I think you're right. I'm thinking, though, that some sort of makeover was given to these sites. they're too slick, and they look like they were desgned by the same person. they ALL have a webcam. the webcams are all similar looking. the use of html, iframes, javascript... it's too good.
ah, whatever.
the raging cow site, which looks like a blog, at least superficially,
haslinkstosixblogson the lower right of the screen.
i take is these are supposed to be the "blogs" that are doing the advertizing? THESE ARE FAKES!!! look at them. they're all designed by the same person. they're all banal pap.
they're not real!
am i just crazy? i think these were set up specifically for the purpose of this ad campaign.
please tell me i'm nuts.
I have this problem with my Dell Latitude c600's LCD. Under windows, I get the quiet grinding noize mentioned by some earlier posts whenever moving smething on the screen.
However, on RH 8.0, using X windows or without, the screen emits a fairly loud buzz that only goes away when something on the screen is moving.
I don't know if I have especially good ears. I suspect I don't, but this buzz is maddening.
So the point is, you might be able to attribute some of the noise your monitor makes to the driver, the refresh rate (though changing it hasn't worked for me) or some factor of the driver.
That is, if they even look at the driver's license. I can't remember a time when a security guard even read my name! So it's more of a check that I have a driver's license.
The other thing is that they're not likely to remember anything on the license more than a minute later.
Besides, the guys who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't use fake ID. A suicide bomber doesn't care as much about hiding his identity.
You're absolutely right about this being the next step in p2p.
As for file trading, I figure the author is just trying to clarify that the intended use of this thing is not exchanging warez and mp3s.
It somehow seems a bit prudish to even point out that this system could be used to trade files that the [ri|mp]aa don't want you to. I mean, in the same way, a file server, a web server, and email are all tools to do that.
This is similar to hivecache. I believe hivecache's in use in the wild. The difference is that hivecache seems to be specifically oriented to large enterprize.
I think that people who worry about "putting their files on other people's machines" should go over the docs once more.
I had to remove this from a client's win 98 machine.
Here's how to remove a program that does not seem to have an uninstaller (this is the last-resort option, and this is for 98):
Hit CTRL-ALT-DEL
Look at what's running. The only things you need are Explorer and Systray.
Suppose you see that a program called troj1 is listed as running. Search your machine for troj1.exe.
Aha! There's a folder called c:\Program Files\TrojanCorp\ that contains the executable.
Delete the whole folder.
Reboot.
Not the most elegant method, but it worked in this case.
I think the lesson is just what they're saying. Applying these tests on a body of code is a good way to find high-level errors, even though the tests just check for low-level mistakes.
That seems pretty practical to me.
The issue you raise about interfaces is only tangentially related. There, you get in to the problem (a very real problem) of confusing coding. This paper does not deal with the issue of whether the code is written well from the point of view of other programmers who need to work with it.
Don't you see how brilliantly evil this is on Microsoft's part?
Say the Russians buy the source, or view it, or whatever. Now the US has to buy it to check for backdoors that Microsoft might have missed but the Russians know about! The US Gov't is running all these computers and Rusia has the source, but the US doesn't! HA HA HA! In [post-]Soviet Russia, all your source are belong to us!
As soon as the Israelis get it, the Palestinians need it. As soon as the Pakistanis get it, the Indians need it! Soon, everyone needs to see this source code!
this is not suggested as a solution to the immediate probelm, as it would be hard to be sure none of those users were infected with this hypothetical virus. this is sugggested as a shift in thinking about p2p.
we need to move toward a network topology based on real-world relationships of trust.
you might not be able to get as much pr0n, but what you do get will be of much higher quality. it's worth the tradeoff.
I figured they spent some time looking at the code that's out there, and took a guess that KHTML would be a good place to start given their goals. That's how it works. There were probably people on the dev team thinking that gecko was better. Those were the people who fully groked gecko. Others had different projects they liked, or wanted to start from scratch, but the project manager decided that the argument for KHTML was sound, and so here it is. That's so obvious, it's not worth arguing over.
That's absolutely true. Thanks for correcting me. You could make the case that free market capitalism (as it's not practiced in the US) is a viable alternative.
I do not argue that capitalism has failed to provide a motive for the development of some very useful things. I think that there are other possible motives, besides profit, which could produce good results.
Yes, companies spend billions to develop drugs, some of which are useful and save lives. These companies would cease to exist if there was no profit to be made from the drugs, because the research that they paid billions for would be taken by other companies and used. That is absolutely true and there's no denying it.
What I hope people will think about is this: is there another way to motivate the groups of people, researchers, chemists, manufacturers, testers, to do this work, aside from promising them that they can sue anyone who uses the work (even if it's for the common good) after the work is finished?
I hope there is a solution to this problem.
There haven't been many examples of development of complex items by large groups of people working outside of the capitalist/IP model. (freeweed astutely points out that this is not pure laissez faire capitalism.) One good example, however, is GNU/linux and OSS. It'a also a good example of the problems.
Considering how many trillions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spend designing drugs to relieve the suffering of others, I'm inclined to side in favour of their being able to take advantage of their discoveries.
That's a good point. One could make the case, though, that these companies exist only for profit, and to say that they do their work to relieve the suffering of others is a distortion. The profit motive is not a charitable motive, and I argue that it is essentially the opposite of the motive to help people, that is, it's about restricting their access to what they want.
On the other hand, dead people don't buy medicine.
As for your second point, many people who make a lot of money also help people in doing so. Doctors are a good example. They have a limited resource (their time) which is perhaps not comparable to things like music (the reproduction and distribution of which the consumer is willing to undertake) or grain (which is produced in excess in the US and is destroyed). A doctor has to make the choice of how she wants to sell her time. I would not go so far as to say doctors should be forced to do charity work.
The U.S. is in the midst of an age of plenty, where the powerful try to engineer false scarcity to protect their roles as useless middlemen. There is plenty of food, plenty of medicine, and plenty of music. As fucked up as the RIAA is, it's even worse when, for instance, the holders of patents on medicine peofit off of the suffering and death of others.
If you think that society will fall apart without the stratifying influence of capitalism, and that the idea of intellectual property is necessary for the continued prosperity of the US, I say that's b.s. and there are other possible viable economic models.
I don't know how the parent got modded up, but anyway...
The idea here, if you take 5 seconds to try to find out, is that this network will provide "telecommunications, business opportunities, and enhanced education" for the villagers and their children. Also, they have a specific need for "accurate and timely information about [crop] pricing".
There are several arguments against this, repeated any time an article like this gets mentioned on slashdot. Many of these criticisms are valid. There can be no doubt that people need food and shelter before computers.
The internet is also a source of a huge amount of information. While distributing info on crop proces could be done without a wireless LAN, the 'net also is a source of news and communication for those who can use it. This could be extremely useful in a place where news is hard to get, and/or is controlled by the gov't.
There is also an elitism in comments from both sides of the technology-for-the-peasants debate. On one hand, there is the "educate the savages" missionary posture, and on the other extreme, the view that everyone in Laos (and other poor nations) is starving and couldn't possibly benefit from the things we have.
We spend most of our time dealing with a few very specific issues (such as a citrix metaframe server), chronic problems and problem patterns (often caused by user-installed and virus-like downloaded software, containing adware), and a few very troublesome users. These troublesome issues and people consume most of our time, while the rest of the users rarely need any help.
There seems to be some lumping together going on here. A Slashdot-like moderation system is not exactly the same thing as a web-of-trust (unless you would consider every moderator on/. to be trusted by you). The web of trust would be more like saying, "mod all comments posted by my friends +1, and all comments by my foes -1".
This way, a post could be widely popular, but you and your group would be less likely to see it above your threshold if your peers didn't generally like it.
That's a simplification. Naturally, look up "web of trust" on el goog for more information.
I wonder what my bandwidth would be like if the root nameservers went down. Could I expect superfast downloads on p2p networks (which generally would be unaffected)?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, Do you have a link or reference for "The CIA, for all their transgressions [...] is against the war"? Jim
I think you're right. I'm thinking, though, that some sort of makeover was given to these sites. they're too slick, and they look like they were desgned by the same person. they ALL have a webcam. the webcams are all similar looking. the use of html, iframes, javascript... it's too good. ah, whatever.
the raging cow site, which looks like a blog, at least superficially, has links to six blogs on the lower right of the screen.
i take is these are supposed to be the "blogs" that are doing the advertizing? THESE ARE FAKES!!! look at them. they're all designed by the same person. they're all banal pap. they're not real!
am i just crazy? i think these were set up specifically for the purpose of this ad campaign. please tell me i'm nuts.
However, on RH 8.0, using X windows or without, the screen emits a fairly loud buzz that only goes away when something on the screen is moving.
I don't know if I have especially good ears. I suspect I don't, but this buzz is maddening.
So the point is, you might be able to attribute some of the noise your monitor makes to the driver, the refresh rate (though changing it hasn't worked for me) or some factor of the driver.
did anyone else see this? (right side of TV in background.) there is a spy in their midst!
The other thing is that they're not likely to remember anything on the license more than a minute later.
Besides, the guys who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't use fake ID. A suicide bomber doesn't care as much about hiding his identity.
All this fake security depresses me.
try it.
Who's using this, and on what hardware? I know about google. I want to know what /.ers are doing.
As for file trading, I figure the author is just trying to clarify that the intended use of this thing is not exchanging warez and mp3s.
It somehow seems a bit prudish to even point out that this system could be used to trade files that the [ri|mp]aa don't want you to. I mean, in the same way, a file server, a web server, and email are all tools to do that.
I think that people who worry about "putting their files on other people's machines" should go over the docs once more.
Here's how to remove a program that does not seem to have an uninstaller (this is the last-resort option, and this is for 98):
Hit CTRL-ALT-DEL
Look at what's running. The only things you need are Explorer and Systray.
Suppose you see that a program called troj1 is listed as running. Search your machine for troj1.exe.
Aha! There's a folder called c:\Program Files\TrojanCorp\ that contains the executable.
Delete the whole folder.
Reboot.
Not the most elegant method, but it worked in this case.
This thing looks cool. I'd really like to know how they are doing it.
Imagine being able to capture 2 hours of video onto an editing workstation in a few minutes or so!
That seems pretty practical to me.
The issue you raise about interfaces is only tangentially related. There, you get in to the problem (a very real problem) of confusing coding. This paper does not deal with the issue of whether the code is written well from the point of view of other programmers who need to work with it.
Say the Russians buy the source, or view it, or whatever. Now the US has to buy it to check for backdoors that Microsoft might have missed but the Russians know about! The US Gov't is running all these computers and Rusia has the source, but the US doesn't! HA HA HA! In [post-]Soviet Russia, all your source are belong to us!
As soon as the Israelis get it, the Palestinians need it. As soon as the Pakistanis get it, the Indians need it! Soon, everyone needs to see this source code!
(Mabye)
this is not suggested as a solution to the immediate probelm, as it would be hard to be sure none of those users were infected with this hypothetical virus. this is sugggested as a shift in thinking about p2p.
we need to move toward a network topology based on real-world relationships of trust.
you might not be able to get as much pr0n, but what you do get will be of much higher quality. it's worth the tradeoff.
I figured they spent some time looking at the code that's out there, and took a guess that KHTML would be a good place to start given their goals. That's how it works. There were probably people on the dev team thinking that gecko was better. Those were the people who fully groked gecko. Others had different projects they liked, or wanted to start from scratch, but the project manager decided that the argument for KHTML was sound, and so here it is. That's so obvious, it's not worth arguing over.
That's absolutely true. Thanks for correcting me. You could make the case that free market capitalism (as it's not practiced in the US) is a viable alternative.
I do not argue that capitalism has failed to provide a motive for the development of some very useful things. I think that there are other possible motives, besides profit, which could produce good results.
Yes, companies spend billions to develop drugs, some of which are useful and save lives. These companies would cease to exist if there was no profit to be made from the drugs, because the research that they paid billions for would be taken by other companies and used. That is absolutely true and there's no denying it.
What I hope people will think about is this: is there another way to motivate the groups of people, researchers, chemists, manufacturers, testers, to do this work, aside from promising them that they can sue anyone who uses the work (even if it's for the common good) after the work is finished?
I hope there is a solution to this problem.
There haven't been many examples of development of complex items by large groups of people working outside of the capitalist/IP model. (freeweed astutely points out that this is not pure laissez faire capitalism.) One good example, however, is GNU/linux and OSS. It'a also a good example of the problems.
That's a good point. One could make the case, though, that these companies exist only for profit, and to say that they do their work to relieve the suffering of others is a distortion. The profit motive is not a charitable motive, and I argue that it is essentially the opposite of the motive to help people, that is, it's about restricting their access to what they want.
On the other hand, dead people don't buy medicine.
As for your second point, many people who make a lot of money also help people in doing so. Doctors are a good example. They have a limited resource (their time) which is perhaps not comparable to things like music (the reproduction and distribution of which the consumer is willing to undertake) or grain (which is produced in excess in the US and is destroyed). A doctor has to make the choice of how she wants to sell her time. I would not go so far as to say doctors should be forced to do charity work.
Busted again, Mr. (Adam) Smith!
If you think that society will fall apart without the stratifying influence of capitalism, and that the idea of intellectual property is necessary for the continued prosperity of the US, I say that's b.s. and there are other possible viable economic models.
The idea here, if you take 5 seconds to try to find out, is that this network will provide "telecommunications, business opportunities, and enhanced education" for the villagers and their children. Also, they have a specific need for "accurate and timely information about [crop] pricing".
There are several arguments against this, repeated any time an article like this gets mentioned on slashdot. Many of these criticisms are valid. There can be no doubt that people need food and shelter before computers.
The internet is also a source of a huge amount of information. While distributing info on crop proces could be done without a wireless LAN, the 'net also is a source of news and communication for those who can use it. This could be extremely useful in a place where news is hard to get, and/or is controlled by the gov't.
There is also an elitism in comments from both sides of the technology-for-the-peasants debate. On one hand, there is the "educate the savages" missionary posture, and on the other extreme, the view that everyone in Laos (and other poor nations) is starving and couldn't possibly benefit from the things we have.
We spend most of our time dealing with a few very specific issues (such as a citrix metaframe server), chronic problems and problem patterns (often caused by user-installed and virus-like downloaded software, containing adware), and a few very troublesome users. These troublesome issues and people consume most of our time, while the rest of the users rarely need any help.
This way, a post could be widely popular, but you and your group would be less likely to see it above your threshold if your peers didn't generally like it.
That's a simplification. Naturally, look up "web of trust" on el goog for more information.
I wonder what my bandwidth would be like if the root nameservers went down. Could I expect superfast downloads on p2p networks (which generally would be unaffected)?