certified lackey fresh out of college to install CyberPatrol so the neighborhood parents won't boycott his store?
--
Just playing Devil's advocate, btw.
--
On the other hand, if you truly believe in your cause, then you'll do what you can to make sure there's a little censorship as possible going on at this laundromat. If you fail to meet the requirements of the management, they will find someone else to replace you, and that other person may simply install CyberPatrol. It may be best to compromise your ideals in order to maintain your influencial position.
Isn't politics great?
--
Unless I'm mistaken, that was copied and pasted from somewhere; I'm almost positive I've read it before. From the RIAA's Web site maybe?
Anybody else recognize it, and less lazy than I?
--
Oh, so that's why the RIAA is letting them have it back?
--
That's correct. Pick up a CD and check the fine print. Or watch the credits at the end of a movie (at the very end of the credits, usually).
That means Metallica does not have the right to sue Napster; they don't currently own the music they're suing over.
Wrong. Metallica somehow managed to sue their record company for the rights to their music, and won. I don't know the details, but as a result of a legal battle, Metallica in fact does own the rights to their music, and therefore can sue Napster.
--
Whoops, my bad. Thanks.
Can you tell I haven't touched C++ in a year and a half?
--
It really shows the mentality/maturity behind some of our "peers".
I find it commendable. If he's going to post a comment, he should be willing to take responsibility for it through moderation and know that his reputation will be affected.
to tiny69: Get a life. I for one hope you get your account cancelled, and have your IP address blocked from accessing this site. Not necessarily because you are a "FIRST POSTER!" (that is a big part however), but that you were *stupid* enough to do it LOGGED IN!
You're replying to a first post, flaming the poster not for his comment, but for not checking the "Post Anonymously" box. And you think he needs a life? A bit hypocritical, don't you think? I also have to point out that this doesn't make his +5 Insightful comment is any less interesting.
First Posting is childish. But to use your account is just plain stupid. From here out, everyone knows *exactly* how to judge everything you say.
Hope it was worth it.
Slashdot does have a moderation system. It works. If the moderators agree that First Posting is childish, he'll get modded down, and those of us who browse at +1 won't have to see it.
--
Why not, if your karma drops below -10 or so, you automatically post at a moderation of 0? Similar to the +1 bonus if you're over 25, this would be a -1 bonus, sort of.
Sure, all the trolls would just get new accounts. Slashdot does require a valid e-mail address, though, doesn't it? I'd think that after awhile this would taper off.
Granted, posting at 0 doesn't mean nobody will ever read your post, but it would help. Actually posting at -1 would be stupid, since Anonymous Cowards get that and anybody can be Anonymous.
--
I wonder this too, or if they put it back to the way it was, whether all the karma changes (resulting from moderations, etc.) will suddenly take effect.
--
uhh..
Maybe because you can't buy a TLD?
New gTLDs have to be approved by ICANN, and the FSF already proposed a
--
MAPS is based in the United States. If you don't like it, start your own damn RBL. Nobody's forcing you to use theirs (which is exactly the point of all of this).
--
--
Sure it is! Microsoft just innovated it, remember?
--
I never really got into ICQ. I started using AIM instead because I know many people who use AIM or AOL, and very few people who use ICQ, and I have yet to meet someone I want to talk to who uses ICQ and doesn't also use AIM. So yes, those millions of users really are a good reason. Well, some of the millions anyway.
I've heard about a LOT of security issues with ICQ. Everything's client-to-client, so you can get everyone's IP address. With AIM, messages are send client-to-server, so there's no way for someone to get your IP address if you don't want them to have it. They recently added file transfers, voice chats and IM images, which are all client-to-client, but it asks you before accepting a connection, so if you don't want them getting your IP, you can just say no.
Wasn't some group working on a unified messaging protocol? Is any progress being made on that front? The last thing I want to mess with is having multiple messaging apps on my desktop.
AOL actually submitted a proposal for how to send IMs back and forth between different providers (AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, etc.). I look forward to seeing it implemented; their proposal seems sound. Of course, everyone seems to see AOL as a bully in this issue, but really, what have they actually done that they shouldn't have? I won't say I particularly like them (and the AOL service itself certainly sucks), but I have to defend them on this.
--
--
--
Actually I've been longing for a Kick button, or maybe Punt. Ahh, if only they hadn't fixed the ̂ bug in AIM for Windows....
--
--