Take 6 and add it to your first quantity.
Multiply the result by 5. If the result is greater than 200, then you're done; otherwise, repeat.
and:
while (x < 200) x = 5*(x + 6);
It's my understanding that the first is free speech (IIRC, this is how Phillip Zimmerman managed to legally export encryption to Australia).
Given that the two mean exactly the same thing, why is the second not considered free speech? It just seems to me that to say the source code is not free speech is silly - a programming language could always be invented (call it "Structured English") that could satisfy requirements of what is "Speech".
On a side note: I've always thought of printed music as a very simple programming language -- giving the performer instructions of how to complete the task of making some sounds similar to how the composer intended.
-- Mark Fassler fassler at frii dot com
ps - if there's an " & l t ; " up there in the source, it should be a "less than" sign...
Hardware is already competitive and very cheap. Fortunately, there are no monopolies on processors or motherboards at the moment (I'm talking Intel architecture) and Windows keeps getting slower and slower, so hardware keeps getting faster and cheaper.
Via mail-order, I can order all the necessary components and build my own system at a price comparable to (or cheaper than) something that Dell would offer.
Granted, I think it would be a cool idea -- as a hobby. I just don't really see any practical value to it since the hardware market is so competitive.
I'll grant you what I said was a bit harsh... I did read your post seriously and not as a joke... I just feel like a lot of people put too much importance to free software - yeah what RMS does is important to the world - what I do (and prolly what most ppl do) affects pretty much just me and the people I come into contact with. I get annoyed when people put things into "biblical" proportions... But, like you said, it was a joke, and I misread it.
I think perhaps you're taking things a wee bit too seriously... I know it's fun to compare Bill Gates to Hitler and the like, but really, he's just a sleazy businessman. No more, no less.
10 - 50 years from now, there's still going to be closed, proprietary software. There's still going to be GPL'd and BSD'd software (or similar). There's still going to be good software (both proprietary and open) and there's still going to be bad software (both proprietary and open).
There will still be people making a lot of money by screwing over the little guy, and there will still be a bunch of insecure, teen-age egotists pissing all over each other in forums like these.
I think that it depends largely on the particular X Server in question. I've never had my OS (Linux 2.0.36) crash, but I have had my X Server crash/lockup a couple times. If I start switching between virtual consoles, I'm very likely to lock X. (A nuisance, since I love virtual consoles.)
I have a friend who said he had some stability problems with X -- he switched to a more popular video card (ie, a better supported X Server) and it's been very stable for him since.
his department is "detecting 80 to 100 [potential hacking] events daily."
80 to 100 fourteen-year-old script kiddies take potshots at the Pentagon WWW site and this makes news?
Mark Fassler fassler at frii dot com
"ridiculous" prices at FSF
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
I think that the main reason that the prices are so high is that many businesses don't have a policy for donating to a non-profit business (or, more likely, accounting isn't going to donate to a company that doesn't seem like a typical "charity" to the public eye). It's much easier to say to your boss "We need to spend several thousand dollars for this software that we use that works really well." It's essentially a donation.
They can make it illegal to falsify headers. Individual sysadmins and companies could (at their discretion) not accept emails with a missing from: header.
It's constitutional, and it solves most (if not all) spam problems.
After re-reading it, the law does say, "distributing software which makes possible the transmission of false e-mail with the intent to facilitate the transmission of false e-mail." So I guess simply offering sendmail for download wouldn't qualify, unless I also had the intent for people to use it as a spam-engine. So that wouldn't affect your average law-abiding non-spamming citizen.
I still have reservations about the constitutionality of it and also whether the punishment really fits the crime.
It's also interesting to note that (as far as I can see) not one single representative voted against it.
I hate spammers, and instinctively I would really like to just kick their asses (just like I would like to kick the ass of all those people who just sit on left turn signals at stop lights), but really, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Aren't we a "civilized" country? Spamming is more akin to harassment, not assualt or theft. If somebody is guilty of harassment, do they face the possibility of jail time?
Windows is good enough on the desktop. On the desktop, all that really matters are the applications, not the OS itself. Most people use their workstation simply to launch their favorite programs - Word, Netscape, Quake. Despite what people say ("mac-bashers" / "PC-bashers") most people simply don't know and/or care enough about the differences in OS's, as long as they work, and Windows or MacOS usually suffices.
As a server? No question in my mind - Windows NT can't hack it. It doesn't have true remote administration out-of-the-box, so I have to physically go to the console of a server to do most things, or buy a product such as PC Anywhere. There's no built-in scripting language (that I can find). For example: We were trying to setup an intelligent mirroring / backup system for our Intranet web servers. In a bash shell, it would have been easy - two scripts run from cron. How we ended up doing it was with a custom-built C program, a custom-built ColdFusion program, and about 5 dos batch files run from NT scheduler. (A co-worker later found a copy of GNU Bash for Windows for me. Next time, that's the route I'll take.)
I'm constantly running into things that NT doesn't do without the purchase of yet another software package; and even then, it's some kind of cluster-f*cked solution. Add to that: no out-of-the-box email server, having to reboot for every little configuration change, no true multi-user capability (along with no equivalent of "su")... the list goes on and on.
Just talking about this gets my blood pressure up. Just to vent: "Windows NT Server is the biggest cluster-f*ck of a joke ever to claim to be a networking solution. If I ever meet Bill Gates, I'd very much like to strangle him for this fact alone. "
But, like I said: Windows on the Desktop? It'll do - it's really the applications that define the user-experience, not the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
The Amiga can run decent and run an app or two with 512K mem. Unlike DOS, you'll also get pre-emptive multitasking and a pretty GUI too.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
...Apple paid its internal developers umpty bajillion dollars in development expenses to develop MacOS X.
It is my understanding that Darwin (the part of OSX that has been "open sourced") was developed mostly by BSD developers, not by Apple developers.
Apple is "open sourcing" something that was already open sourced. How nice of them.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
Given that the two mean exactly the same thing, why is the second not considered free speech? It just seems to me that to say the source code is not free speech is silly - a programming language could always be invented (call it "Structured English") that could satisfy requirements of what is "Speech".
On a side note: I've always thought of printed music as a very simple programming language -- giving the performer instructions of how to complete the task of making some sounds similar to how the composer intended.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
ps - if there's an " & l t ; " up there in the source, it should be a "less than" sign...
Yes, X was first, but it's called "X". (Or "X Window System" or "X11". The X Consortium has trademarked "X Window System".)
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
glibc.
The General Public License.
The Free Software Foundation.
Say what you will about Richard Stallman, but I would rather that he didn't end up irrelevant.
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
Hardware is already competitive and very cheap. Fortunately, there are no monopolies on processors or motherboards at the moment (I'm talking Intel architecture) and Windows keeps getting slower and slower, so hardware keeps getting faster and cheaper.
Via mail-order, I can order all the necessary components and build my own system at a price comparable to (or cheaper than) something that Dell would offer.
Granted, I think it would be a cool idea -- as a hobby. I just don't really see any practical value to it since the hardware market is so competitive.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
hehe... I can see the flame wars now...
I'll grant you what I said was a bit harsh... I did read your post seriously and not as a joke... I just feel like a lot of people put too much importance to free software - yeah what RMS does is important to the world - what I do (and prolly what most ppl do) affects pretty much just me and the people I come into contact with. I get annoyed when people put things into "biblical" proportions... But, like you said, it was a joke, and I misread it.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
I think perhaps you're taking things a wee bit too seriously... I know it's fun to compare Bill Gates to Hitler and the like, but really, he's just a sleazy businessman. No more, no less.
10 - 50 years from now, there's still going to be closed, proprietary software. There's still going to be GPL'd and BSD'd software (or similar). There's still going to be good software (both proprietary and open) and there's still going to be bad software (both proprietary and open).
There will still be people making a lot of money by screwing over the little guy, and there will still be a bunch of insecure, teen-age egotists pissing all over each other in forums like these.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
I think that it depends largely on the particular X Server in question. I've never had my OS (Linux 2.0.36) crash, but I have had my X Server crash/lockup a couple times. If I start switching between virtual consoles, I'm very likely to lock X. (A nuisance, since I love virtual consoles.)
I have a friend who said he had some stability problems with X -- he switched to a more popular video card (ie, a better supported X Server) and it's been very stable for him since.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
That would mean trusting my life to all the NT systems that would be required by contract to control the thing.
If Bill Gates makes a Space (or Mars) Station, the "Blue Screen of Death" is gonna have a whole new meaning.
(I hear they're putting those things into hospitals now... hope I'm never sick - I'll likely be dead shortly there-after...)
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
'nuff said.
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
I think that the main reason that the prices are so high is that many businesses don't have a policy for donating to a non-profit business (or, more likely, accounting isn't going to donate to a company that doesn't seem like a typical "charity" to the public eye). It's much easier to say to your boss "We need to spend several thousand dollars for this software that we use that works really well." It's essentially a donation.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
They can make it illegal to falsify headers. Individual sysadmins and companies could (at their discretion) not accept emails with a missing from: header.
It's constitutional, and it solves most (if not all) spam problems.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
After re-reading it, the law does say, "distributing software which makes possible the transmission of false e-mail with the intent to facilitate the transmission of false e-mail." So I guess simply offering sendmail for download wouldn't qualify, unless I also had the intent for people to use it as a spam-engine. So that wouldn't affect your average law-abiding non-spamming citizen.
I still have reservations about the constitutionality of it and also whether the punishment really fits the crime.
It's also interesting to note that (as far as I can see) not one single representative voted against it.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
I hate spammers, and instinctively I would really like to just kick their asses (just like I would like to kick the ass of all those people who just sit on left turn signals at stop lights), but really, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Aren't we a "civilized" country? Spamming is more akin to harassment, not assualt or theft. If somebody is guilty of harassment, do they face the possibility of jail time?
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
Aren't you supposed to used distilled water to make it last longer? That's just what I want, fish-shit plugging up my pentuim... :-P
Windows is good enough on the desktop. On the desktop, all that really matters are the applications, not the OS itself. Most people use their workstation simply to launch their favorite programs - Word, Netscape, Quake. Despite what people say ("mac-bashers" / "PC-bashers") most people simply don't know and/or care enough about the differences in OS's, as long as they work, and Windows or MacOS usually suffices.
As a server? No question in my mind - Windows NT can't hack it. It doesn't have true remote administration out-of-the-box, so I have to physically go to the console of a server to do most things, or buy a product such as PC Anywhere. There's no built-in scripting language (that I can find). For example: We were trying to setup an intelligent mirroring / backup system for our Intranet web servers. In a bash shell, it would have been easy - two scripts run from cron. How we ended up doing it was with a custom-built C program, a custom-built ColdFusion program, and about 5 dos batch files run from NT scheduler. (A co-worker later found a copy of GNU Bash for Windows for me. Next time, that's the route I'll take.)
I'm constantly running into things that NT doesn't do without the purchase of yet another software package; and even then, it's some kind of cluster-f*cked solution. Add to that: no out-of-the-box email server, having to reboot for every little configuration change, no true multi-user capability (along with no equivalent of "su")... the list goes on and on.
Just talking about this gets my blood pressure up. Just to vent: "Windows NT Server is the biggest cluster-f*ck of a joke ever to claim to be a networking solution. If I ever meet Bill Gates, I'd very much like to strangle him for this fact alone. "
But, like I said: Windows on the Desktop? It'll do - it's really the applications that define the user-experience, not the OS.
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
--
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com