You can agree with both attitudes at the same time. I write free software because I enjoy it, because it scratches my itch, and because I think other people might get some use from what I write. As an additional benefit, I get some ego stroking from other people using my code. On the other hand, I'm writing this primarily for my needs and totally on my time using my resources - I'm happy to listen to you feedback, but I've got no obligation to listen to any sort of crap or harrassment. I'm not getting paid and I do it because I enjoy it, if you detract from my enjoyment then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and I'm not going to be interested in helping you. I expect a certain level of expertise or at least a willingness to learn from people that I intend to work with, and that includes users asking for support. There's nothing "elitist" about that. The world would be a better place if there was less coddling of mouthy obnoxious people who expect to get free things because they're annoying.
Your argument is easily extended to allowing the military complete control over any and all aspects of life. Care to provide anything a bit more substantial?
I'll give you a start: North Korea launches an inertially guided missile toward New York.
I'll take a step farther and provide a realistic answer to your flaimbait: The "jamming" they're talking about doesn't effect 1 reciever. It affects an entire area, or, in the case of GPS, it affects the entire system. There's a real use for an accurate positioning system that can't be disabled on a whim - this is a real issue in the US. People want to use GPS for accurate positioning, but you can't rely on it. There was a great deal of concern during the invaision of Afghanistan (and again during the invasion of Iraq) over this, because there were systems in place that relied on accurate GPS (although they shouldn't) and they would fail if it was disabled. A civilian positioning sytem outside of military control wouldn't have this drawback.
Advertisers have this attitude that you're obligated to watch thier shit. I know it's a huge industry and all, but jesus people, get it together. Pay less money to agencies - there's no reason you need to spend a million and a half on a commercial. Try spending 500 grand each on 3 commercials, so that I don't see the same 10 commercials in the same order every 45 minutes. It should be a mortal sin to play the same commercial back to back. Theres alot of untapped ground in commercials - and NONE of it has anything to do with being "edgy", or "flashy" or "street".
I'm a big Spector fan, and I was really looking forward to this game. The Demo failed disasterously in my case because without it I would have bought the game an now I won't.
Some reasons why:
The AI is moronic, there's no excuse for it. Non-localized damage raises the bar on suspension of disbelief to an incredible level
The whole "dumbing down" of the game - unified ammo, the (very poor) interface - these things make it feel like a crappy Acclaim game. I'm not interested in a crappy Acclaim game, I want the kind of open ended gameplay and versatility that I had in Deus Ex. Stealth play is totally out if the demo is any consideration, because sniping is broken without localized damage and non-lethal attacks are fucked up. You're exactly right that I'm complaing because it's different. I liked Deus Ex and I like that genre and I want another game like it in that genre, not Yet Another Goddamn FPS. "It runs like a demo"? Where the hell did the idea that demos are SUPPOSED to run like shit come from? This is a demo for the PC people and I don't think it's too much to ask that they have the PC port cleaned up before they release it. They would have done alot better to have released it as an XBox demo disc. The purpose of a demo is to showcase the game, and in this case everything they showcased makes me NOT want the game, and that really depresses me, because I really, really wanted to love this game.
Just read through the archives. It's been hashed over time and time again, but the difference hinges on the fact that the GPL is a distribution license while an EULA is a use license.
There's a Starbucks every block or half a block in NYC. In almost all of those Starbucks, theres at least a couple people using laptops with the wireless access. Go into one of those with a properly configured laptop and sit and wait...
As for noticing - I wouldn't notice someone sitting outside my house and hooking onto my wireless network. I rarely pull up the DHCP clients list on my wireless access point. I imagine it's the same for most people. I rarely pull up network browsers, too - I just go to the machine I want.
You're confusing CA with the US. There's a levy on music CDs in the US - it's the same levy thats on blank audio tapes. It has NOT been extended to data CDs in the US. In Canada it was.
What they said in the quote is clearly false no matter what definition of commercial you use. Taking advantage of the popular conception that commercial softare is somehow more reliable or more completley audited than free/shareware (in my experience, there's no particular correlation) means that McBride is the one who's playing semantic games. People DON'T know what he means, because what he's saying is not true.
If an application crashes reading HTTP responses, ANY responses, valid or not, wierd or not, then the application is flawed. Period. Anything that accepts data over the network has to be prepared to accept badly formed or just plain broken data without catastrophic failure. It's a basic design principle.
Actually, architects still design, it's people like Systems Analysts that "architect". But only in meetings. Nothing wrong with verbing nouns anyway, or nouning verbs for that matter. It makes the languag more consistent, not less.
Except that (as (he?) posted in this thread), the LDAP server can also specify mountpoints for you, (apparently) including things like replacing your crontab with a remote one that WILL start all those services.
Well, if you read rather than skim the timeline, you'll note that Apple confimed the exploit quite early on in the process. They've shipped 2 security updates since it was reported. They've missed two ship dates.
It may seem unreasonable and arrogant to demand deadlines. On the other hand, it's unreasonable and arrogant of Apple (or any company, of course) to demand that people not release exploits unless they're going to work with researchers and honor thier security responsibilites.
That said, I wouldn't have released the details in the initial advisory.
Laws against barratry and the like a trivialy easy to loophole out of. An example:
"We're evaluating all our options and we will very likely make an announcement regarding a lawsuit by the end of the month".
See? No barratry there. No threats of legal action. Just IMPLIED threats. Remember Felton suing the RIAA for it's letter threatning him? Same thing. There was no actual threat, simply an implied one. If we could get a good precendent that implied threats like this were barratry I think we'd see alot of usefull change in our legal system. Which is, of course, why we won't see that.
That statement can be true and untrue at the same time, like alot of buisness-speak. Perhaps Google was informally approached, or approached through a third party. I'm not saying thats the case, of course, but Bill G could have been telling the truth, but MS could still have been looking at buying Google. In any case, Google is notoriously closed mouth (they don't have a stock price to pump via press releases, after all), so I don't know that they'd bother to contradict something like that.
Yeah, I know, it still makes the signal to noise ratio that much higher. I'd like an option to, for example, exclude entries indexed by Froogle from my Google search results.
Some legitimate vendors do get hurt. As an example, easynews.com, which is one of the biggest usenet services out there, has been unlisted. They don't do any sort of keyword manipulation that I know of but they do host a sourceforge mirror and theres speculation that the sourceforge mirror links out there are being identified as page-rank manipulation by google.
Nonetheless, I think the gains outweight the losses. Spam results are obnoxious.
I think that'd be cool, or at least have an option for it. Googling for information about things like video cards is almost impossible because all the links are to stores.
We already have all the gun control we need to suppress a revolution, because citizens don't have tanks, flamethrowers, or jets. If theres a populare revolt and enough military behind it, then it won't matter if there's gun control laws. Likewise, if theres a revolt and the military DOESN'T support it, it won't matter if every man, woman and child has a shotgun. We're pretty far beyond the point where an irregular milita can mount meaningful, non-guerilla resistance to a formal army. Look at Iraq for an example.
Besides, who needs gun control to keep people meek and easy to control? We've got television.
I don't know about this particular university, but at many colleges, the technology fee is mandatory, and theres no on-compus Internet access except via the University.
Slashdot Mirror
You can agree with both attitudes at the same time. I write free software because I enjoy it, because it scratches my itch, and because I think other people might get some use from what I write. As an additional benefit, I get some ego stroking from other people using my code. On the other hand, I'm writing this primarily for my needs and totally on my time using my resources - I'm happy to listen to you feedback, but I've got no obligation to listen to any sort of crap or harrassment. I'm not getting paid and I do it because I enjoy it, if you detract from my enjoyment then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and I'm not going to be interested in helping you. I expect a certain level of expertise or at least a willingness to learn from people that I intend to work with, and that includes users asking for support. There's nothing "elitist" about that. The world would be a better place if there was less coddling of mouthy obnoxious people who expect to get free things because they're annoying.
I'll give you a start: North Korea launches an inertially guided missile toward New York.
I'll take a step farther and provide a realistic answer to your flaimbait: The "jamming" they're talking about doesn't effect 1 reciever. It affects an entire area, or, in the case of GPS, it affects the entire system. There's a real use for an accurate positioning system that can't be disabled on a whim - this is a real issue in the US. People want to use GPS for accurate positioning, but you can't rely on it. There was a great deal of concern during the invaision of Afghanistan (and again during the invasion of Iraq) over this, because there were systems in place that relied on accurate GPS (although they shouldn't) and they would fail if it was disabled. A civilian positioning sytem outside of military control wouldn't have this drawback.
Advertisers have this attitude that you're obligated to watch thier shit. I know it's a huge industry and all, but jesus people, get it together. Pay less money to agencies - there's no reason you need to spend a million and a half on a commercial. Try spending 500 grand each on 3 commercials, so that I don't see the same 10 commercials in the same order every 45 minutes. It should be a mortal sin to play the same commercial back to back. Theres alot of untapped ground in commercials - and NONE of it has anything to do with being "edgy", or "flashy" or "street".
Some reasons why:
The AI is moronic, there's no excuse for it.
Non-localized damage raises the bar on suspension of disbelief to an incredible level
The whole "dumbing down" of the game - unified ammo, the (very poor) interface - these things make it feel like a crappy Acclaim game. I'm not interested in a crappy Acclaim game, I want the kind of open ended gameplay and versatility that I had in Deus Ex. Stealth play is totally out if the demo is any consideration, because sniping is broken without localized damage and non-lethal attacks are fucked up. You're exactly right that I'm complaing because it's different. I liked Deus Ex and I like that genre and I want another game like it in that genre, not Yet Another Goddamn FPS.
"It runs like a demo"? Where the hell did the idea that demos are SUPPOSED to run like shit come from? This is a demo for the PC people and I don't think it's too much to ask that they have the PC port cleaned up before they release it. They would have done alot better to have released it as an XBox demo disc. The purpose of a demo is to showcase the game, and in this case everything they showcased makes me NOT want the game, and that really depresses me, because I really, really wanted to love this game.
Just read through the archives. It's been hashed over time and time again, but the difference hinges on the fact that the GPL is a distribution license while an EULA is a use license.
Sendmail. But it's really the exception, not the rule.
Doesn't matter - MS claims a 24 hour response time. Lets see it happen.
As for noticing - I wouldn't notice someone sitting outside my house and hooking onto my wireless network. I rarely pull up the DHCP clients list on my wireless access point. I imagine it's the same for most people. I rarely pull up network browsers, too - I just go to the machine I want.
You're confusing CA with the US. There's a levy on music CDs in the US - it's the same levy thats on blank audio tapes. It has NOT been extended to data CDs in the US. In Canada it was.
What they said in the quote is clearly false no matter what definition of commercial you use. Taking advantage of the popular conception that commercial softare is somehow more reliable or more completley audited than free/shareware (in my experience, there's no particular correlation) means that McBride is the one who's playing semantic games. People DON'T know what he means, because what he's saying is not true.
If an application crashes reading HTTP responses, ANY responses, valid or not, wierd or not, then the application is flawed. Period. Anything that accepts data over the network has to be prepared to accept badly formed or just plain broken data without catastrophic failure. It's a basic design principle.
Actually, architects still design, it's people like Systems Analysts that "architect". But only in meetings. Nothing wrong with verbing nouns anyway, or nouning verbs for that matter. It makes the languag more consistent, not less.
Except that (as (he?) posted in this thread), the LDAP server can also specify mountpoints for you, (apparently) including things like replacing your crontab with a remote one that WILL start all those services.
It may seem unreasonable and arrogant to demand deadlines. On the other hand, it's unreasonable and arrogant of Apple (or any company, of course) to demand that people not release exploits unless they're going to work with researchers and honor thier security responsibilites.
That said, I wouldn't have released the details in the initial advisory.
"We're evaluating all our options and we will very likely make an announcement regarding a lawsuit by the end of the month".
See? No barratry there. No threats of legal action. Just IMPLIED threats. Remember Felton suing the RIAA for it's letter threatning him? Same thing. There was no actual threat, simply an implied one. If we could get a good precendent that implied threats like this were barratry I think we'd see alot of usefull change in our legal system. Which is, of course, why we won't see that.
That statement can be true and untrue at the same time, like alot of buisness-speak. Perhaps Google was informally approached, or approached through a third party. I'm not saying thats the case, of course, but Bill G could have been telling the truth, but MS could still have been looking at buying Google. In any case, Google is notoriously closed mouth (they don't have a stock price to pump via press releases, after all), so I don't know that they'd bother to contradict something like that.
Yeah, I know, it still makes the signal to noise ratio that much higher. I'd like an option to, for example, exclude entries indexed by Froogle from my Google search results.
Nonetheless, I think the gains outweight the losses. Spam results are obnoxious.
I think that'd be cool, or at least have an option for it. Googling for information about things like video cards is almost impossible because all the links are to stores.
Post your email address on usenet, of course.
Tell them to stop fucking with the search algorithms, then. I get plenty of hits for no-name stores when I'm looking for stuff.
Besides, who needs gun control to keep people meek and easy to control? We've got television.
There you go. Poor people are already hungry but nobody gives a shit.
So whats the justification for having them, then?
I don't know about this particular university, but at many colleges, the technology fee is mandatory, and theres no on-compus Internet access except via the University.