Yeah, this was sorta meant to be funny, but the other repliers didn't think so or something. Yeah, though, I think it's ridiculous that we can't legally buy alcohol and can't vote.
Many people have suggested that you go to other sources to sample an artists music. They are correct, however, one source you used to be able to go to has already been essentially silenced by the RIAA: webradio.
Now internet radio stations must pay fees to the RIAA whenever songs they own (I guess...) are played. This may not be a big deal for some people, but out here in the middle of Kansas we don't get a whole lot of air radio.
P2P has completely legal uses, and should not be silenced like internet radio just because it has illegal uses as well.
However, what if they don't have sites. P2P services can also be used for completely legal purposes, and this is one. Why should they be shutdown!?
You know, many of these bands used to play on webradio, but then that was essentially silenced by fees (the RIAA was behind that too). Normal "air" radio doesn't have fees to pay to the RIAA, however you reach a smaller audience AND you still have to pay for licensing and equipment and stuff.
A giant media corporation, that shall remain nameless (but it should be Clear to some of you), recently took over my college station. We no longer hear local bands on it.
Going to concerts. Talking to friends who have gone to concerts. Being friends with people in a band. Sure if your friends are in a band, you could get samples from them or just get their CD from them...
Not all p2p is illegal though. Why should services be shut down if they have completely legal purposes?
On my campus, sometimes the link to an outside server is faster than the connection to a server in a neighboring building. Once we transfered a 2 gig file to a server in Florida (I'm in Kansas) and then from that server to computer in another dorm faster than we could directly from my computer to theirs.
I haven't read this entire thread, as it is now very long, so this may be redundant, but oh-well...
I use IceWM, and in my opinion, it is an excellent example of an interface with many options to customize it's look while not sacrificing speed or size. Blackbox is another excellent example that comes to mind. I'm not gonna say Ice is quick to configure, but then I enjoy doing things like that in my spare time, so it works for _me_. In my opinion, there will never be one happy medium, never one window manager that everyone will use, and I like that.
People who don't can go use Windows or OS X, as they seem to work well for a lot of people.
I am not an elitist for chosing function over form. I use icewm, and most of the programs I use have a "G" in front of them. It may not be the prettiest interface, but it's certainly not ugly and things are where I like them to be. The interface runs quickly and so do my other programs.
What I do consider "elitist," is paying twice as much for a good looking computer. Apple doesn't make computers as fast as mine and mine cost less than almost everything I can find on their webpage. I can't run OS X on my computer because Apple wouldn't compile it for my architecture.
So there, you elitist! That's my opinion and I'm stickin to it. Unless of course you're not an elitist and your article just came off too strong...
I've used some programs that claim to do that, but what they really do is queue the stuff to write up and then burn it when you decide to remove the cd (or when you specifically tell it to burn it). I haven't used windows to burn rw's recently, and at the time, this was the closest you got to using a cdrw like a floppy. Also, I don't know all the details of the filesystems used on cds, but it's iso9660 and not fat. I wouldn't imagine it works the same way, however, because you can burn multiple sessions on a cd-r, and this media wouldn't allow you to rewrite parts previously written.
Now, there's an interesting idea though, why use fat filesystem if you can use a cd's type of filesystem.
Someone correct me please if I'm a babbling idiot.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just because something is still used a lot doesn't mean it's not obsolete. The technology has become cheaper over the years, and now you could make your basement into a recording studio at a cost that doesn't require selling billions of cds to make up for. Something that's an interesting problem, though, is how to market those cds... The internet is great, but you still gotta run ads or get radio (as in air) time or something, or your cd's not gonna sell.
Did you do all this as a child? I wouldn't be surprised. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if you're talking about what was supposed to be your sons car. I'm not saying _you_ did, and I have friends that put work and care into their cars. Too often these days, parents lose sight of what the derby is all about, fathers and sons working together. The kids feeling good when winning with _their_ car, and learning a lesson when losing. Just wanted to throw that in.
I loved the pinewood derby, it was a lot of fun. I lost horribly the first year with basically a wedge car. It would have been great, but the wheels were not on as straight as they could have been, and we didn't lube the axles (graphite works well).
Anyway, the next years I created good looking cars and won every year except for the last. I tied the last year with my friend who created a model T or something like that. In my opinion, it's more fun to create something that makes people go "thats really cool" than something that goes fast for 20 feet or whatever. Now if your car could be motorized...
People who run news servers or list servers or whatever could, instead of sending out emails, run their own, kinda, pop server. People wouldn't send emails to it, but when you wanted to check the latest update or whatever, your email client would check the server for email and if there was an update, well it'd be there waiting for you.
Has anyone thought of this before?
Not all children are as innocent as you make them out to be. You're right, a lot of children would just ignore pornography. The fact of the matter is, though, a lot of them won't. Many children won't understand what they are viewing, even if you explain to them that having sex on a car in the french alps with someone you just met isn't normal human behavior. It's not _necessarily_ horribly wrong human behavior, but it's not normal.
Now I don't think censorship is ok, but parents were put on this earth to have children and to bring them up right, and by not letting their children see things they deem inappropriate is just doing their job. Besides, which would you rather have, people who don't let their children use the internet because they might be exposed to bad things, or people who feel comfortable with letting their children use the internet because there is a good place for them to start - kids.us or whatever the hell it's called.
I plan to teach my children the same way you do, as my parents did the same for me. But many people are not like that. We can't forget about the stupid people;-) (winking smiley face = joke)
Let them see whatever content they want -- and teach them to deal with it responsibly. I can't say that I agree with that. In my opinion, parents should decide what their children see and don't see. If you don't want your children to watch the playboy channel on tv, I can understand that, so don't order that channel. But the internet is different, you can't just not order the sex channel on the internet. I don't think that filtering software does a good job either though. Parents need to monitor what their children are exposed to, and they don't really do that enough right now. Kids.us is a good idea in my book (although when I read your comment about, I did think twice). It's interesting to me that no companies did this yet. AOL has kids "channels" and such, but noone really did it for the internet. I do think it's good that this will be freely accessible though, which it might not be if a bunch of companies ran it. So, in conclusion, I don't know, but it certainly sounds like a good start to me.
I go to a college where we are unable to use p2p programs from the dorms. Nobody complains, however, if we just copy files over the campus network. At Iowa State U (not where I go:-( there is a program that searches ftp and windows shares on their network for available downloads. That's definetly a cool solution. I apologize for the little content in this message, but I'm listening to Off The Hook...
Why would they fight each other? They're all super _heros_ not villains. They'd be looking at each other from across the ring and suddenly fly off in different directions to save the world from something bad.
Calling all phone phreaks. Business setting up voip and opening it to anyone sitting in their parking lot with a laptop and 802.11b wireless card. If encryption _is_ used, you may have to sit a while.;-)
I definetly agree with your suggestion about config folders for users. That would have made it a whole lot easier for me when I started the switch from Windows.
When it comes to switching to advanced mode, I don't think there should be a button on the or in whatever will be comparable to the start menu. People will be too likely to accidentally click this and then not be able to get back, or they will think they know what they are doing, and then be in trouble. Instead, there should be a terminal emulator button somewhere on the screen. This would definetly be interesting enough to the newbie, and many people would be interested enough to learn how to use it. You're not supposed to be able to screw up the system much as a plain-jane user anyway, and the worst you could do is type rm *, and what are the chances of accidentally doing that.
There could even be a little sheet included with their computer that gives them some tips on becoming more advanced computer users.
Now here's the second problem with the FHS; where a program ends up depends on who installs it and when - if I install it it probably goes in/usr/local/bin or/usr/local/whatnot/bin, but if installed by the distribution it could go in any of/bin/usr/bin/opt/whatever/bin or/usr/something/bin.
Whoever makes the distribution can change this. I'd say the one problem with installing programs is agreeing upon some standard way to do this. Some kind of install program like that so often used in Windows would definetly make the process easier. The option to compile from source should probably not be available from the installer; if people want to install from source, they should learn how. When it comes to where programs are actually installed... The current situation would be rather confusing for the newbie, however, they probably won't do much browsing of the filesystem! They will probably only browse their own home and this would be made easier with a ~/.config folder. One other thing - I truly hate nautilus. At least on my computer, nautilus is slow (I don't use it anymore). Windows Explorer is not a good example of a filesystem browser either, as it is overkill. It would be interesting to see some fast alternatives to these two which are similar in their function. A 3D filesystem browser might even work well. I have played with a few but both were slow and frequently crashed and were probably too hard for most to use. Everyone has an easy time playing first person games though, why couldn't we make an interface like that... A directory looks like a door to another room and a symlink looks like a wormhole or something?
Of course it would be possible to do - but it would be just that: "a look". Like a mask to cover the true nature of the beast, instead of a true change in the system. It's really just a push in where the user experience turns bad and where the learning curve derivate goes sky-high.
It would definetly be a look! Linux would cease to be fun to play with if it wasn't a look! I think that we can make a system where the user experience doesn't turn bad, and where the learning curve only goes above 0 if the user wants it to.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah! I love groove salad and the spy station over at somaFM.
Yeah, this was sorta meant to be funny, but the other repliers didn't think so or something. Yeah, though, I think it's ridiculous that we can't legally buy alcohol and can't vote.
Now internet radio stations must pay fees to the RIAA whenever songs they own (I guess...) are played. This may not be a big deal for some people, but out here in the middle of Kansas we don't get a whole lot of air radio.
P2P has completely legal uses, and should not be silenced like internet radio just because it has illegal uses as well.
You know, many of these bands used to play on webradio, but then that was essentially silenced by fees (the RIAA was behind that too). Normal "air" radio doesn't have fees to pay to the RIAA, however you reach a smaller audience AND you still have to pay for licensing and equipment and stuff.
A giant media corporation, that shall remain nameless (but it should be Clear to some of you), recently took over my college station. We no longer hear local bands on it.
Not all p2p is illegal though. Why should services be shut down if they have completely legal purposes?
Yes. Remember, alcohol is also illegal, and they certainly try and crack down on that more than they do on piracy. Do they think that's gonna stop us?
On my campus, sometimes the link to an outside server is faster than the connection to a server in a neighboring building. Once we transfered a 2 gig file to a server in Florida (I'm in Kansas) and then from that server to computer in another dorm faster than we could directly from my computer to theirs.
Slashdot article refering to this review
Yes, this article minus the "We're releasing it now" was posted on /. a while ago.
Nah, it's cool, I'll just mod this up.
I haven't read this entire thread, as it is now very long, so this may be redundant, but oh-well...
I use IceWM, and in my opinion, it is an excellent example of an interface with many options to customize it's look while not sacrificing speed or size. Blackbox is another excellent example that comes to mind. I'm not gonna say Ice is quick to configure, but then I enjoy doing things like that in my spare time, so it works for _me_. In my opinion, there will never be one happy medium, never one window manager that everyone will use, and I like that.
People who don't can go use Windows or OS X, as they seem to work well for a lot of people.
I am not an elitist for chosing function over form. I use icewm, and most of the programs I use have a "G" in front of them. It may not be the prettiest interface, but it's certainly not ugly and things are where I like them to be. The interface runs quickly and so do my other programs.
What I do consider "elitist," is paying twice as much for a good looking computer. Apple doesn't make computers as fast as mine and mine cost less than almost everything I can find on their webpage. I can't run OS X on my computer because Apple wouldn't compile it for my architecture.
So there, you elitist! That's my opinion and I'm stickin to it. Unless of course you're not an elitist and your article just came off too strong...
I've used some programs that claim to do that, but what they really do is queue the stuff to write up and then burn it when you decide to remove the cd (or when you specifically tell it to burn it). I haven't used windows to burn rw's recently, and at the time, this was the closest you got to using a cdrw like a floppy. Also, I don't know all the details of the filesystems used on cds, but it's iso9660 and not fat. I wouldn't imagine it works the same way, however, because you can burn multiple sessions on a cd-r, and this media wouldn't allow you to rewrite parts previously written.
Now, there's an interesting idea though, why use fat filesystem if you can use a cd's type of filesystem.
Someone correct me please if I'm a babbling idiot.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but just because something is still used a lot doesn't mean it's not obsolete. The technology has become cheaper over the years, and now you could make your basement into a recording studio at a cost that doesn't require selling billions of cds to make up for. Something that's an interesting problem, though, is how to market those cds... The internet is great, but you still gotta run ads or get radio (as in air) time or something, or your cd's not gonna sell.
Did you do all this as a child? I wouldn't be surprised. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if you're talking about what was supposed to be your sons car. I'm not saying _you_ did, and I have friends that put work and care into their cars. Too often these days, parents lose sight of what the derby is all about, fathers and sons working together. The kids feeling good when winning with _their_ car, and learning a lesson when losing. Just wanted to throw that in.
I loved the pinewood derby, it was a lot of fun. I lost horribly the first year with basically a wedge car. It would have been great, but the wheels were not on as straight as they could have been, and we didn't lube the axles (graphite works well). Anyway, the next years I created good looking cars and won every year except for the last. I tied the last year with my friend who created a model T or something like that. In my opinion, it's more fun to create something that makes people go "thats really cool" than something that goes fast for 20 feet or whatever. Now if your car could be motorized...
People who run news servers or list servers or whatever could, instead of sending out emails, run their own, kinda, pop server. People wouldn't send emails to it, but when you wanted to check the latest update or whatever, your email client would check the server for email and if there was an update, well it'd be there waiting for you.
Has anyone thought of this before?
Awesome.
Not all children are as innocent as you make them out to be. You're right, a lot of children would just ignore pornography. The fact of the matter is, though, a lot of them won't. Many children won't understand what they are viewing, even if you explain to them that having sex on a car in the french alps with someone you just met isn't normal human behavior. It's not _necessarily_ horribly wrong human behavior, but it's not normal. ;-) (winking smiley face = joke)
Now I don't think censorship is ok, but parents were put on this earth to have children and to bring them up right, and by not letting their children see things they deem inappropriate is just doing their job. Besides, which would you rather have, people who don't let their children use the internet because they might be exposed to bad things, or people who feel comfortable with letting their children use the internet because there is a good place for them to start - kids.us or whatever the hell it's called.
I plan to teach my children the same way you do, as my parents did the same for me. But many people are not like that. We can't forget about the stupid people
Let them see whatever content they want -- and teach them to deal with it responsibly.
I can't say that I agree with that. In my opinion, parents should decide what their children see and don't see. If you don't want your children to watch the playboy channel on tv, I can understand that, so don't order that channel. But the internet is different, you can't just not order the sex channel on the internet. I don't think that filtering software does a good job either though. Parents need to monitor what their children are exposed to, and they don't really do that enough right now. Kids.us is a good idea in my book (although when I read your comment about, I did think twice). It's interesting to me that no companies did this yet. AOL has kids "channels" and such, but noone really did it for the internet. I do think it's good that this will be freely accessible though, which it might not be if a bunch of companies ran it. So, in conclusion, I don't know, but it certainly sounds like a good start to me.
I go to a college where we are unable to use p2p programs from the dorms. Nobody complains, however, if we just copy files over the campus network. At Iowa State U (not where I go :-( there is a program that searches ftp and windows shares on their network for available downloads. That's definetly a cool solution. I apologize for the little content in this message, but I'm listening to Off The Hook...
Why would they fight each other? They're all super _heros_ not villains. They'd be looking at each other from across the ring and suddenly fly off in different directions to save the world from something bad.
Calling all phone phreaks. Business setting up voip and opening it to anyone sitting in their parking lot with a laptop and 802.11b wireless card. If encryption _is_ used, you may have to sit a while. ;-)
I must say, that is so geeky it rocks!
When it comes to switching to advanced mode, I don't think there should be a button on the or in whatever will be comparable to the start menu. People will be too likely to accidentally click this and then not be able to get back, or they will think they know what they are doing, and then be in trouble. Instead, there should be a terminal emulator button somewhere on the screen. This would definetly be interesting enough to the newbie, and many people would be interested enough to learn how to use it. You're not supposed to be able to screw up the system much as a plain-jane user anyway, and the worst you could do is type rm *, and what are the chances of accidentally doing that.
There could even be a little sheet included with their computer that gives them some tips on becoming more advanced computer users.
Now here's the second problem with the FHS; where a program ends up depends on who installs it and when - if I install it it probably goes in /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/whatnot/bin, but if installed by the distribution it could go in any of /bin /usr/bin /opt/whatever/bin or /usr/something/bin.
Whoever makes the distribution can change this. I'd say the one problem with installing programs is agreeing upon some standard way to do this. Some kind of install program like that so often used in Windows would definetly make the process easier. The option to compile from source should probably not be available from the installer; if people want to install from source, they should learn how. When it comes to where programs are actually installed... The current situation would be rather confusing for the newbie, however, they probably won't do much browsing of the filesystem! They will probably only browse their own home and this would be made easier with a ~/.config folder. One other thing - I truly hate nautilus. At least on my computer, nautilus is slow (I don't use it anymore). Windows Explorer is not a good example of a filesystem browser either, as it is overkill. It would be interesting to see some fast alternatives to these two which are similar in their function. A 3D filesystem browser might even work well. I have played with a few but both were slow and frequently crashed and were probably too hard for most to use. Everyone has an easy time playing first person games though, why couldn't we make an interface like that... A directory looks like a door to another room and a symlink looks like a wormhole or something?
Of course it would be possible to do - but it would be just that: "a look". Like a mask to cover the true nature of the beast, instead of a true change in the system. It's really just a push in where the user experience turns bad and where the learning curve derivate goes sky-high. It would definetly be a look! Linux would cease to be fun to play with if it wasn't a look! I think that we can make a system where the user experience doesn't turn bad, and where the learning curve only goes above 0 if the user wants it to.