This whole thing reminds one of 2001. Probes and spacecraft "disappearing" into space, the recent metric/english conversion problems. Yah right! That's the kind of stuff that college freshmen mess up on, not NASA scientists. This is a conspiracy.
Something is up there and they know it. NASA lost a $1 billion ship up there in 1993. Do people actually believe that? Something has been found and the government doesn't want us to know. Why would NASA face the critisism it has just to keep a secret? Easy, they're a government agency, they made a deal to retain a constant stream of funding. Those blustering Senators who want to cut NASA's budget are hapless pawns in the hands of the NSA, CIA, MI8 (or whatever it is now), Red China, ex-KBG officers, Saudi secret service, and Red Hat operatives.
You have a point, albiet one with which I disagree. If, as you imply, creation science would be taught as fact if tenure didn't exist, doesn't that mean teachers who would teach it now are being forbidden to do so? Isn't that suppression of free speech? This is an extreme example and I don't necessarily condone it, but free speech is a much more complex issue than you imply.
The brutal fact of the matter is that we need better teachers, and that doesn't necessarily mean teachers who are up to date on every single technological advance. Teaching is more than just imparting factual information. While facts and figures are an important part, more important is giving students the motivation to learn on their own. A good teacher can do this without an internet connection, without the latest edition science text, even without a Linux computer.
Perhaps the problem with education is that there are not enough teachers who can actually inspire students to learn and realize that students aren't stupid. The attitude of standing in front of a class and imparting choice jewels of wisdom is destructive and idiotic. More computers will not stop a teacher from standing up in front of the class and telling students, "This is a mouse! This is a button! This is an icon! Goody! goody! Now go home and write a paper on it kids, mkay?" Will money solve this problem? Perhaps, but not if its slathered like butter on top of a moldy piece of toast. Better teachers are needed. To get better teachers, salaries must be made comparable to private industry. Just as important, the teachers unions need to be weakened or destroyed and teachers put on the same standard that exists in private industry; produce or be fired. A decision has to be made about whether we are going to sacrifice the education of our children for the job security of bunch of incompetents who can only be fired ("asked to resign") if they refuse to sign a loyalty oath to The Union. The whole system of how teachers are hired and trained needs to be overhauled. This problem is much more complicated than shouting that education budgets need to be increased. Priorities need to change. Picture the worst teacher you ever had in your life. Now picture that teacher in a room full of multimedia workstations, networked Linux boxes, polished marble, etc. Will the students benefit from all that technology? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
People don't get the point of this lawsuit. Pages that offer free downloads are supported by advertising and partnerships with other sites. If someone links directly to the download, it completely bypasses the site's only mechanism of revenue. What this lawsuit is arguing is that MP3 and GIF are essentially no different.
This seem's counter-intuitive, but it's a good point. If a person used the Slashdot logo on their page and they linked directly to the GIF residing on Slashdot's servers, do you think Rob would be very happy? Maybe that would be cool with him, but I doubt it. This is essentially what is happening with a direct link to MP3. The host is being bogged down by extra traffic from people who don't even know where they are. This is the real issue here. Does that justify lawsuits against 17 year old hobbyists? Make your own mind on that, I've already put my Karma in enough risk.
PS - The stuff about this opening Slashdot to suits of the same kind is sheer nonsense. It's not about links, it's about fake content.
This article is confused about the nature of hacking and hackers. I've known a lot of people who are considered hackers and none of them stole registration codes, or broke into government computers. This hacker/cracker confusion is prevalent in everything I've read coming from outside the hacker culture. Only those who are hackers understand, because hackers are individuals. How can anyone try to analyze a collection of individuals? It will always lead to confusion and stereotypes.
Loader of Code, Hacker not Cracker (there is a difference)
I fell in love with these toilets the instant I saw them. Are you tired of the ordinary beige of the common toilet? Here is the answer to your trouble! This revolutionary product will change the way you think about toilets, it will change the way you interact with them. Other toilets are cold and unfriendly, but people actually want to sit on this one. They see it and they want to sit on it, to touch it, and admire it. What better way to show your individuality than putting one of these in your bathroom? You will stand out from the rest of the beige toilet masses, and your rear end will never be cold again!
These are some of the benefits of the iToilet:
Increased Seat Integration - The seat sits rather than hangs on the toilet! Futuristic Form Factor - Your friends will know you're cool when they see what you sit on! Really great flavors - No comment
When asked about the price of the toilets, Mr. Jobs was reported as saying, "Would you rather have tomorrows toilet for more, or yesterday's toilet for less?" As for me, I'll take tomorrows toilet any day. Long live Apple! Heil Steve!
This thing about protecting children is the most overused excuse for censorship ever invented. In reality, censorship will never protect children, and frankly politicians don't care. Taking away someone's rights is not protection, it's a direct attack on that person.
No emotional appeal for protecting the innocent among us, should allow political leaders to seize the rights of the people and hold them hostage. This is a problem in America, in Australia, and all over the world. There is never a point where some group of people needs protection so badly that the government should take away the rights of everyone.
The world has always been a dangerous place for those who aren't wary. If a child can access X-rated web sites, that reflects on the child's parents more than on society as a whole. Parents should be the ones who protect their children from perceived threats, not the government, and certainly not the whole of society. The idea of censorship is and should be repugnant to a free society, let us take steps to protect the freedom that we have been given, and prevent its sacrifice for some utopian vision derived from political whim.
By addressing some of the concerns of the community, Apple has shown that they are willing to learn, a rare thing in the corporate world. However, their Open Source efforts will never match the effectiveness of the Linux community.
The Linux effort and other Free Software projects like it, are held together by the large numbers of developers who are also users. A corporation will rarely have the number of developers per user as these projects. Therefore, corporate will never be as successful as Free in the Open Source arena.
The idea of code being completely free of control from a large organization is what forms the foundation of the Free Software projects. They are essentially anti-authoritarian, because they believe that big for-profit enterprises will always be closed by nature. It doesn't matter what the license is, few people read it. It matters more that a developer who's going to work for free would rather work for himself or for the community than for a big corporation and a bunch of executives.
I just wanted to point out that the Mac and Linux communities aren't mutually exclusive. My two computers are both Macs, one older and one a B&W G3 ordered three day after the Expo. No need to tell me about Mac users, I know. Believe me, I've sent my share of letters to old Berst over at ZD.
BTW have you seen the latest on C2? It rocks, but marketing is still marketing, not a revolutionary contribution to Open Source.
Loader: Mac user, programmer, general practitioner, late EvangeLista, distributed.net participant, chief cook and bottle washer etc. etc. etc.
Many people seem to be under the impression that the spate of new "kinda sorta" open licenses are going to undermine the movement as a whole. That's not necessarily so. I believe that the Free Software concept will continue to flourish. These corporate type projects aren't going to undermine anything. When the tide of open source licenses has abated, the original movement will still be there because of loyalty.
These things aren't going to undermine Open Source, because opening source code is not the complete answer. There has to be a sense of community and of actually building something, not just being a glorified bug eradicator for some stingy corporation that can't fix its own problems. That's why these new licenses are just a marketing ploy, and that's why the true Open Source community will still be intact when the hype wears off. In the end the joke will be on the big boys, not us Linux guys. They'll be stuck with their source out and the novelty worn off and then we'll all sit back and laugh. Laugh at them for not looking ahead past the marketing and seeing the true meaning of the movement. Long live Linus!
The problem that all of these "MS should be required to..." solutions have in common, is that they would require direct government regulation to maintain. Some people would argue that that is a good thing, but there are real problems with it. Will this new regulating body only apply to Microsoft, or will it apply to the entire industry?
There are other companies that might eventually gain the power that Microsoft has. If, down the line, MS lost a great deal of its power, or even went out of business (Linux, anyone;) it would be rediculous to have a regulating body for an obsolete company. On the other hand, if it regulated the entire industry that could be at least as oppressing as Microsoft. Imagine a world where software innovations had to be filtered through a beauracracy before becoming available to the public. Granted, most of the things that were pointed out would be good in the short term. But the minute we say "regulate" there will be abuses. It may work out fine for a while, but eventually big business will bring money and the politicians will follow them, things will change and we'll end up with the government protecting money just as always. That's not what we want.
I would rather have a non-regulatory solution that allows the rest of the industry to simply continue without government intervention. Rather than creating a body that could sterilize the computer industry and make it into just another business as usual economic sector.
There's more at stake here than just Microsoft, it's the whole concept of free software (not merely "Open Source") that we are fighting for. Let's not lose sight of our goals because of hate for one particular company.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing reminds one of 2001. Probes and spacecraft "disappearing" into space, the recent metric/english conversion problems. Yah right! That's the kind of stuff that college freshmen mess up on, not NASA scientists. This is a conspiracy.
Something is up there and they know it. NASA lost a $1 billion ship up there in 1993. Do people actually believe that? Something has been found and the government doesn't want us to know. Why would NASA face the critisism it has just to keep a secret? Easy, they're a government agency, they made a deal to retain a constant stream of funding. Those blustering Senators who want to cut NASA's budget are hapless pawns in the hands of the NSA, CIA, MI8 (or whatever it is now), Red China, ex-KBG officers, Saudi secret service, and Red Hat operatives.
You have a point, albiet one with which I disagree. If, as you imply, creation science would be taught as fact if tenure didn't exist, doesn't that mean teachers who would teach it now are being forbidden to do so? Isn't that suppression of free speech? This is an extreme example and I don't necessarily condone it, but free speech is a much more complex issue than you imply.
The brutal fact of the matter is that we need better teachers, and that doesn't necessarily mean teachers who are up to date on every single technological advance. Teaching is more than just imparting factual information. While facts and figures are an important part, more important is giving students the motivation to learn on their own. A good teacher can do this without an internet connection, without the latest edition science text, even without a Linux computer.
Perhaps the problem with education is that there are not enough teachers who can actually inspire students to learn and realize that students aren't stupid. The attitude of standing in front of a class and imparting choice jewels of wisdom is destructive and idiotic. More computers will not stop a teacher from standing up in front of the class and telling students, "This is a mouse! This is a button! This is an icon! Goody! goody! Now go home and write a paper on it kids, mkay?" Will money solve this problem? Perhaps, but not if its slathered like butter on top of a moldy piece of toast. Better teachers are needed. To get better teachers, salaries must be made comparable to private industry. Just as important, the teachers unions need to be weakened or destroyed and teachers put on the same standard that exists in private industry; produce or be fired. A decision has to be made about whether we are going to sacrifice the education of our children for the job security of bunch of incompetents who can only be fired ("asked to resign") if they refuse to sign a loyalty oath to The Union. The whole system of how teachers are hired and trained needs to be overhauled. This problem is much more complicated than shouting that education budgets need to be increased. Priorities need to change. Picture the worst teacher you ever had in your life. Now picture that teacher in a room full of multimedia workstations, networked Linux boxes, polished marble, etc. Will the students benefit from all that technology? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
People don't get the point of this lawsuit. Pages that offer free downloads are supported by advertising and partnerships with other sites. If someone links directly to the download, it completely bypasses the site's only mechanism of revenue. What this lawsuit is arguing is that MP3 and GIF are essentially no different.
This seem's counter-intuitive, but it's a good point. If a person used the Slashdot logo on their page and they linked directly to the GIF residing on Slashdot's servers, do you think Rob would be very happy? Maybe that would be cool with him, but I doubt it. This is essentially what is happening with a direct link to MP3. The host is being bogged down by extra traffic from people who don't even know where they are. This is the real issue here. Does that justify lawsuits against 17 year old hobbyists? Make your own mind on that, I've already put my Karma in enough risk.
PS - The stuff about this opening Slashdot to suits of the same kind is sheer nonsense. It's not about links, it's about fake content.
LoaderThis article is confused about the nature of hacking and hackers. I've known a lot of people who are considered hackers and none of them stole registration codes, or broke into government computers. This hacker/cracker confusion is prevalent in everything I've read coming from outside the hacker culture. Only those who are hackers understand, because hackers are individuals. How can anyone try to analyze a collection of individuals? It will always lead to confusion and stereotypes.
Loader of Code, Hacker not Cracker (there is a difference)I fell in love with these toilets the instant I saw them. Are you tired of the ordinary beige of the common toilet? Here is the answer to your trouble! This revolutionary product will change the way you think about toilets, it will change the way you interact with them. Other toilets are cold and unfriendly, but people actually want to sit on this one. They see it and they want to sit on it, to touch it, and admire it. What better way to show your individuality than putting one of these in your bathroom? You will stand out from the rest of the beige toilet masses, and your rear end will never be cold again!
These are some of the benefits of the iToilet:Increased Seat Integration - The seat sits rather than hangs on the toilet!
Futuristic Form Factor - Your friends will know you're cool when they see what you sit on!
Really great flavors - No comment
When asked about the price of the toilets, Mr. Jobs was reported as saying, "Would you rather have tomorrows toilet for more, or yesterday's toilet for less?" As for me, I'll take tomorrows toilet any day. Long live Apple! Heil Steve!
Loader of Code and of BricksThis thing about protecting children is the most overused excuse for censorship ever invented. In reality, censorship will never protect children, and frankly politicians don't care. Taking away someone's rights is not protection, it's a direct attack on that person.
No emotional appeal for protecting the innocent among us, should allow political leaders to seize the rights of the people and hold them hostage. This is a problem in America, in Australia, and all over the world. There is never a point where some group of people needs protection so badly that the government should take away the rights of everyone.
The world has always been a dangerous place for those who aren't wary. If a child can access X-rated web sites, that reflects on the child's parents more than on society as a whole. Parents should be the ones who protect their children from perceived threats, not the government, and certainly not the whole of society. The idea of censorship is and should be repugnant to a free society, let us take steps to protect the freedom that we have been given, and prevent its sacrifice for some utopian vision derived from political whim.
Loader of Code and of BricksBy addressing some of the concerns of the community, Apple has shown that they are willing to learn, a rare thing in the corporate world. However, their Open Source efforts will never match the effectiveness of the Linux community.
The Linux effort and other Free Software projects like it, are held together by the large numbers of developers who are also users. A corporation will rarely have the number of developers per user as these projects. Therefore, corporate will never be as successful as Free in the Open Source arena.
The idea of code being completely free of control from a large organization is what forms the foundation of the Free Software projects. They are essentially anti-authoritarian, because they believe that big for-profit enterprises will always be closed by nature. It doesn't matter what the license is, few people read it. It matters more that a developer who's going to work for free would rather work for himself or for the community than for a big corporation and a bunch of executives.
Loader of Code and of WordsI just wanted to point out that the Mac and Linux communities aren't mutually exclusive. My two computers are both Macs, one older and one a B&W G3 ordered three day after the Expo. No need to tell me about Mac users, I know. Believe me, I've sent my share of letters to old Berst over at ZD.
BTW have you seen the latest on C2? It rocks, but marketing is still marketing, not a revolutionary contribution to Open Source.
Loader: Mac user, programmer, general practitioner, late EvangeLista, distributed.net participant, chief cook and bottle washer etc. etc. etc.Many people seem to be under the impression that the spate of new "kinda sorta" open licenses are going to undermine the movement as a whole. That's not necessarily so. I believe that the Free Software concept will continue to flourish. These corporate type projects aren't going to undermine anything. When the tide of open source licenses has abated, the original movement will still be there because of loyalty.
These things aren't going to undermine Open Source, because opening source code is not the complete answer. There has to be a sense of community and of actually building something, not just being a glorified bug eradicator for some stingy corporation that can't fix its own problems. That's why these new licenses are just a marketing ploy, and that's why the true Open Source community will still be intact when the hype wears off. In the end the joke will be on the big boys, not us Linux guys. They'll be stuck with their source out and the novelty worn off and then we'll all sit back and laugh. Laugh at them for not looking ahead past the marketing and seeing the true meaning of the movement. Long live Linus!
Loader of Code and of BricksThe problem that all of these "MS should be required to..." solutions have in common, is that they would require direct government regulation to maintain. Some people would argue that that is a good thing, but there are real problems with it. Will this new regulating body only apply to Microsoft, or will it apply to the entire industry?
There are other companies that might eventually gain the power that Microsoft has. If, down the line, MS lost a great deal of its power, or even went out of business (Linux, anyone ;) it would be rediculous to have a regulating body for an obsolete company. On the other hand, if it regulated the entire industry that could be at least as oppressing as Microsoft. Imagine a world where software innovations had to be filtered through a beauracracy before becoming available to the public. Granted, most of the things that were pointed out would be good in the short term. But the minute we say "regulate" there will be abuses. It may work out fine for a while, but eventually big business will bring money and the politicians will follow them, things will change and we'll end up with the government protecting money just as always. That's not what we want.
I would rather have a non-regulatory solution that allows the rest of the industry to simply continue without government intervention. Rather than creating a body that could sterilize the computer industry and make it into just another business as usual economic sector.
There's more at stake here than just Microsoft, it's the whole concept of free software (not merely "Open Source") that we are fighting for. Let's not lose sight of our goals because of hate for one particular company.