It's not like saying my car payments amount to a toll at all... It's like saying "I already pay for cable, and it includes ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. If you want me to pay for Showtime, you'd better get some better shows, because HBO already has my money."
to me it sounds more like you are saying "i already pay for electricity to run my tv, so if you want me to pay the cable company too, just to get tv, you better have a good reason."
The bottom line is that unless *all* of the content is pay-per-view, there will always be some of us who get enough value from the free content not to be bothered by paying for more. Or we will pay for a select few sites, and the others will simply die on the vine.
this is a valid, if irrelevant point. will people consume free content? heck yea! no big surprise. does that mean no one should try to produce content for pay? the cable company took on a content for pay method when over air broadcasts were free. some people still don't use cable, but only watch over-air free broadcasts. does that make the cable-co's model dumb? i don't think it does.
i'm glad you feel like you are willing to pay for decent content.(LOOK! I READ YOUR POST!) and I agree with you on that. I don't want to pay for crappy content either, and I am willing to pay for good content, if the price is right. You're absolutely right that paying for content is an additional financial burden and must be factored into the calculations and budgets of consumers.
But no one is really saying "the internet is free" in an attempt to say you don't pay for access. they merely are saying YOU DON'T (generally) PAY FOR CONTENT. An argument about the cost of access is a valid point, but a very minor one.
If you read the article, it's not McDonalds per se, or anything.....the thing the author wants to protest is advertising in games. He feels that the game experience is cheapened by the introduction of product placement and other advertisements. It makes money for EA or whoever, and it doesn't make the game any cheaper to buy, but it makes it less fun to play, at least, in the author's opinion. I tend to agree. Eating at McD's makes your "Fun" score go up? they fucking wish.
The potential for abuse from advertisers is strong....since we interact with these games in a way we don't with a tv, magazine, or movie, they have the opportunity to "force" players of the game to play-enjoy their products in all sorts of ways....oh sure, we don't have to buy the game. So you're going to give up games because of ads? Really? Or are you just gonna put up with it? Heaven forbid you protest a little and maybe put the nix on an ugly trend at its inception.....
What the organizations are fighting for or against is irrelevant to the argument, which was that an organization will try to manipulate the law in its favor. I quote:
The DMA (or the gun lobby or you name it) gets involved when they see that regulation is inevitable. Their purpose? To "shape" the law according to their perogatives
This poster is not saying anything about the relative merits of the issues involved, only pointing out that various lobbies use similar tactics for similar reasons.
He's made the path fairly easy and if people don't follow it then its because they chose to not follow it and miss the train
I am constantly amazed that christians find it so hard to believe that muslims or jews or whoever else don't easily and readily convert to christianity upon hearing of it. Is it so hard to see that they are no more likely to convert to your religion than you are to convert to theirs, and for pretty much exactly the same reasons (or at least, by exactly the same reasonings)?
that is, you point to your book and say, "see, no one comes to the father except through christ" and then wonder how a muslim fails to accept that, but it doesn't surprise you in the least when a muslim says to you "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger" and you fail to accept *that* as true. If you died today and Allah said to you, "You read on slashdot that there was no God but Me. And yet you failed to believe. I condemn you to everlasting torment!" would you accept that as a fair judgement?
It is an unavoidable fact that the vast majority believe what the rest of their culture believes. That is, Christians overwhelmingly come from Christian backgrounds/families/countries (not exclusively, I realize. Just overwhelmingly.) and Muslims and Hindus and whatever else come overwhelmingly from Muslim or Hindu countries and backgrounds and families. Each of these cultures and religions have their own reasons for not switching to christianity, just as christians have reasons for not switching, and mostly, those reasons are the same. If I can understand this, how much more can God understand this? God may or may not prefer that you be Christian, but I cannot believe he could ever say to the average Muslim, "You had ample opportunity to believe. You are condemned to Hell!" because that to me looks sick, evil, stupid, and wrong. I understand completely why the average Muslim does not convert. In fact, I understand completely why the average Aetheist does not convert. How much more would God understand?
The problem is that if I have a company and won't try to exploit children oversees then I'll go bankrupt. That is just the nature of capitalism
So, here's the situation: corporations not only can but pretty much have to go where labor and other costs are cheapest. In a global economy with the present ease of movement of goods around the world, it has been demonstrated that manufacturing overseas is cheaper than manufacturing in America. Therefore, eventually, all manufacturing will be overseas. My own company has stated in a Company-wide meeting i went to that manufacturing would probably be moving overseas for this very reason -- you just have to go, to compete.
result? it's a big world. there will always be somewhere in the world where labor is cheap. Right now, america is expensive. if everyone goes to china, in what, 20 years, china will be expensive too....so then what? well, move to africa. or maybe just back to america, since we'll be cheap by then, too....we'll have to be, since we will be desperate.
Big Business gets to move around and exploit workers at will, but the global labor force is huge and unorganized. We can't fight back effectively on our own. Either we have to organize globally, or we have to convince world governments to support us by having some kind of mandated minimums.
Frankly, I think the problems of humanity are the same everywhere, and the rights of people should be the same everywhere. If our local labor protections are good for us, why wouldn't they be good for everyone? they might be bad for big business, in the short-term, but in the long term, i'm sure we'd all be fine.
I'll spare you all my rant on why there should be an overarching one-world meta-government, but you can see why i think there should be from the above. All people have the same basic needs, and should have the same basic rights, and freedoms.
You're absolutely right, I did release it voluntarily. But you know, of all the mistakes I've made in my life, that is the one that is easiest to discover. I guess my point is two-fold: 1) you don't control what people say about you on the internet and 2) mistakes you make on the internet will follow you for a long, long time.
From my perspective, the problem is not that *I* can put stupid stuff up myself, its that *other people* can put stuff up about me. I know about this from personal experience.
I am the author of an old (early 90's) steganography program called HideSeek. If you search google for my name almost all the matches are for me, and refer to this program. Not only is it poorly written (only early versions are widely disseminated), but I am because of it associated forever with child porn and terrorism. I stopped developing stego stuff many years ago, mostly because I dislike many of its uses. However, my stuff lives on. and probably will forever.
Also on the web, you can see me getting flamed on cypherpunks newsgroup for accidentally sending HTML email. Not particularly something I'm proud of.
I have NO CONTROL over these sites, I CANNOT make them take it down, I CANNOT put a robots.txt up, nothing. Zero. So, make a mistake when you're 20 and it will follow you FOREVER on the web. Oh joy.
Who is right? Well, both are. If everyone from both sides agrees that murder is being performed, then murder must be being performed. Cogito ergo sum.
"Cogito Ergo Sum" means "I think, therefore I am". Perhaps you were searching for "Quad Erat Demonstrandum?" (Oh the irony when I've got Q.E.D. wrong myself. heh. but at least i'm closer than bob here).
Or maybe, you mean "I think so, so it must be true." A common idea. Cogito, ergo es?
Re:...and you don't need a supercooled video card!
on
Linux Games WIth Guns
·
· Score: 0
One of my teachers used to work on old IBM 360 (and probably the earlier ones, too), and he says they used to have a blinkenlight that came on when the cpu was idle, a wait light. however, they regularly "forgot" to swap it out when it was burned out, so that when the boss came in to see the big iron, he would see that it was never idle. Good work, boys!
To simulate the Universe in every detail since time began, the computer would have to have [10^90] bits - binary digits, or devices capable of storing a 1 or a 0 - and it would have to perform [10^120] manipulations of those bits. Unfortunately there are probably only around [10^80] elementary particles in the Universe.
So, in order to compute itself the universe would have to have more devices capable of storing a 1 or a 0 than it has elementary particles. Therefore, the universe as a computer doesn't have enough memory to compute itself.
So what are you saying, that if someone does immoral research, and learns something fabulous, like how to cure cancer, we should ignore this result, no matter how much good it would do, because of the poor method?
I can't see it. I fully agree that we don't want to encourage immoral methods, but i can't see ignoring positive results.
Re:I guess that kid hit puberty early...
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 0
I have a friend who works at CompUSA here in Rockford, and he's actually in charge of inventory control. A little while ago, someone walked into his store, picked up a dual processor Apple G4 display model and just walked out with it. Just walked out the damn door, and no one even noticed. That, my friends, takes some serious cojones.
My teacher used to work for Oak Ridge, and he told us a very similar story. The German's thought that heavy water was the way to go, and devoted all their energy to it, fruitlessly.
someone earlier mentioned silver use at oak ridge, and i know a funny story about that, too. apparently, "silver" was a code word for whatever the fissable material was (plutonium? uranium?) since they had to talk about it and they didn't want people to know what they were talking about. then, there was a copper shortage and they started using silver for whatever reason, presumably a conductive material. of course, now they had real silver to talk about too. so, according to my teacher, they called real silver "honest-to-God silver" and continued calling plutonium "silver". also amusing was the fact that since they got the silver from fort knox, it was stamped "property of US Government" every 6 inches or so. and there was a LOT of it.
I may be wrong but i believe there were several linux worms last year, such as l10n and wasn't it ad0re or some such? i can't remember....but i definitely read on securityfocus.com about the lion worm which was a linux worm. and no, you don't need to "run it as root", its a worm, not a trojan. it uses known exploits to gain root all by itself.
I used to work for ups, as an "irregs" guy -- irregular packages. That means over 70 pounds, or shaped funny (ie: not a small-to-midsize cardboard box). Frankly, i didn't see people mistreating boxes on purpose ever when i was there, and i was there for a year. I did see some messed up boxes, and somebody messed them up, but it was usually not the people I saw handling them. if they were messed up, it was long before they got to me.
Of course, sometimes boxes get messed up by accident. My hub moved 200,000 packages in a 3-4 hour sort every night, and gee, surprise, some of them got damaged. I can tell you that down in irregs, we didn't necessarily handle them with kids gloves, but we didn't go out of our way to damage them either. You try moving 70-130 lb packages for 4 hours straight and see how careful you are in the third hour with someones crappy overweight box. None of the people i saw EVER damaged a box on purpose, but its hard to be extra careful with every one.
My personal advice to you if you are shipping something big and heavy is to get a really good, brand new nice strong box (cardboard is fine, but heavier style). If you try to ship 80 lbs in a used, weak-ass half falling apart box you put a bunch of tape on to keep together, you are kidding yourself.
I think you need to use a business for your analogy. Homes are private, websites public.
websites may be public but they reside on privately owned computers. just because i give you the right to use a browser to view my web page doesn't mean i give you the right to circumvent security (however flawed) on my computer and browse around on its hard drive and do whatever else you want with it.
furthermore, if you want to talk about the issue in the context of a business, its easy to say "company X has lousy security! i will break into their office at night and steal their corporate secrets as a favor to them, to show them how poor their locks are" and its the same point.
Pushing the simile a little further: suppose you notice that somebody's smashed open your neighbor's front door with a sledge hammer. I suppose it's still technically trespassing, but who would fault you for entering the house to make sure nobody needs help?
suppose you notice that your neighbor bought a cheap lock and you're able to kick in their door with little effort. Aren't you being a good neighbor by doing so and then maybe going through their personal belongings, just to show them the "security hole" they have? And while we're at it, those windows are made of regular glass! Anyone could break into that house! i don't think so.
if you want to do security research that's great, and I support you. But doing it by actually breaking into people's systems and then claiming you were doing them a favor doesn't cut it. No one's security is perfect, in the real world or in the computer world. How good does my security have to be before you're committing a crime by breaking in and not just "doing me a favor?"
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like saying my car payments amount to a toll at all... It's like saying "I already pay for cable, and it includes ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. If you want me to pay for Showtime, you'd better get some better shows, because HBO already has my money."
to me it sounds more like you are saying "i already pay for electricity to run my tv, so if you want me to pay the cable company too, just to get tv, you better have a good reason."
The bottom line is that unless *all* of the content is pay-per-view, there will always be some of us who get enough value from the free content not to be bothered by paying for more. Or we will pay for a select few sites, and the others will simply die on the vine.
this is a valid, if irrelevant point. will people consume free content? heck yea! no big surprise. does that mean no one should try to produce content for pay? the cable company took on a content for pay method when over air broadcasts were free. some people still don't use cable, but only watch over-air free broadcasts. does that make the cable-co's model dumb? i don't think it does.
i'm glad you feel like you are willing to pay for decent content.(LOOK! I READ YOUR POST!) and I agree with you on that. I don't want to pay for crappy content either, and I am willing to pay for good content, if the price is right. You're absolutely right that paying for content is an additional financial burden and must be factored into the calculations and budgets of consumers.
But no one is really saying "the internet is free" in an attempt to say you don't pay for access. they merely are saying YOU DON'T (generally) PAY FOR CONTENT. An argument about the cost of access is a valid point, but a very minor one.
If you read the article, it's not McDonalds per se, or anything.....the thing the author wants to protest is advertising in games. He feels that the game experience is cheapened by the introduction of product placement and other advertisements. It makes money for EA or whoever, and it doesn't make the game any cheaper to buy, but it makes it less fun to play, at least, in the author's opinion. I tend to agree. Eating at McD's makes your "Fun" score go up? they fucking wish.
The potential for abuse from advertisers is strong....since we interact with these games in a way we don't with a tv, magazine, or movie, they have the opportunity to "force" players of the game to play-enjoy their products in all sorts of ways....oh sure, we don't have to buy the game. So you're going to give up games because of ads? Really? Or are you just gonna put up with it? Heaven forbid you protest a little and maybe put the nix on an ugly trend at its inception.....
What the organizations are fighting for or against is irrelevant to the argument, which was that an organization will try to manipulate the law in its favor. I quote:
The DMA (or the gun lobby or you name it) gets involved when they see that regulation is inevitable. Their purpose? To "shape" the law according to their perogatives
This poster is not saying anything about the relative merits of the issues involved, only pointing out that various lobbies use similar tactics for similar reasons.
actually, you can't compare strings with == either. you need to do
...
if (strcmp(q[i],"SearchKing") == 0)
{
}
He's made the path fairly easy and if people don't follow it then its because they chose to not follow it and miss the train
I am constantly amazed that christians find it so hard to believe that muslims or jews or whoever else don't easily and readily convert to christianity upon hearing of it. Is it so hard to see that they are no more likely to convert to your religion than you are to convert to theirs, and for pretty much exactly the same reasons (or at least, by exactly the same reasonings)?
that is, you point to your book and say, "see, no one comes to the father except through christ" and then wonder how a muslim fails to accept that, but it doesn't surprise you in the least when a muslim says to you "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger" and you fail to accept *that* as true. If you died today and Allah said to you, "You read on slashdot that there was no God but Me. And yet you failed to believe. I condemn you to everlasting torment!" would you accept that as a fair judgement?
It is an unavoidable fact that the vast majority believe what the rest of their culture believes. That is, Christians overwhelmingly come from Christian backgrounds/families/countries (not exclusively, I realize. Just overwhelmingly.) and Muslims and Hindus and whatever else come overwhelmingly from Muslim or Hindu countries and backgrounds and families. Each of these cultures and religions have their own reasons for not switching to christianity, just as christians have reasons for not switching, and mostly, those reasons are the same. If I can understand this, how much more can God understand this? God may or may not prefer that you be Christian, but I cannot believe he could ever say to the average Muslim, "You had ample opportunity to believe. You are condemned to Hell!" because that to me looks sick, evil, stupid, and wrong. I understand completely why the average Muslim does not convert. In fact, I understand completely why the average Aetheist does not convert. How much more would God understand?
By the way, I am a Christian.
I think you will have to use a named buffer to paste between 2 files.
:e otherfile
use "a:yy
(type the ", it is part of the command)
will yank 1 line....you can do "a:10yy to yank 10 lines, etc.
then use
and do "a:p
you can use other letters than a to use other named buffers, like
"b or "c or "d etc.....
The problem is that if I have a company and won't try to exploit children oversees then I'll go bankrupt. That is just the nature of capitalism
So, here's the situation: corporations not only can but pretty much have to go where labor and other costs are cheapest. In a global economy with the present ease of movement of goods around the world, it has been demonstrated that manufacturing overseas is cheaper than manufacturing in America. Therefore, eventually, all manufacturing will be overseas. My own company has stated in a Company-wide meeting i went to that manufacturing would probably be moving overseas for this very reason -- you just have to go, to compete.
result? it's a big world. there will always be somewhere in the world where labor is cheap. Right now, america is expensive. if everyone goes to china, in what, 20 years, china will be expensive too....so then what? well, move to africa. or maybe just back to america, since we'll be cheap by then, too....we'll have to be, since we will be desperate.
Big Business gets to move around and exploit workers at will, but the global labor force is huge and unorganized. We can't fight back effectively on our own. Either we have to organize globally, or we have to convince world governments to support us by having some kind of mandated minimums.
Frankly, I think the problems of humanity are the same everywhere, and the rights of people should be the same everywhere. If our local labor protections are good for us, why wouldn't they be good for everyone? they might be bad for big business, in the short-term, but in the long term, i'm sure we'd all be fine.
I'll spare you all my rant on why there should be an overarching one-world meta-government, but you can see why i think there should be from the above. All people have the same basic needs, and should have the same basic rights, and freedoms.
You're absolutely right, I did release it voluntarily. But you know, of all the mistakes I've made in my life, that is the one that is easiest to discover. I guess my point is two-fold: 1) you don't control what people say about you on the internet and 2) mistakes you make on the internet will follow you for a long, long time.
Oh well.
From my perspective, the problem is not that *I* can put stupid stuff up myself, its that *other people* can put stuff up about me. I know about this from personal experience.
I am the author of an old (early 90's) steganography program called HideSeek. If you search google for my name almost all the matches are for me, and refer to this program. Not only is it poorly written (only early versions are widely disseminated), but I am because of it associated forever with child porn and terrorism. I stopped developing stego stuff many years ago, mostly because I dislike many of its uses. However, my stuff lives on. and probably will forever.
Also on the web, you can see me getting flamed on cypherpunks newsgroup for accidentally sending HTML email. Not particularly something I'm proud of.
I have NO CONTROL over these sites, I CANNOT make them take it down, I CANNOT put a robots.txt up, nothing. Zero. So, make a mistake when you're 20 and it will follow you FOREVER on the web. Oh joy.
Who is right? Well, both are. If everyone from both sides agrees that murder is being performed, then murder must be being performed. Cogito ergo sum.
"Cogito Ergo Sum" means "I think, therefore I am". Perhaps you were searching for "Quad Erat Demonstrandum?" (Oh the irony when I've got Q.E.D. wrong myself. heh. but at least i'm closer than bob here).
Or maybe, you mean "I think so, so it must be true." A common idea. Cogito, ergo es?
One of my teachers used to work on old IBM 360 (and probably the earlier ones, too), and he says they used to have a blinkenlight that came on when the cpu was idle, a wait light. however, they regularly "forgot" to swap it out when it was burned out, so that when the boss came in to see the big iron, he would see that it was never idle. Good work, boys!
To simulate the Universe in every detail since time began, the computer would have to have [10^90] bits - binary digits, or devices capable of storing a 1 or a 0 - and it would have to perform [10^120] manipulations of those bits. Unfortunately there are probably only around [10^80] elementary particles in the Universe.
So, in order to compute itself the universe would have to have more devices capable of storing a 1 or a 0 than it has elementary particles. Therefore, the universe as a computer doesn't have enough memory to compute itself.
Maybe this theory needs rethinking.
So what are you saying, that if someone does immoral research, and learns something fabulous, like how to cure cancer, we should ignore this result, no matter how much good it would do, because of the poor method?
I can't see it. I fully agree that we don't want to encourage immoral methods, but i can't see ignoring positive results.
I have a friend who works at CompUSA here in Rockford, and he's actually in charge of inventory control. A little while ago, someone walked into his store, picked up a dual processor Apple G4 display model and just walked out with it. Just walked out the damn door, and no one even noticed. That, my friends, takes some serious cojones.
My teacher used to work for Oak Ridge, and he told us a very similar story. The German's thought that heavy water was the way to go, and devoted all their energy to it, fruitlessly.
someone earlier mentioned silver use at oak ridge, and i know a funny story about that, too. apparently, "silver" was a code word for whatever the fissable material was (plutonium? uranium?) since they had to talk about it and they didn't want people to know what they were talking about. then, there was a copper shortage and they started using silver for whatever reason, presumably a conductive material. of course, now they had real silver to talk about too. so, according to my teacher, they called real silver "honest-to-God silver" and continued calling plutonium "silver". also amusing was the fact that since they got the silver from fort knox, it was stamped "property of US Government" every 6 inches or so. and there was a LOT of it.
I may be wrong but i believe there were several linux worms last year, such as l10n and wasn't it ad0re or some such? i can't remember....but i definitely read on securityfocus.com about the lion worm which was a linux worm. and no, you don't need to "run it as root", its a worm, not a trojan. it uses known exploits to gain root all by itself.
Of course, sometimes boxes get messed up by accident. My hub moved 200,000 packages in a 3-4 hour sort every night, and gee, surprise, some of them got damaged. I can tell you that down in irregs, we didn't necessarily handle them with kids gloves, but we didn't go out of our way to damage them either. You try moving 70-130 lb packages for 4 hours straight and see how careful you are in the third hour with someones crappy overweight box. None of the people i saw EVER damaged a box on purpose, but its hard to be extra careful with every one.
My personal advice to you if you are shipping something big and heavy is to get a really good, brand new nice strong box (cardboard is fine, but heavier style). If you try to ship 80 lbs in a used, weak-ass half falling apart box you put a bunch of tape on to keep together, you are kidding yourself.
BCTR R1,0
ST R1,FTINHUM
EQUREGS
I think you need to use a business for your analogy. Homes are private, websites public.
websites may be public but they reside on privately owned computers. just because i give you the right to use a browser to view my web page doesn't mean i give you the right to circumvent security (however flawed) on my computer and browse around on its hard drive and do whatever else you want with it.
furthermore, if you want to talk about the issue in the context of a business, its easy to say "company X has lousy security! i will break into their office at night and steal their corporate secrets as a favor to them, to show them how poor their locks are" and its the same point.
Pushing the simile a little further: suppose you notice that somebody's smashed open your neighbor's front door with a sledge hammer. I suppose it's still technically trespassing, but who would fault you for entering the house to make sure nobody needs help?
suppose you notice that your neighbor bought a cheap lock and you're able to kick in their door with little effort. Aren't you being a good neighbor by doing so and then maybe going through their personal belongings, just to show them the "security hole" they have? And while we're at it, those windows are made of regular glass! Anyone could break into that house! i don't think so.
if you want to do security research that's great, and I support you. But doing it by actually breaking into people's systems and then claiming you were doing them a favor doesn't cut it. No one's security is perfect, in the real world or in the computer world. How good does my security have to be before you're committing a crime by breaking in and not just "doing me a favor?"