These disinformation crusades are meaningless, especially in the open-source world.
What do they think they're hurting by spouting meaningless sound bites? Sure, the MS drones pick up on it, repeat it. "See? Linux is toast, dude."
I am not a veteran Linux user, being just over a year. I have, however, moved most of my organization's mission critical apps to Linux-based servers.
Now we are in the midst of examining desktop solutions for the inevitable change next year. Microsoft is not an option.
I have been using a number of desktop distros, doing both custom and canned installs...I see them getting better and better. The GUIs are evolving, they come with a robust feature/application set, and they work.
Are they perfect? No, of course not. But they are solid. And with the experience with Windows being "crash, reboot, work, crash, reboot, and oh yeah, you do have to pay us for that," screw it, its a no brainer.
I guess I identify more with Linux, FreeBSD, OSS than I ever have, but these articles (stories) mean nothing to me anymore.
What is microsoft going to win? Is there a race? Does Linux exist as a single entity? Are the copious amounts of developers who write and create out of love, and out of a desire to make something better going to just stop because some talking head decides that they feel that Linux isn't scalable (ignoring the fallacy of that for a moment)?
Of course not. So let them play their little games, plant their little stories, and meanwhile keep working on making the best software out there, and make it open.
That is how linux can win. Linux can win by forgetting this competition bullshit, because that's not what its about.
Hi. I've read your reply to the previous posting, and decided to translate it into rational-human speak so as to expose the true intent behind my blathering. Your comments shall be preceded by the phrase, 'Thus the moron spake:'
Thus the moron spake: "Hello,
Read: Hello.
Thus the moron spake: "I've read your posting and decided to translate a portion of it into English for the benefit of the other Slashdot readers. Your comments, obviously, are in italics."
Read: Though I later state that you have an inflated sense of self-importance, it of course can not rival mine. In fact, I think I am so important and all-knowing that I am going to attempt to use juvenile humor to spin your cogent thoughts into something akin to my own.
Thus the moron spake: "Read: I got a ticket for speeding the other day. Its disgraceful the way the so-called legal authorities can harrass a man for the so-called crime of going 85 in a 55 zone."
Read: Though I am utterly clueless when it comes to the processes of government and law, I watch the news, and they say that being a critical thinker is bad (well, they don't _say_ it) and anti-patriotic, and therefore you must be exhibiting selfish thoughts...because that is what I would do in your case, therefore you suck.
Thus the moron spake: "Read: I'm the old man who sits in the City Council meetings and annoys everyone by my pointless argueing over trivial matters. But the law clearly states that the forms that the Animal Control officer filled out when he removed the 84 cats from my trailer needed to be filled out in *black* ink, yet they were done in *blue*. Gestapo tactics!!"
Read: In the unlikely event you were unsure of my immaturity, insecurity, and inability to form rational thoughts imbued with humor and insight, here you are.
Thus the moron spake: "Read: I'm incredibly cheap and I've found a marvellous way to rationalize it."
Read: Gurgle blah grr grumble grumbly.
Thus the moron spake: "Read: I have an overinflated sense of self-importance. In my mind I'm Emma Goldman, but to everyone else I'm just a crank that manages to amuse everyone with his annoying habits."
Read: I have an overinflated sense of self-importance. In my mind I'm Emma Goldman, but to everyone else I'm just a crank that manages to amuse everyone with his annoying habits.
Good job, Slappy. Now go get yer fucking shine box.
Usually, hackers do not have the type of power to censure/censor/sanction possessed by states (states meaning governmental bodies of power/juridstiction, not US statehood).
The police are an extension of the state; are charged with enforcing laws as proscribed by the state, and therefore have very much power in relation to those who may have been snooped by them.
There are no similarities between hackers (crackers) scanning for security vulnerabilites in an attempted ingress and government sanctioned snooping. To even suggest such is disingenious.
And White-hat hackers usually resort to less intrusive methods for finding such vulerabilites. While some may snoop e-mail for information, generally-speaking the process involves different tactics entirely.
Any invasion of privacy is a bad thing. But there is an enormous difference between government sanctioned eavesdropping and white-hat hacking to bring security vulnerabilites to light for the purpose of securing said vulnerability.
"What document retention policies do people have at their companies, and what steps do companies take to make sure that documents are destroyed according to the policy when their time is up so they don't come back to haunt the company later?"
This issue has never occurred to me. I think it speaks volumes on the business and corporate climate in the world that this question is asked in this particular framing.
If a company is putting anything in writing that could come back and haunt them at a later date, then that company's behavior is unethical at the very least.
I do live in the real world, however, and realize that these things are the reality. I just think it sucks.
How about this: If one decides to put something damaging into writing, think again. I know advising against the activity in the first place is a lost cause, so just don't put it in writing.
Of course, lucky for those of us who believe in conducting ourselves based on ethical behavior, and the judeo-christian standard of 'do-unto-others' (this from an atheist), there are plenty of really foolish people in positions of power who will continue to document their wrongdoing.
Why? Sure, its possible, but I think it far more plausible that the attacks originated by someone with something to gain.
Why target this ISP? To what end?
There are valid reasons why crackers would take this action, most likely the ages-old motivation for many nefarious activities: Because they can.
I just think it is very suspicious. There seems to be an attempt from the large ISPs to control access to the net by squashing the smaller guys. Can this be part of that? Sure.
Seems awful convenient that such an attack is attributed to 'script kiddies' without even the mention of other possibilities.
It sounds like a wonderful project on which to work.
As to the internet connectivity, I was thinking that perhaps a couple of webservers would be a better idea. House some complete web-sites, or create specific html content geared towards the matter at hand. May be easier than looking for signals in rural areas. You would still be able to illustrate the mechanics and experience of hyperlinking.
As to OS, the context would have to be considered. Ideally, I would want a number of OSes running, with largely Linux/FreeBSD on the server side. But one would have to include Windows in some form. I would also want to be able to show Mac OSX and some X-windows desktops as well.
Have fun.
- Yes, I am aware that makes me the biggest loser of all time.
- No, I don't really care, either.
Oh yeah? I guess you're one step down the loser ladder (or is it up?), since I will be partying with a bunch of people, and only WISHING that I could be home fragging some nuked out lads and lasses et al. How pathetic is that? (or at least I wish I could be traveling through Amn or Sigil or some shit)
>It's not just a case of geeks happening to be the >target demographic, and online, so, there you go.
>Rabid fans of any film/record/whatever tend to
>vote early and often.
Not to dispute the notion that LOTR: FOTR is not the best film of all time, but the IMDB only counts votes from registered users, and you may only vote once.
As of yesterday there were over ten-thousand votes in. Those ostensibly represent unique voices.
For my own, I was bitterly disappointed in the film, but it seemed to resonate strongly with all viewers.
I have never been to a movie that saw the audience spontaneously applaud at several moments in the film, though I did not feel what they were feeling.
I think the general consensus among those I know is the following: Those that have read the books once or twice fell in love with the film, while those heavier readers who have delved into the Silmarillion et al many times (as I have) came away disappointed.
"By this time Tolkien had begun to make his Legendarium into what he believed to be a more presentable state, and as he later noted, hints of it had already made their way into The Hobbit. He was now calling the full account Quenta Silmarillion, or Silmarillion for short. He presented some of his "completed" tales to Unwin, who sent them to his reader. The reader's reaction was mixed: dislike of the poetry and praise for the prose (the material was the story of Beren and Lúthien) but the overall decision at the time was that these were not commercially publishable. Unwin tactfully this messge relayed to Tolkien, but asked him again if he was willing to write a sequel to The Hobbit. Tolkien was disappointed at the apparent failure of The Silmarillion, but agreed to take up the challenge of "The New Hobbit".
This soon developed into something much more than a children's story; for the highly complex 16-year history of what became The Lord of the Rings consult the works listed below. Suffice it to say that the now adult Rayner Unwin was deeply involved in the later stages of this opus, dealing magnificently with a dilatory and temperamental author who, at one stage, was offering the whole work to a commercial rival (which rapidly backed off when the scale and nature of the package became apparent). It is thanks to Rayner Unwin's advocacy that we owe the fact that this book was published at all - Andave laituvalmes! His father's firm decided to incur the probable loss of £1,000 for the succès d'estime, and publish it under the title of The Lord of the Rings in three parts during 1954 and 1955, with USA rights going to Houghton Mifflin. It soon became apparent that both author and publishers had greatly underestimated the work's public appeal."
Heh heh. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Happy?
The Hobbit was published first, however it draws on the same history that has been the backdrop in Tolkien's tales. I am not sure offhand, but I believe that LOTR and the histories that became The Silmarillion were written prior to the publishing of the Hobbit.
Further, as that history is the backdrop, and a selection of his other pre- Books of Lost Tales publishing are consistent with the material, I say again: The Hobbit is inconsistent with the rest.
Incorrect my (snicker) fellow Tolkien purist.
The Nazgul, or Ringwraiths in the common tongue, are the riders themselves. Those who were given the nine rings for mortal men doomed to die, and hence became enslaved to Sauron.
They rode on steeds, though not normal horses, most of which perished in the floods at the Ford. Later they were borne aloft.
Perhaps Tolkien stated so in his letters, but the proof is in the pudding, as it were, and The Hobbit is a children's tale.
It is much less complex and lighter in tone. The geography and history are slightly inconsistent with his published histories. It has not the _depth_ of LOTR. That can be seen by any observer who I guess has not the aspect of an ass.
I think Nar i hin Hurin ( The Take of the Children of Hurin) would be really ideal. Basically it's a slight expansion on the 'Of Turin Turambar' from the Silmarillion. Lots of eye-candy, plus a truly tragic and dramatic storyline.
Of course, I agree that certainly policemen, firefighters, and military personnel do socialize quite frequently. Astronauts? Who knows. Probably.
The trait that these professions have in common?
Well, in the case of the police and firefighters they are bound together by duty and by a profession that causes them to truly rely on one another in life and death situations. I would wager that the military has a similar climate, and it would seem logical that astronauts do as well.
In the case of the police, there is definitely an 'us vs them' mentality, fostered by their role in society.
That being said, one will see much more of this type of socializing in blue-collar type professions. Even so, neighborhoods are changing, lives are changing. One doesn't work with one's neighbors down at the mill, warehouse, or factory very often anymore. One's co-workers children may not know one's own. So even those tight-knit groups are disappearing.
IT, as we all know, is a far more mercenary type profession than most. Although there are exceptions, many people are transient employees, and the environment in the technical world has fostered this. There aren't many chances to becme intimate, and it seems that people on all sides are hesitant.
A few years ago I was a tree-trimmer, and that was an entirely different ball game.
You would not only spend an enormous amount of time with those with whom you work on an everyday basis, but with others of the same profession.
Not only does this scheme seem very wrong in terms of personal privacy, is there any wonder that the whores in the US govt are backing the idea? Just think, everything a consumer does, theoretically, will be tracked. Spam? You cannot hide. Marketing towards you specifically based upon your spending habits, neatly organized for easier dissemination by those wanting to sell you stuff. Stuff stuff stuff. What the hell was Cisco thinking?
>I'm in the US now, I have a reasonable amount of >money, but this does not make it really easy. >Most of the Chinese and Indians have very little >money when they enter the country, but >accumulate a fair amount after working for a few >years, but it's still not that easy for them to >gain legal status even after they're "rich".
What are you arguing? My point of view, not meant to be an absolute statement, is that it is harder for poor immigrants to enter the country, and I will add: legally.
If a foreigner wishes citizenship, I think they have much less opposition. Witness the boatloads of Haitians turned away.
As far as illegal Mexicans being granted citizenship...that has no bearing on the topic whatsoever. They are HERE already. It is not an immigration issue. It seems we may be discussing two separate (though related) issues: immigration and citizenship.
I am an expert on neither, nor do I claim to be.
>Definitions of "benefit" and "equally" are >contentious.
Poor wording on my part...I think you are intelligent enough to garner my meaning. Which is: laws shoud affect all citizens equally.
>It's interesting to note the lack of success of >economic systems that are intended to "benefit >everyone equally", as opposed to maximising >utility.
If benefit and equally are contentious, than how are economic systems based on that principle?
To the failure of economic systems that treat all citizens equally: it is usually the (formerly) rich and powerful that have much to say about those failures. Read: causation.
>You're making sweeping generalisations. It's >probably a correct statement -- about say 5 or >so of the larger companies in the RIAA.
Yes I was. And that handful of companies drives the entire organization, and the legislation surrounding this particular topic.
As to the answer of the 'bleed from every orifice for a thousand years'...you cannot take that literally...Bill Gates alone could spend $150,000
a day and it would be 1000 years before he was broke.
I realize that he is the richest man on earth, and that he has little to do directly with this topic, but it does give some perspective.
These companies make an obscene amount of money. File sharing is not hurting them. The legislation against is based on their greed.
>They're (protests) handled a lot better than they are in
> most other countries
Well, when compared to countries where one can literally be killed for speaking out against the government...yes. We are not free to say what we will, however, not even close.
Our rights, as mandated in the constitution, are being stripped away word by word.
>>This is a joke. Free file sharing is illegal, it is not immoral. Learn to separate the two.
>I understand the difference between the two -- >what you don't seem to understand is that I >don't agree with you (in particular, I think >file >sharing is immoral under some >circumstances)
In some rare circumstances, I agree. But not enough to warrant this reaction from organizations that could bleed from every orifice financially speaking for a thousand years and still be profitable. Not from organizations that bleed their artists, lay off employees so the executives can make another million, and force chaff down the collective-public's throat.
Perhaps it is my aversion to large corporate entities that gives me this view.
I can give you one example of how file sharing can be hurtful: A small band puts music on the net for sale with no record deal..they're music gets downloaded by someone who then shares the song...it becomes popular and is passed along to hundreds of thousands (ok, severe example), meanwhile the band themselves are still slaving away at day jobs and seeing no money from their popular song. If one shares such a thing knowingly, then perhaps one is acting immorally.
How often does this happen?
Are these cases being represented by the RIAA and their bounty hunters? Will @Home shut down users for sharing those songs? Of course not.
>>Law is law, most laws written at the whim of >>the rich to benefit the rich, with a bone >>thrown to the rest of the country (in USA) >>every once in a while.
>That's interesting, because people rich and poor >are flocking to the USA right now, many of them >are leaving countries where laws are written >supposedly for "the benefit of the poor".
Laws should benefit everyone equally. I don't have facts on this instance, but I doubt the veracity of your statement. It is harder to get into the States now than ever...for the poor. If you have money, no problem. No wonder, that, the US is a haven for gougers under the guise of a free nation. There is alot of freedom here, of course, but at a cost. It only goes so far. Witness the myriad protests and how they're handled. I'm straying off topic a bit, however your point needs addressing.
My point concerning the US was made because that is the environment in which I live, therefore I cannot make a point about any other country.
>>Using the threat of legal action against ISP >>when they have no case
>I agree. I think they should throw the users in >the slammer instead.
Now you're talking.
"That's right Mr. FreeFile Sharer...we're sorry, you just don't have the clout and/or cash to stop this, furthermore, your use of these infernal free file sharing services is obviously rooted in Satan-worship, therefore you shall be imprisoned like all heathen, non-capitalists! Evil evil evil!! We can't allow you to steal a few pennies from these monolithic organizations...what will they leave to their children? Oh! The humanity! Screw due process, I think I am going to shoot you! The media tells me that I should love big business, they take care of me (don't all farmers feed their cows before the slaughter), and I believe them. I will be looking into releasing some murderers to make room for refuse such as you!"
Thank you for your input, Henry Kissinger.
This is a joke. Free file sharing is illegal, it is not immoral. Learn to separate the two.
Law != Moral
Law != Ethics
Law is law, most laws written at the whim of the rich to benefit the rich, with a bone thrown to the rest of the country (in USA) every once in a while.
There are no degrees to criminality. A thing is either criminal, or it is not, predicated on the law. Moral vs criminal is another thing altogether. SUVs are contributing to the destruction of an environment that can adequately support life. OUR life; human life! Sure, it is a slow process, but does that make it more acceptable? To whom does one turn in these cases? The impact of such vehicles is well-known, and has been for some time. Auto-makers want money. SUVs sell very well. There you have it. Is the government going to legislate against the continued production of these vehicles? Do you think a group of citizens has the same voice as a General Motors lobby? Of course not.
I would not partake of these types of protest, but to demonize them is foolish. People are fed up. What is the difference here between torching a dealership, and that dealership selling death traps? Who is more wrong? Can either be more wrong? Because a group of individuals acts, thus they are highly criminal? Big business, including the sutomakers, wield far more power and influence, and in my opinion, using such so irresponsibly (read: wittingly selling vehicles that are very dangerous to everyone involved...through their terrible center of gravity, the damage they inflict on other vehicles during a crash, and their environmental impact) for mere financial gain is far worse.
Slashdot Mirror
These disinformation crusades are meaningless, especially in the open-source world.
What do they think they're hurting by spouting meaningless sound bites? Sure, the MS drones pick up on it, repeat it. "See? Linux is toast, dude."
I am not a veteran Linux user, being just over a year. I have, however, moved most of my organization's mission critical apps to Linux-based servers.
Now we are in the midst of examining desktop solutions for the inevitable change next year. Microsoft is not an option.
I have been using a number of desktop distros, doing both custom and canned installs...I see them getting better and better. The GUIs are evolving, they come with a robust feature/application set, and they work.
Are they perfect? No, of course not. But they are solid. And with the experience with Windows being "crash, reboot, work, crash, reboot, and oh yeah, you do have to pay us for that," screw it, its a no brainer.
I guess I identify more with Linux, FreeBSD, OSS than I ever have, but these articles (stories) mean nothing to me anymore.
What is microsoft going to win? Is there a race? Does Linux exist as a single entity? Are the copious amounts of developers who write and create out of love, and out of a desire to make something better going to just stop because some talking head decides that they feel that Linux isn't scalable (ignoring the fallacy of that for a moment)?
Of course not. So let them play their little games, plant their little stories, and meanwhile keep working on making the best software out there, and make it open.
That is how linux can win. Linux can win by forgetting this competition bullshit, because that's not what its about.
Hi. I've read your reply to the previous posting, and decided to translate it into rational-human speak so as to expose the true intent behind my blathering. Your comments shall be preceded by the phrase, 'Thus the moron spake:'
Thus the moron spake:
"Hello,
Read:
Hello.
Thus the moron spake:
"I've read your posting and decided to translate a portion of it into English for the benefit of the other Slashdot readers. Your comments, obviously, are in italics."
Read:
Though I later state that you have an inflated sense of self-importance, it of course can not rival mine. In fact, I think I am so important and all-knowing that I am going to attempt to use juvenile humor to spin your cogent thoughts into something akin to my own.
Thus the moron spake:
"Read: I got a ticket for speeding the other day. Its disgraceful the way the so-called legal authorities can harrass a man for the so-called crime of going 85 in a 55 zone."
Read:
Though I am utterly clueless when it comes to the processes of government and law, I watch the news, and they say that being a critical thinker is bad (well, they don't _say_ it) and anti-patriotic, and therefore you must be exhibiting selfish thoughts...because that is what I would do in your case, therefore you suck.
Thus the moron spake:
"Read: I'm the old man who sits in the City Council meetings and annoys everyone by my pointless argueing over trivial matters. But the law clearly states that the forms that the Animal Control officer filled out when he removed the 84 cats from my trailer needed to be filled out in *black* ink, yet they were done in *blue*. Gestapo tactics!!"
Read:
In the unlikely event you were unsure of my immaturity, insecurity, and inability to form rational thoughts imbued with humor and insight, here you are.
Thus the moron spake:
"Read: I'm incredibly cheap and I've found a marvellous way to rationalize it."
Read:
Gurgle blah grr grumble grumbly.
Thus the moron spake:
"Read: I have an overinflated sense of self-importance. In my mind I'm Emma Goldman, but to everyone else I'm just a crank that manages to amuse everyone with his annoying habits."
Read:
I have an overinflated sense of self-importance. In my mind I'm Emma Goldman, but to everyone else I'm just a crank that manages to amuse everyone with his annoying habits.
Good job, Slappy. Now go get yer fucking shine box.
Usually, hackers do not have the type of power to censure/censor/sanction possessed by states (states meaning governmental bodies of power/juridstiction, not US statehood).
The police are an extension of the state; are charged with enforcing laws as proscribed by the state, and therefore have very much power in relation to those who may have been snooped by them.
There are no similarities between hackers (crackers) scanning for security vulnerabilites in an attempted ingress and government sanctioned snooping. To even suggest such is disingenious.
And White-hat hackers usually resort to less intrusive methods for finding such vulerabilites. While some may snoop e-mail for information, generally-speaking the process involves different tactics entirely.
Any invasion of privacy is a bad thing. But there is an enormous difference between government sanctioned eavesdropping and white-hat hacking to bring security vulnerabilites to light for the purpose of securing said vulnerability.
"What document retention policies do people have at their companies, and what steps do companies take to make sure that documents are destroyed according to the policy when their time is up so they don't come back to haunt the company later?"
This issue has never occurred to me. I think it speaks volumes on the business and corporate climate in the world that this question is asked in this particular framing.
If a company is putting anything in writing that could come back and haunt them at a later date, then that company's behavior is unethical at the very least.
I do live in the real world, however, and realize that these things are the reality. I just think it sucks.
How about this: If one decides to put something damaging into writing, think again. I know advising against the activity in the first place is a lost cause, so just don't put it in writing.
Of course, lucky for those of us who believe in conducting ourselves based on ethical behavior, and the judeo-christian standard of 'do-unto-others' (this from an atheist), there are plenty of really foolish people in positions of power who will continue to document their wrongdoing.
Yeah, that is one depressing site.
Necessary, but depressing.
Why? Sure, its possible, but I think it far more plausible that the attacks originated by someone with something to gain.
Why target this ISP? To what end?
There are valid reasons why crackers would take this action, most likely the ages-old motivation for many nefarious activities: Because they can.
I just think it is very suspicious. There seems to be an attempt from the large ISPs to control access to the net by squashing the smaller guys. Can this be part of that? Sure.
Seems awful convenient that such an attack is attributed to 'script kiddies' without even the mention of other possibilities.
It sounds like a wonderful project on which to work.
As to the internet connectivity, I was thinking that perhaps a couple of webservers would be a better idea. House some complete web-sites, or create specific html content geared towards the matter at hand. May be easier than looking for signals in rural areas. You would still be able to illustrate the mechanics and experience of hyperlinking.
As to OS, the context would have to be considered. Ideally, I would want a number of OSes running, with largely Linux/FreeBSD on the server side. But one would have to include Windows in some form. I would also want to be able to show Mac OSX and some X-windows desktops as well.
Have fun.
On playing Team Fortress Classic on New Year's:
- Yes, I am aware that makes me the biggest loser of all time.
- No, I don't really care, either.
Oh yeah? I guess you're one step down the loser ladder (or is it up?), since I will be partying with a bunch of people, and only WISHING that I could be home fragging some nuked out lads and lasses et al. How pathetic is that? (or at least I wish I could be traveling through Amn or Sigil or some shit)
>It's not just a case of geeks happening to be the >target demographic, and online, so, there you go.
>Rabid fans of any film/record/whatever tend to
>vote early and often.
Not to dispute the notion that LOTR: FOTR is not the best film of all time, but the IMDB only counts votes from registered users, and you may only vote once.
As of yesterday there were over ten-thousand votes in. Those ostensibly represent unique voices.
For my own, I was bitterly disappointed in the film, but it seemed to resonate strongly with all viewers.
I have never been to a movie that saw the audience spontaneously applaud at several moments in the film, though I did not feel what they were feeling.
I think the general consensus among those I know is the following: Those that have read the books once or twice fell in love with the film, while those heavier readers who have delved into the Silmarillion et al many times (as I have) came away disappointed.
We're both wrong on the LOTR. It was conceived as a sequel of sorts to The Hobbit. Though the Silmarillion was already written.
_ fr ame.html
From:http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biog
"By this time Tolkien had begun to make his Legendarium into what he believed to be a more presentable state, and as he later noted, hints of it had already made their way into The Hobbit. He was now calling the full account Quenta Silmarillion, or Silmarillion for short. He presented some of his "completed" tales to Unwin, who sent them to his reader. The reader's reaction was mixed: dislike of the poetry and praise for the prose (the material was the story of Beren and Lúthien) but the overall decision at the time was that these were not commercially publishable. Unwin tactfully this messge relayed to Tolkien, but asked him again if he was willing to write a sequel to The Hobbit. Tolkien was disappointed at the apparent failure of The Silmarillion, but agreed to take up the challenge of "The New Hobbit".
This soon developed into something much more than a children's story; for the highly complex 16-year history of what became The Lord of the Rings consult the works listed below. Suffice it to say that the now adult Rayner Unwin was deeply involved in the later stages of this opus, dealing magnificently with a dilatory and temperamental author who, at one stage, was offering the whole work to a commercial rival (which rapidly backed off when the scale and nature of the package became apparent). It is thanks to Rayner Unwin's advocacy that we owe the fact that this book was published at all - Andave laituvalmes! His father's firm decided to incur the probable loss of £1,000 for the succès d'estime, and publish it under the title of The Lord of the Rings in three parts during 1954 and 1955, with USA rights going to Houghton Mifflin. It soon became apparent that both author and publishers had greatly underestimated the work's public appeal."
That is my recollection as well, though I can't find documentation for that right now.
Heh heh. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Happy?
The Hobbit was published first, however it draws on the same history that has been the backdrop in Tolkien's tales. I am not sure offhand, but I believe that LOTR and the histories that became The Silmarillion were written prior to the publishing of the Hobbit.
Further, as that history is the backdrop, and a selection of his other pre- Books of Lost Tales publishing are consistent with the material, I say again: The Hobbit is inconsistent with the rest.
It is still a very enjoyable story.
Oh, and it's "vice versa."
Incorrect my (snicker) fellow Tolkien purist.
The Nazgul, or Ringwraiths in the common tongue, are the riders themselves. Those who were given the nine rings for mortal men doomed to die, and hence became enslaved to Sauron.
They rode on steeds, though not normal horses, most of which perished in the floods at the Ford. Later they were borne aloft.
The flying things are not named.
As to (The Hobbit !Children's tale)
Perhaps Tolkien stated so in his letters, but the proof is in the pudding, as it were, and The Hobbit is a children's tale.
It is much less complex and lighter in tone. The geography and history are slightly inconsistent with his published histories. It has not the _depth_ of LOTR. That can be seen by any observer who I guess has not the aspect of an ass.
(a proud ass)
I think Nar i hin Hurin ( The Take of the Children of Hurin) would be really ideal. Basically it's a slight expansion on the 'Of Turin Turambar' from the Silmarillion. Lots of eye-candy, plus a truly tragic and dramatic storyline.
First of all, obviously, movies: not reality.
Of course, I agree that certainly policemen, firefighters, and military personnel do socialize quite frequently. Astronauts? Who knows. Probably.
The trait that these professions have in common?
Well, in the case of the police and firefighters they are bound together by duty and by a profession that causes them to truly rely on one another in life and death situations. I would wager that the military has a similar climate, and it would seem logical that astronauts do as well.
In the case of the police, there is definitely an 'us vs them' mentality, fostered by their role in society.
That being said, one will see much more of this type of socializing in blue-collar type professions. Even so, neighborhoods are changing, lives are changing. One doesn't work with one's neighbors down at the mill, warehouse, or factory very often anymore. One's co-workers children may not know one's own. So even those tight-knit groups are disappearing.
IT, as we all know, is a far more mercenary type profession than most. Although there are exceptions, many people are transient employees, and the environment in the technical world has fostered this. There aren't many chances to becme intimate, and it seems that people on all sides are hesitant.
A few years ago I was a tree-trimmer, and that was an entirely different ball game.
You would not only spend an enormous amount of time with those with whom you work on an everyday basis, but with others of the same profession.
Two words: Tofuti Break
(Mr. Show)
In a few more: Amen.
Not only does this scheme seem very wrong in terms of personal privacy, is there any wonder that the whores in the US govt are backing the idea? Just think, everything a consumer does, theoretically, will be tracked. Spam? You cannot hide. Marketing towards you specifically based upon your spending habits, neatly organized for easier dissemination by those wanting to sell you stuff. Stuff stuff stuff. What the hell was Cisco thinking?
", most laws written at the whim of the rich to benefit the rich, "
>>What kind of bullshit is that. Point me to such >>a law, it doesn't exist.
Most of them, genius. Open your eyes. I think I could point you to the Earth and you'd miss it.
>Ripping of people of their honest work is >immoral ofcause, punk
Can you try English next?
Spaceship crashes. Human sad. Apes smart. Humans dumb.
Human runs with dumb humans. Human sad. Wants to go home.
Human sees something.
Human sad, Human is home.
>This is just plain silly, and blatantly false.
It is neither.
>I'm in the US now, I have a reasonable amount of >money, but this does not make it really easy. >Most of the Chinese and Indians have very little >money when they enter the country, but >accumulate a fair amount after working for a few >years, but it's still not that easy for them to >gain legal status even after they're "rich".
What are you arguing? My point of view, not meant to be an absolute statement, is that it is harder for poor immigrants to enter the country, and I will add: legally.
If a foreigner wishes citizenship, I think they have much less opposition. Witness the boatloads of Haitians turned away.
As far as illegal Mexicans being granted citizenship...that has no bearing on the topic whatsoever. They are HERE already. It is not an immigration issue. It seems we may be discussing two separate (though related) issues: immigration and citizenship.
I am an expert on neither, nor do I claim to be.
>Definitions of "benefit" and "equally" are >contentious.
Poor wording on my part...I think you are intelligent enough to garner my meaning. Which is: laws shoud affect all citizens equally.
>It's interesting to note the lack of success of >economic systems that are intended to "benefit >everyone equally", as opposed to maximising >utility.
If benefit and equally are contentious, than how are economic systems based on that principle?
To the failure of economic systems that treat all citizens equally: it is usually the (formerly) rich and powerful that have much to say about those failures. Read: causation.
>You're making sweeping generalisations. It's >probably a correct statement -- about say 5 or >so of the larger companies in the RIAA.
Yes I was. And that handful of companies drives the entire organization, and the legislation surrounding this particular topic.
As to the answer of the 'bleed from every orifice for a thousand years'...you cannot take that literally...Bill Gates alone could spend $150,000
a day and it would be 1000 years before he was broke.
I realize that he is the richest man on earth, and that he has little to do directly with this topic, but it does give some perspective.
These companies make an obscene amount of money. File sharing is not hurting them. The legislation against is based on their greed.
>They're (protests) handled a lot better than they are in
> most other countries
Well, when compared to countries where one can literally be killed for speaking out against the government...yes. We are not free to say what we will, however, not even close.
Our rights, as mandated in the constitution, are being stripped away word by word.
>>This is a joke. Free file sharing is illegal, it is not immoral. Learn to separate the two.
>I understand the difference between the two -- >what you don't seem to understand is that I >don't agree with you (in particular, I think >file >sharing is immoral under some >circumstances)
In some rare circumstances, I agree. But not enough to warrant this reaction from organizations that could bleed from every orifice financially speaking for a thousand years and still be profitable. Not from organizations that bleed their artists, lay off employees so the executives can make another million, and force chaff down the collective-public's throat.
Perhaps it is my aversion to large corporate entities that gives me this view.
I can give you one example of how file sharing can be hurtful: A small band puts music on the net for sale with no record deal..they're music gets downloaded by someone who then shares the song...it becomes popular and is passed along to hundreds of thousands (ok, severe example), meanwhile the band themselves are still slaving away at day jobs and seeing no money from their popular song. If one shares such a thing knowingly, then perhaps one is acting immorally.
How often does this happen?
Are these cases being represented by the RIAA and their bounty hunters? Will @Home shut down users for sharing those songs? Of course not.
>>Law is law, most laws written at the whim of >>the rich to benefit the rich, with a bone >>thrown to the rest of the country (in USA) >>every once in a while.
>That's interesting, because people rich and poor >are flocking to the USA right now, many of them >are leaving countries where laws are written >supposedly for "the benefit of the poor".
Laws should benefit everyone equally. I don't have facts on this instance, but I doubt the veracity of your statement. It is harder to get into the States now than ever...for the poor. If you have money, no problem. No wonder, that, the US is a haven for gougers under the guise of a free nation. There is alot of freedom here, of course, but at a cost. It only goes so far. Witness the myriad protests and how they're handled. I'm straying off topic a bit, however your point needs addressing.
My point concerning the US was made because that is the environment in which I live, therefore I cannot make a point about any other country.
The point itself stands, axiomatic.
>>Using the threat of legal action against ISP >>when they have no case
>I agree. I think they should throw the users in >the slammer instead.
Now you're talking.
"That's right Mr. FreeFile Sharer...we're sorry, you just don't have the clout and/or cash to stop this, furthermore, your use of these infernal free file sharing services is obviously rooted in Satan-worship, therefore you shall be imprisoned like all heathen, non-capitalists! Evil evil evil!! We can't allow you to steal a few pennies from these monolithic organizations...what will they leave to their children? Oh! The humanity! Screw due process, I think I am going to shoot you! The media tells me that I should love big business, they take care of me (don't all farmers feed their cows before the slaughter), and I believe them. I will be looking into releasing some murderers to make room for refuse such as you!"
Thank you for your input, Henry Kissinger.
This is a joke. Free file sharing is illegal, it is not immoral. Learn to separate the two.
Law != Moral
Law != Ethics
Law is law, most laws written at the whim of the rich to benefit the rich, with a bone thrown to the rest of the country (in USA) every once in a while.
First of all, how about firing obnoxious, dishonest, mewling cowardly jellyfish like yourself?
Secondly, lose. Lose. L-O-S-E.
Its not that difficult a word to spell correctly.
Thirdly, it will come back to bite you in the ass. Hard. And noone will be there to lend a hand that has already been bitten by you.
You are a piece of shit.
There are no degrees to criminality. A thing is either criminal, or it is not, predicated on the law. Moral vs criminal is another thing altogether. SUVs are contributing to the destruction of an environment that can adequately support life. OUR life; human life! Sure, it is a slow process, but does that make it more acceptable? To whom does one turn in these cases? The impact of such vehicles is well-known, and has been for some time. Auto-makers want money. SUVs sell very well. There you have it. Is the government going to legislate against the continued production of these vehicles? Do you think a group of citizens has the same voice as a General Motors lobby? Of course not.
I would not partake of these types of protest, but to demonize them is foolish. People are fed up. What is the difference here between torching a dealership, and that dealership selling death traps? Who is more wrong? Can either be more wrong? Because a group of individuals acts, thus they are highly criminal? Big business, including the sutomakers, wield far more power and influence, and in my opinion, using such so irresponsibly (read: wittingly selling vehicles that are very dangerous to everyone involved...through their terrible center of gravity, the damage they inflict on other vehicles during a crash, and their environmental impact) for mere financial gain is far worse.