Actually, I originally thought Volaire said it, and that's who I had credited in my Sig.:)
Somebody informed me to the contrary... apparently Voltaire appropriated it and made it famous. It was originally said by S.G. Tallentyre, whose real name I can't remember.
If you want more information... search for S.G. Tallentyre (sp?) on Google. I don't know anything more.:)
Here is an e-mail I just wrote to one of my Senators (who almost won the Republican primaries this last presidential election... note that I'm not a Republican...):)
Dear Mr. McCain,
I am a resident of Arizona, and a computer user. I recently read about an act scheduled to be introduced to the Senate entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act", sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Under this act, it would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. I politely request, as a citizen of Arizona, that you vote against this Act for the reasons in this letter.
I see this as a violation of a basic freedom to create, use, or sell anything I want to (including, of course, computer equipment) without government interference.
It is of course necessary to deny the right to create and sell certain things, such as drugs; these things can be harmful and should not be sold.
That however, does not apply to computer equipment; there is no way I can harm anyone with my own computer equipment. But this Act denies me the right to create and sell computer equipment without federally approved security technologies.
The primary purpose for this regulation is the protection of content provided by large media corporations that have lobbied for this Act. Lobbyists from the music and record industry have, and will continue to lobby congress in the hopes of further regulation for consumers and corporations to protect their content.
In a computer system certified by the federal government, their content would be protected from misuse by consumers. It is an ideal situation for the music and record industry, then, that all computers in legal use would be certified.
This helps that particular industry, but hurts another. In the computer industry, if this Act is passed, it would be illegal to create and sell anything not certified by the federal government to specifically protect the content of these corporations.
I would like to create and sell computer equipment that does not "utilize certified security technologies", and I should have the legal right to. I do have that right under the current laws.
The products of the recording industry should not be protected by laws that regulate other industries, and deny my right to sell my own computer equipment without federal approval.
I implore you, Senator McCain, to vote against the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act when it comes before the Senate.
An advocate of the BSD license? Reading his critique definitely could have persuaded me otherwise.
One of his primary arguments is that the artists (musicians) are giving something away (music) without any hope of compensation (money).
Isn't this kind of like the BSD license, which forces the artists (programmers) to give something away (source code) without any hope of compensation (contribution back to the community)?
I thought the primary difference between the GPL and the BSD license (besides all the holy-war crap) was that the GPL requires you to GPL anything built off of it, whereas the BSD license allows your stuff to be built-upon without contribution back to the original.
For instance... Microsoft (and others) have made use of BSD's TCP/IP stack, because it's licensed under the BSD (and therefore MS doesn't have to open-source all of their code built off of it like the GPL would require).
Seems to me that this music license that Glass is critiquing is actually much more like the BSD license than the GPL.
I recently bought a Sony Vaio PCG-SR33. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same machine, but with a couple differences:
1) It starts at $999
2) It comes with an external CD-ROM, but no floppy
3) It has a 600mhz Low-voltage Celeron instead of a Crusoe - but gets the same battery life (about 5.5 hours)
Why anyone would spend $2500 for that NEC subnotebook, I can't fathom.
Oh yeah, my Sony also weighs 0.3 lbs less with the same dimensions.
I don't think they're talking about wireless internet...
The point is that wireless internal networks (very common) are not secure in the same sense that wired ones are. And that is a very bad thing.
For instance, lets say you're sharing the C drive of one of your computers through SMB (CIFS, also known as "File and Printer Sharing" in Windows). This is only on your local network, keep in mind. I actually do this - there's no reason not to, because no one can break into my house to connect to my LAN.
Now, lets say I have a wireless network, but it's not secure (80-bit WEP or somesuch). Somebody could crack the encryption key easily, parked on my block (not even directly in front of my house), and then do bad things, like:
- Delete the contents of my C drive
- Replace system files
- Put data on my HD that I did not ask for (anything illegal)
- Take data from my HD they were not supposed to have access to (work stuff, etc.)
Or anything else malicious. Only people with malicious intent would do this, but usually not to a home network. Therefore, the danger is not present in home networks as well as wireless internet (where it was never present - the connection is a direct line-of-sight link, not geographically spread over a radius).
The danger is present in corporate or government or military insecure networks. If somebody can stand outside of the parking lot of the Pentagon and get data, that's very bad.:)
What I meant wasn't "closing one and starting another"... it was "closing one once in a while".
My experience with Windows' multitasking varies widely depending on Windows version, but one thing holds true regardless. The number of programs that can be open simultaneously is not infinite. You must close one once in a while, or you tend to get "low on resources" or "out of memory" type errors.
Also, ram is not infinite. Swap file is also not infinite, being defined by free hard drive space, and also by the limits that Windows puts on swap file size when it's done automatically - usually a few hundred megs, depending on the size of your hard drive.
That amount of space can easily be used up if you've got Word, Excel, Outlook, two Internet Explorer windows, a Network Neighborhood browser, Norton AntiVirus, Winamp, RealPlayer, WindowsMediaPlayer (all in the system tray, mind you...) running simultaneously.
I never implied that you should only run one program at once (although that is the safest way in Windows:)) but that you should keep in mind the amount of RAM you have when opening more and more programs recklessly.
Obviously you're not that familiar with multi-tasking yourself... otherwise you'd realize that you have to close a program before you open another one.
I was under the impression that it was legal to install a single bought copy of RedHat on 500,000 computers (or for that matter, borrow your friend's CD).
How is selling computers with RedHat any different from just "putting RedHat on all those computers"?
What I mean is... why would they have to pay for licenses at all? Even considering they bought a boxed set, aren't they allowed to just install that on all of their computers?
I am a Junior this year in High School (two weeks into the year now...) and I have to say, my laptop is a lifesaver.
I have been using a laptop since 8th grade in school... where I am, there aren't any stupid rules like "No laptops 'till senior year".
In my chemistry class, we need to make two copies of every lab report that we do. My friends copy theirs onto two sheets of notebook paper by hand. I just print 2 copies.:)
Last week, I bought a Sony Vaio PCG-SR33. It's the coolest thing since sliced bread. 2.9 lbs... I barely even notice that it's in my backpack.
Umm... "FUD" stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". That's not exactly what I'd say they're spreading to consumers.
I do have friends who actually want Windows XP... and are waiting to buy a computer until it comes out, no matter how much I try to convince them otherwise.
It's not even because Microsoft says they need it.
It's because PC Magazine says it's cool. And they listen to that crap, because since it's "PC Magazine", it must be official, and good, right?
People don't realize that everything is biased towards making money.:)
Care to elaborate on that "nightmare experience"? I've never had a problem with any celeron... my friend has had one for about three years, and has had no problems.
Let me guess... your original celeron had no L2 cache?
but seriously, who needs "freedoms" when you've got money? It's sad, but true.
Corporations basically own the government from a financial standpoint. It's their money paying for our government, and as a result, legislation is entirely in their interests.
Our government has ceased being a government "of the people" and is now as much a puppet government of corporations as some exploited third world countries.
Yeah... it was a shame it came with Windows ME preinstalled.
I would've liked to save the money and not have to purchase an OS I won't use.
By the way, feel free to e-mail me if you're wondering how I got Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 installed on a system with no network or floppy drive (or linux-usable cd-rom drive).:)
I was considering buying an iBook, but reconsidered after I saw the Sony Vaio SR33. It has a 600 mhz Celeron (a bit slower, but oh well...) 128 MB RAM, etc. etc.
But it's best features are the fact that it's 2.9 lbs. and extremely thin.:)
That, and its a few hundred dollars cheaper than the iBook... about $1063 after tax and shipping.
Well, I have to agree with the manufacturers in this case.
My "rugged" three year old laptop has lasted me that long, and nothing ever broke in it... but it's barely portable. It's almost 10 pounds, and about 1.5 inches thick.
My new laptop, a Sony Vaio SR33, is 2.9 pounds and about half as thick as its own external cd-rom drive. It's completely portable, and doesn't seem too flimsy.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the screen size is exactly the same, 10.4 inches.
:)
Who would want to cram 1024x768 pixels into a 10.4 inch screen!? I have trouble seeing mine at 800x600, it's so small...
I personally am very much against the war on drugs. I agree with you 110 percent. :)
Politically, I consider myself a liberal socio-anarchist (see "David McReynolds voter")
But I'm not about to say that in a letter to McCain, for obvious reasons.
Wow... I should probably learn more about my senators. :)
:P
I only sent him the letter, because he's the senator from my state that I've heard of.
I'm just glad my parents didn't vote for him.
Actually, I originally thought Volaire said it, and that's who I had credited in my Sig. :)
:)
Somebody informed me to the contrary... apparently Voltaire appropriated it and made it famous. It was originally said by S.G. Tallentyre, whose real name I can't remember.
If you want more information... search for S.G. Tallentyre (sp?) on Google. I don't know anything more.
Here is an e-mail I just wrote to one of my Senators (who almost won the Republican primaries this last presidential election... note that I'm not a Republican...) :)
Dear Mr. McCain,
I am a resident of Arizona, and a computer user. I recently read about an act scheduled to be introduced to the Senate entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act", sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Under this act, it would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. I politely request, as a citizen of Arizona, that you vote against this Act for the reasons in this letter.
I see this as a violation of a basic freedom to create, use, or sell anything I want to (including, of course, computer equipment) without government interference.
It is of course necessary to deny the right to create and sell certain things, such as drugs; these things can be harmful and should not be sold.
That however, does not apply to computer equipment; there is no way I can harm anyone with my own computer equipment. But this Act denies me the right to create and sell computer equipment without federally approved security technologies.
The primary purpose for this regulation is the protection of content provided by large media corporations that have lobbied for this Act. Lobbyists from the music and record industry have, and will continue to lobby congress in the hopes of further regulation for consumers and corporations to protect their content.
In a computer system certified by the federal government, their content would be protected from misuse by consumers. It is an ideal situation for the music and record industry, then, that all computers in legal use would be certified.
This helps that particular industry, but hurts another. In the computer industry, if this Act is passed, it would be illegal to create and sell anything not certified by the federal government to specifically protect the content of these corporations.
I would like to create and sell computer equipment that does not "utilize certified security technologies", and I should have the legal right to. I do have that right under the current laws.
The products of the recording industry should not be protected by laws that regulate other industries, and deny my right to sell my own computer equipment without federal approval.
I implore you, Senator McCain, to vote against the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act when it comes before the Senate.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(my name here)
An advocate of the BSD license? Reading his critique definitely could have persuaded me otherwise.
One of his primary arguments is that the artists (musicians) are giving something away (music) without any hope of compensation (money).
Isn't this kind of like the BSD license, which forces the artists (programmers) to give something away (source code) without any hope of compensation (contribution back to the community)?
I thought the primary difference between the GPL and the BSD license (besides all the holy-war crap) was that the GPL requires you to GPL anything built off of it, whereas the BSD license allows your stuff to be built-upon without contribution back to the original.
For instance... Microsoft (and others) have made use of BSD's TCP/IP stack, because it's licensed under the BSD (and therefore MS doesn't have to open-source all of their code built off of it like the GPL would require).
Seems to me that this music license that Glass is critiquing is actually much more like the BSD license than the GPL.
I recently bought a Sony Vaio PCG-SR33. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same machine, but with a couple differences:
1) It starts at $999
2) It comes with an external CD-ROM, but no floppy
3) It has a 600mhz Low-voltage Celeron instead of a Crusoe - but gets the same battery life (about 5.5 hours)
Why anyone would spend $2500 for that NEC subnotebook, I can't fathom.
Oh yeah, my Sony also weighs 0.3 lbs less with the same dimensions.
I don't think they're talking about wireless internet...
:)
The point is that wireless internal networks (very common) are not secure in the same sense that wired ones are. And that is a very bad thing.
For instance, lets say you're sharing the C drive of one of your computers through SMB (CIFS, also known as "File and Printer Sharing" in Windows). This is only on your local network, keep in mind. I actually do this - there's no reason not to, because no one can break into my house to connect to my LAN.
Now, lets say I have a wireless network, but it's not secure (80-bit WEP or somesuch). Somebody could crack the encryption key easily, parked on my block (not even directly in front of my house), and then do bad things, like:
- Delete the contents of my C drive
- Replace system files
- Put data on my HD that I did not ask for (anything illegal)
- Take data from my HD they were not supposed to have access to (work stuff, etc.)
Or anything else malicious. Only people with malicious intent would do this, but usually not to a home network. Therefore, the danger is not present in home networks as well as wireless internet (where it was never present - the connection is a direct line-of-sight link, not geographically spread over a radius).
The danger is present in corporate or government or military insecure networks. If somebody can stand outside of the parking lot of the Pentagon and get data, that's very bad.
What I meant wasn't "closing one and starting another"... it was "closing one once in a while".
:)) but that you should keep in mind the amount of RAM you have when opening more and more programs recklessly.
My experience with Windows' multitasking varies widely depending on Windows version, but one thing holds true regardless. The number of programs that can be open simultaneously is not infinite. You must close one once in a while, or you tend to get "low on resources" or "out of memory" type errors.
Also, ram is not infinite. Swap file is also not infinite, being defined by free hard drive space, and also by the limits that Windows puts on swap file size when it's done automatically - usually a few hundred megs, depending on the size of your hard drive.
That amount of space can easily be used up if you've got Word, Excel, Outlook, two Internet Explorer windows, a Network Neighborhood browser, Norton AntiVirus, Winamp, RealPlayer, WindowsMediaPlayer (all in the system tray, mind you...) running simultaneously.
I never implied that you should only run one program at once (although that is the safest way in Windows
Obviously you're not that familiar with multi-tasking yourself... otherwise you'd realize that you have to close a program before you open another one.
RAM isn't infinite, you know.
Umm... RedHat actually has a license?
I was under the impression that it was legal to install a single bought copy of RedHat on 500,000 computers (or for that matter, borrow your friend's CD).
How is selling computers with RedHat any different from just "putting RedHat on all those computers"?
What I mean is... why would they have to pay for licenses at all? Even considering they bought a boxed set, aren't they allowed to just install that on all of their computers?
I am a Junior this year in High School (two weeks into the year now...) and I have to say, my laptop is a lifesaver.
:)
I have been using a laptop since 8th grade in school... where I am, there aren't any stupid rules like "No laptops 'till senior year".
In my chemistry class, we need to make two copies of every lab report that we do. My friends copy theirs onto two sheets of notebook paper by hand. I just print 2 copies.
Last week, I bought a Sony Vaio PCG-SR33. It's the coolest thing since sliced bread. 2.9 lbs... I barely even notice that it's in my backpack.
Apathetic parents?
No... I am in High School, and I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. The problem isn't apathetic parents.
It's apathetic kids .
These kids have seen so much sh7t already at age 16, they've become disinterested in life itself, and learning stuff specifically.
At least that's my observation.
Umm... "FUD" stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". That's not exactly what I'd say they're spreading to consumers.
:)
I do have friends who actually want Windows XP... and are waiting to buy a computer until it comes out, no matter how much I try to convince them otherwise.
It's not even because Microsoft says they need it.
It's because PC Magazine says it's cool. And they listen to that crap, because since it's "PC Magazine", it must be official, and good, right?
People don't realize that everything is biased towards making money.
Care to elaborate on that "nightmare experience"? I've never had a problem with any celeron... my friend has had one for about three years, and has had no problems.
Let me guess... your original celeron had no L2 cache?
Last time I compiled binutils, I used the whole thing.
:)
Last time I compiled glibc, I used the whole thing.
Last time I compiled the kernel, I got it down to about a 600k bzImage and a few modules.
So... how many lines of kernel code did I actually use, in comparison to GNU stuff?
I guess it would differ of course, from system to system... and I'm really nit-picking now.
Dell is a brand. Like RedHat, or Caldera.
:)
Dell puts together computers from already existing parts.
RedHat and Caldera put together GNU/Linux Distributions from already existing parts.
Should we call it GNU/RedHat? No. That is not the issue.
Your analogy is completely flawed, IMHO.
Other than that, your logic is fine and you present a nice counterpoint.
heh. heh. he said "lovers". heh.
but seriously, who needs "freedoms" when you've got money? It's sad, but true.
Corporations basically own the government from a financial standpoint. It's their money paying for our government, and as a result, legislation is entirely in their interests.
Our government has ceased being a government "of the people" and is now as much a puppet government of corporations as some exploited third world countries.
Okay, lets set this straight once and for all.
What is part of the operating system?
- kernel
- libraries necessary to run C programs
- the most basic interface possible
What is not part of the operating system?
- GUI
- web browser
- office suite
- your mom
Okay... so, you should call linux "GNU/Linux", because GNU tools are a larger percentage of the Operating System itself than even the Linux kernel.
You should not call windows "Windows98/Acrobat Reader" because Acrobat Reader in no way qualifies as a "part of the Operating System".
Yeah... it was a shame it came with Windows ME preinstalled.
:)
I would've liked to save the money and not have to purchase an OS I won't use.
By the way, feel free to e-mail me if you're wondering how I got Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 installed on a system with no network or floppy drive (or linux-usable cd-rom drive).
Well, I can think of a good reason it wasn't mentioned.
:)
Simply for the fact that this was a Linux browser war.
When's the last time you ran IE on Linux?
Yeah, I know... the reasons you just said are why I almost got an iBook.
:)
But I just couldn't justify the $300 or so difference in my mind. The $999 Vaio SR33 deal was (is) too good to pass on.
I'm happy with my Vaio, but I'm just waiting for it to break when I do throw it in my bag too much...
I was considering buying an iBook, but reconsidered after I saw the Sony Vaio SR33. It has a 600 mhz Celeron (a bit slower, but oh well...) 128 MB RAM, etc. etc.
:)
But it's best features are the fact that it's 2.9 lbs. and extremely thin.
That, and its a few hundred dollars cheaper than the iBook... about $1063 after tax and shipping.
Well, I have to agree with the manufacturers in this case.
My "rugged" three year old laptop has lasted me that long, and nothing ever broke in it... but it's barely portable. It's almost 10 pounds, and about 1.5 inches thick.
My new laptop, a Sony Vaio SR33, is 2.9 pounds and about half as thick as its own external cd-rom drive. It's completely portable, and doesn't seem too flimsy.
What, are you a pyschiatrist or something!?
:)
I am chronically depressed.