I just started the install last night. When I woke up this morning, I got that error. Assuming (incorrectly) that the make would restart from where it left off, I started it up again, and thereby lost the error message. But now it's many hours later, and I've reached the error message once again, so I will be doing a search on Google. Maybe I screwed up with my -march setting.
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 5
model : 9
model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D+ Processor
No, the US is completely free to charge anyone of anything in the sense you are referring to. It just shouldn't be able to force another country to give said person up, unless by agreement that country is willing to do so.
So we shouldn't have been able to try to capture bin Laden?
But the country that does not agree that he is a murderer is under no obligation to arrest him for the charge of another country.
Sorry, I disagree. If your country doesn't agree that bin Laden is a murderer, and it tries to protect him from us, then my country has every right to come in there and capture him anyway, and we have every right to use force against anyone trying to stop us. We might not exercise that right in every instance, but we still have it nonetheless.
Yeah, but i'd still be a LOT more comfortable if people who understood the technology and its developmental trends were at least assisting in the creation of legal material that governs it, y'know?
I wouldn't be any more or less comfortable, but I'm sure it would happen that way.
Like, you wouldn't ask someone who has no idea what a car IS, let alone what it can or cannot do, write traffic-control laws. It just wouldn't make sense.
As long as the person had advisors to inform them about what a car was, I don't see a problem.
The powers of a governing body has to eminate from the people. Not the technologically elite people, but all people.
If users know exactly what they have in their cache, there is a risk that users start editing or erasing content.
So? The point is that no single entity is in charge. If no one wants to help you deliver your crap, that's their right. As for your content being edited, if you want to protect against this you can sign it. But that isn't necessary for all content, and it certainly isn't necessary to encrypt and reencrypt at every single stage.
Wireless connections can't reach from here to Google's servers. It's still not really P2P.
Then content may migrate on the people's net.
I guess it's possible. You'd have to design a new routing mechanism which could handle such a transient decentralized network (presumably GPS based). And then you'd have to come up with a trust system to ensure that people are routing fairly. Also a trust system to protect against MITM attacks. And the whole thing would require new wireless devices, which were able to redirect themselves for point to point communication, otherwise you're not going to have enough bandwidth with everyone broadcasting everything.
It's possible, but it's certainly not here now, and it probably never will be. You couldn't get everyone to agree to use the system without already having centralized control, and people with a lot of control generally don't readily give it up.
Technologically literate people are going to be the ones implementing the system, so that's not going to be a problem. I don't suggest that the UN should have any powers to jail people or anything like that. They'd be like the Supreme Court in the United States. All they can do is make their ruling, and rely on others to implement it.
I think you answered your own question. They would enforce it by getting the owners of the individual networks voluntarily to agree to follow their direction. Assuming they came up with a plan which was agreed upon by the vast majority of the countries, migration could begin. Countries which refused to agree would slowly be forced off the network until they did agree.
They could just allow each country's existing laws to take care of things that might be illegal rather than create new ones that just muddy up the legal system.
That's not working, and it never will. The internet is international, and one country's laws are rarely able to reach into another country.
But, I personally don't want some world governing body controlling what goes down on the internet.
I don't want anyone controlling what goes down on the internet. Unfortunately, that's impossible. Someone's gotta allocate the IP addresses, after all. If there's gonna be a governing body controlling what goes down on the internet (currently ICANN), it should be a world governing body, not a US corporation.
Going totally P2P would require a wire running from every house to every single other one in the world. It's impossible. For now we'll have to deal with mostly P2P. Centralized IP address control, but everything else is voluntary (you could start your own alternic if you didn't like the current root servers).
Lots of countries have constituions and bills or rights.
There are lots of reasons not to just leave it here. For one thing, a system of rules effecting a group of people should come from that entire group of people, not one single subgroup. Secondly, the United States Constitution isn't geared toward the internet.
I don't have a problem with UN control of the Internet, as long as that control is severely limited in scope, and protections are put in place to avoid things like censorship. Basically, we'd need to start with a Constitution. Define the enumerated powers (international spam, international denial of service, etc), and then add in a bill of rights (no rule shall be made abridging the right of communication between a willing sender and a willing recipient, etc).
Re:You talk to the developer
on
Debugging Configure
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First I always put the last line or two of error messages into google. 8 times out of 10, I find someone asking the same question, and usually someone has already posted an answer.
Actually, before even that I check with Linux From Scratch (and Beyond LFS). But there are a whole lot of packages they don't cover.
Look, there's no way this sort of thing is helping innovation. Crazy Taxi still would have been created without the benefits of patent law. Congress needs to start holding hearings about patent law reform, because this crap has got to stop.
Re:If this shipped with Lindows instead...
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 1
What does MS having media aspirations have to do with anything?
Being that I sort of know the nullsoft crew, I know they probably didn't like having to do this.
Umm. Winamp was shareware before AOL got a hold of it. Only after AOL bought Nullsoft did they offer it for free. But, you know the nullsoft crew, so you probably already know that.
Re:If this shipped with Lindows instead...
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 1
Isn't Lindows almost as expensive as Windows anyway?
Be careful what you wish for...
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 1
unless you don't mind playing tech support for the next few years of your life.
Re:So wait
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As someone else mentioned, Mac OS X is the one consumer OS that gets this right: root isn't even enabled by default, and sudo is the only way to act as root without mucking around with NetInfo.
Yeah but once you break in you can easily enable root. My mom has OS X, and she forgot her password. I created a new user, gave it admin access, SUed to it, enabled root, changed the root password, SUed to root, and changed her password.
If Lindows didn't have that stupid security flaw, it would be a better choice for machines like AOL's.
As long as people can install unsigned applications, stupid people will get rooted, no doesn't matter what you do. Just pop up a dialog box asking for the root password.
Slashdot Mirror
That is how it currently happens in the US. I don't know much about the legal systems of the other countries you mentioned.
trying it again, with -mcpu=i586...
by the way,
CFLAGS="-march=k6 -O3 -mcpu=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -pipe"
I just started the install last night. When I woke up this morning, I got that error. Assuming (incorrectly) that the make would restart from where it left off, I started it up again, and thereby lost the error message. But now it's many hours later, and I've reached the error message once again, so I will be doing a search on Google. Maybe I screwed up with my -march setting.
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 5 model : 9 model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D+ ProcessorIs that K6, or K6-3?
No, the US is completely free to charge anyone of anything in the sense you are referring to. It just shouldn't be able to force another country to give said person up, unless by agreement that country is willing to do so.
So we shouldn't have been able to try to capture bin Laden?
But the country that does not agree that he is a murderer is under no obligation to arrest him for the charge of another country.
Sorry, I disagree. If your country doesn't agree that bin Laden is a murderer, and it tries to protect him from us, then my country has every right to come in there and capture him anyway, and we have every right to use force against anyone trying to stop us. We might not exercise that right in every instance, but we still have it nonetheless.
Yeah, but i'd still be a LOT more comfortable if people who understood the technology and its developmental trends were at least assisting in the creation of legal material that governs it, y'know?
I wouldn't be any more or less comfortable, but I'm sure it would happen that way.
Like, you wouldn't ask someone who has no idea what a car IS, let alone what it can or cannot do, write traffic-control laws. It just wouldn't make sense.
As long as the person had advisors to inform them about what a car was, I don't see a problem.
The powers of a governing body has to eminate from the people. Not the technologically elite people, but all people.
A country's laws should not reach into another country.
So the United States shouldn't be able to charge Osama bin Laden with murder?
The problem with a world governing body is that their power limits reach much further than ICANN's ever could. After all, it is government.
You're thinking of a specific implementation. As I said, the powers would have to be extremely limited and enumerated.
That's not like freenet. Freenet is decentralized. FTP servers are centralized.
If users know exactly what they have in their cache, there is a risk that users start editing or erasing content.
So? The point is that no single entity is in charge. If no one wants to help you deliver your crap, that's their right. As for your content being edited, if you want to protect against this you can sign it. But that isn't necessary for all content, and it certainly isn't necessary to encrypt and reencrypt at every single stage.
Wireless connections can't reach from here to Google's servers. It's still not really P2P.
Then content may migrate on the people's net.
I guess it's possible. You'd have to design a new routing mechanism which could handle such a transient decentralized network (presumably GPS based). And then you'd have to come up with a trust system to ensure that people are routing fairly. Also a trust system to protect against MITM attacks. And the whole thing would require new wireless devices, which were able to redirect themselves for point to point communication, otherwise you're not going to have enough bandwidth with everyone broadcasting everything.
It's possible, but it's certainly not here now, and it probably never will be. You couldn't get everyone to agree to use the system without already having centralized control, and people with a lot of control generally don't readily give it up.
Technologically literate people are going to be the ones implementing the system, so that's not going to be a problem. I don't suggest that the UN should have any powers to jail people or anything like that. They'd be like the Supreme Court in the United States. All they can do is make their ruling, and rely on others to implement it.
I think you answered your own question. They would enforce it by getting the owners of the individual networks voluntarily to agree to follow their direction. Assuming they came up with a plan which was agreed upon by the vast majority of the countries, migration could begin. Countries which refused to agree would slowly be forced off the network until they did agree.
They could just allow each country's existing laws to take care of things that might be illegal rather than create new ones that just muddy up the legal system.
That's not working, and it never will. The internet is international, and one country's laws are rarely able to reach into another country.
But, I personally don't want some world governing body controlling what goes down on the internet.
I don't want anyone controlling what goes down on the internet. Unfortunately, that's impossible. Someone's gotta allocate the IP addresses, after all. If there's gonna be a governing body controlling what goes down on the internet (currently ICANN), it should be a world governing body, not a US corporation.
Going totally P2P would require a wire running from every house to every single other one in the world. It's impossible. For now we'll have to deal with mostly P2P. Centralized IP address control, but everything else is voluntary (you could start your own alternic if you didn't like the current root servers).
Too bad it's slow as hell.
Something like Freenet would be great. But without all the encryption/anonymity nonsense.
Lots of countries have constituions and bills or rights.
There are lots of reasons not to just leave it here. For one thing, a system of rules effecting a group of people should come from that entire group of people, not one single subgroup. Secondly, the United States Constitution isn't geared toward the internet.
I don't have a problem with UN control of the Internet, as long as that control is severely limited in scope, and protections are put in place to avoid things like censorship. Basically, we'd need to start with a Constitution. Define the enumerated powers (international spam, international denial of service, etc), and then add in a bill of rights (no rule shall be made abridging the right of communication between a willing sender and a willing recipient, etc).
First I always put the last line or two of error messages into google. 8 times out of 10, I find someone asking the same question, and usually someone has already posted an answer.
Actually, before even that I check with Linux From Scratch (and Beyond LFS). But there are a whole lot of packages they don't cover.
Rather than attempting to include support for every architecture via autoconf, I think the BSD ports approach is far superior
The problem is, how do you install the ports system? I'm currently trying to install Gentoo on my Linux box, but the installation is failing.
Look, there's no way this sort of thing is helping innovation. Crazy Taxi still would have been created without the benefits of patent law. Congress needs to start holding hearings about patent law reform, because this crap has got to stop.
What does MS having media aspirations have to do with anything?
Being that I sort of know the nullsoft crew, I know they probably didn't like having to do this.
Umm. Winamp was shareware before AOL got a hold of it. Only after AOL bought Nullsoft did they offer it for free. But, you know the nullsoft crew, so you probably already know that.
Isn't Lindows almost as expensive as Windows anyway?
unless you don't mind playing tech support for the next few years of your life.
As someone else mentioned, Mac OS X is the one consumer OS that gets this right: root isn't even enabled by default, and sudo is the only way to act as root without mucking around with NetInfo.
Yeah but once you break in you can easily enable root. My mom has OS X, and she forgot her password. I created a new user, gave it admin access, SUed to it, enabled root, changed the root password, SUed to root, and changed her password.
If Lindows didn't have that stupid security flaw, it would be a better choice for machines like AOL's.
As long as people can install unsigned applications, stupid people will get rooted, no doesn't matter what you do. Just pop up a dialog box asking for the root password.