Without seriously sitting down and thinking about it, I have to say this does not look like a bad thing. Currently similar regulations exist to make sure brick-and-morter drug stores do this, why should online drug stores be any different? I think the perscription system works quite well, or at least is better than the alternatives.
My question is: what about international drug retailers? What is to prevent a company from setting up shop in Outer Mongolia and sending all sorts of drugs (perhaps even `medicinal' pot) without a perscription? Does this already happen? For example, there are several abortion pills that a legal in places like France, but still illegal here. What is to stop me (or, rather, my girlfriend) from just ordering them from a French online pharmacy?
The only way I can see the US `solving' this is actually opening packages and doing chemical samples, and thats a pretty scary thought! What if it is sent by a private mail carrier, like DHL? It gets pretty thorny pretty fast!
Of course. Public-key Crypto. Much like the ssh install, first time you run the progam, a public key is created for you. When you want to tranfer files, a connection is established (maybe even over ssh), public keys are exchanged, and off you go. The are excellent open source programs to do this already (OpenSSH, GnuPG, etc). The wheel has been invented, now its time to use it!
(The even easier solution is not build it into the CAD program, just have people mail files securly with GnuPG/PGP. Why make CAD programmers deal with encryption, its not their baliwick!).
I disagree completely. It is true that ESR is making a big stretch, one that many people would think is invalid. And it is true that Quake has little to do with e-commerce per se. But ESR is not actually comparing Quake to e-commerce. He is comparing development methodologies and their outcome. His points (such as "Don't trust a client") apply just as well to E-commerce as they do to Quake. This is why we see very few client-side e-commerce sites (I can't think of any).
ESR is not saying very much about the Quake problem. He gives no solutions of further insight into Quake. What he is trying to warn people about is that this is nothing new, that Quake still has a closed-source security method that only now has been opened. One can't expect the magical "Open Source" pixie dust to fix fundemental security flaws.
The most important point which ESR makes (or at least hints at) is the crux of the open-source security paradym (sorry, I know people hate that word, but it does fit here): Open Source Makes Security Problems Easier to Find for BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. That last clause is what makes the "debate" between open and closed source security types interesting. Big companies see that it is easier for crackers to break an open source solution and shy away. Open source types see it makes it easier to make a quality product and embrace it. BOTH VIEW ARE CORRECT. That is the crux of the issue, so well demonstrated by Quake. That is not quite ESR's point, but he at least implies it. With this in mind, ESR makes much more sense.
I see what you are saying, and I think we are just differing on semantics. I would not class the reflexes and mental preparedness as `training'. Preperation, maybe. But in that respect, I don't see how Virtua Cop is different from Quake. I mean, they both provide reflexes (you have heard my various Marathon stories) and a mental conception of the trivial nature of death. You could argue (and I think you just did) that what games like Virtua Cop et al. provide is the physical reenforcment to the mental process. Moveing whole arms as opposed to clicking buttons. Perhaps this is true, but there are many other activites that provide a far greater `benefit' training wise, such as a rousing game of basketball or any other physical activity (martial arts, fencing, and other hand-eye type things).
Anyway, my point is maybe `actual gun' style games do provide some preperation to murderers, but I think the amount they provide is very minimally different from any other FPS game, which in and of itself is minimal. It takes an already very disturbed mind to go out and kill 13 people, I dont think FPSs in any form can be considered distubing/preparing/training enough to be in any way a significant factor in any such rampage.
--Nick the done with finals and damn happy about it!
I both agree and disagree. It is true that Quake (and all FPSs) teach nothing in regards to actual skill (as a member of a college rifle team and an ex-rabid-game-junkie [damn wrists], I feel confident is saying that Quake has NO bearing on technical shooting skill). But neither does Virtua Cop, or Duck hunt. The skills required for actual shooting are totally unrelated. In fact, a serious hacker (in the real sense of the word) would be a better shot that an duck-hunt fanatic. Why? Its all about concentration. Duck hunt is the antithesis of what good shooting should be.
Nevertheless, while such games impart no skill, it is distinctly debateable if they impart some distinct apathy. Admittedly, Im sure video games have less of an effect on young children then TV or movies these day, but I cannot help but feel distressed when I see young kids planning how best to kill off the most enemy units without even realizing what it is they are contemplating. Perhaps it is that I remember the times when I would do the very same thing. I remember after playing Myth for several days, I spotted a large group of people and thought to myself "Dwarf! Grenade!". Its was rather scary.
Anyway its late here and I have rambled incoherently enough.
In summary: You are right, Quake teaches no skill. You are wrong, Virtua Cop teaches no skill. You overlook the potential for desensification to violence.
It is not a full window manager, and is intended to run alongside other window managers (although some people I know run it alone). Basically, it takes a config file of keybinding and sits in the X keyboard event stream and if any of those bindings comes up, it does some action. The actions are highly configureable, from executing a program to moving the window 5 pixels to the left to some complex macro that revereses the position of two windows. Basically, any action that can be formally described can be done.
The only weakness I have found (the only time I take my hands off the keyboard) is for Netscape. I have not yet found a solution for that.
NAWM is kinda hard to find, I've never actually seen it packaged. I found the src online once, downloaded each file and compiled it myself. If you really can't find it, email me and I'll see if I can drag the src out of my backups.
You are of course completely correct in that flaws are bad both in servers and workstations. Things that are flaws on one role are pretty much always flaws on the other. The point you overlook however is that in different roles different flaws have different importances.
For example, lack of applications could be considered a flaw, as could crashing. Lets say (I don't nececcarly agree, but conventional wisdom which we are analysing has it that) Linux crashes more but has more apps and BSD has less apps but crashes less. In a workstation role, apps are critical. The benfit of more apps outweights the benefits of stability. It is not that crashing is any more "acceptable" in a single-user role, it is just that there are more important concerns. It doesnt matter how little it crashes if it doesnt do what you want!
So, we see that the "Conventional Wisdom" as you put does not say it is OK to crash a little in single-user roles, but just that there are higher priorities.
Of course, then you come to the base assumption of said wisdom which runs along the lines of: Linux has more apps, more drivers, nicer interfaces, and faster paced development but at the cost of stability and 'correctness.'
In my personal experice this is true. I use a Linux workstation every day but when I had to nuke my server (after several years of faithful Linux service) I decided to try FreeBSD. It took me a while to install it, the installation was harder (a priority I consider low on a server, higher on a workstation). But once I finished, I found much the same thing as the reviewer: everything fit together perfectly. make buildworld is an amazing thing to watch. Everything has a place and the documentation is superb. I was very pleased.
Conversely, when it came time to nuke my workstation I didn't even think of BSD. Why? Because its a shitty home-build mutt that has been upgraded over a period of 3 years. FreeBSD did not have all the drivers I needed. In addition, getting apps on FreeBSD is harder. You don't usually need gtk+ on a server, but I sure as hell ain't living without it on my desktop! (I know, gtk is in the ports tree, but it is never up to date).
In summary: you are right. Given infinite development time, there need not be a difference between server OS's and workstation OS's. But, given that there are different priorities in different roles, and given that there are limited developer-hours, having different OS's focus on different roles makes perfect sense.
In the story "Our Neural Chernobyl" (I think by Bruce Sterling), this very thing is predicted (except in the story, cancer is completely cured by an altered HIV strain). That was the basis for the story, it went on to show some potential consequences of having gene-splicing technology accessable to bright young hackers (not hax0rs). I won't give it away, but it is very good read.
If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend the anthology "Hackers" (I forget the editors). Its a collection of such stories, dealing with technology getting into the hands of hackers (again, in the good sense) and what are some potential consequences. A wonderful collection. In the same vein, "Mirrorshades" edited by Bruce Sterling (I think it may be out of print though) is another excellent anthology of such stories.
I have never like overclocking because I was under the impression chips burn out faster. Since I am a starving student, lifespans are important to me (the 3 boxen I am running are a k5-75, Cyrix 6x86 P200+ [150 MHz, what a gyp!] and a P-100, all of which have been in use almost 24/7 for 2-3 years).
My question is: assuming the computer stays on 24/7, is the total number of MHz*hours greater with or without overclocking? In other words, taking into account both speed and lifespan, do you get more for your money with or without overclocking?
Obviously, this has a large number of simplifing assumptions: a) the mobo/chip burns out first, b) lifespan is shorter than total upgrade cycle, etc. Still, I'd be curious, does anyone have any sort of numbers one way or the other?
--Nick (The email is real. I don't check it though)
I suppose where we disagree is in our definitions of "compel." As you see it, the GPL compels others to make their source code free. As I see it, the GPL merely gives a choice:
1) Use the GPL'd software, and follow its restrictions.
2) Do not use the GPL'd software.
Nobody is *forcing* you to choose #1.
What I think Tom is saying is that with the BSD license, you have 3 choices:
1) Use the code, publish your code under any random license you want.
2) Use the code, keep the code secret.
3) Don't use the code.
Obviously, these are more choices, and #1 is broader too. Thus you now have more freedom of action than you did with GPL software. This is a good thing.
Personally, I think the GPL helps both the free software and the opensource camps, but I think that BSD type licenses [and systems] help the whole software industry. Obviously having big companies publish their code is good, but the GPL does not cause them to do that, it just causes them to write their own inferior code and ram it down the poor user's throat!
In my opinion, I think it will be better to make "Not willing to Moderate" the default. If someone who does not have the energy or willingness to change a simple preferences option will probably not have the energy to actually do any moderation. Being a moderator is all well and good, but if you never use the power it is pretty pointless. If you have to set "Willing to Moderate," it is much much more likely you want to moderate, and will do so.
Although I am slightly worried about moderation as a whole (I always worry about systems which have the potential to silence people) I agree that some sort of moderation is needed. I think Rob is doing the right thing overall, and I will reserve judgement about specific plans until I see them work (or fail to work).
Slashdot Mirror
Without seriously sitting down and thinking about it, I have to say this does not look like a bad thing. Currently similar regulations exist to make sure brick-and-morter drug stores do this, why should online drug stores be any different? I think the perscription system works quite well, or at least is better than the alternatives.
My question is: what about international drug retailers? What is to prevent a company from setting up shop in Outer Mongolia and sending all sorts of drugs (perhaps even `medicinal' pot) without a perscription? Does this already happen? For example, there are several abortion pills that a legal in places like France, but still illegal here. What is to stop me (or, rather, my girlfriend) from just ordering them from a French online pharmacy?
The only way I can see the US `solving' this is actually opening packages and doing chemical samples, and thats a pretty scary thought! What if it is sent by a private mail carrier, like DHL? It gets pretty thorny pretty fast!
> it's "paradigm"
Thank you for your correction.
My Humblest Apologies,
-Nick
(PS: I know I can't spell. At this point, I no longer care.)
Of course. Public-key Crypto. Much like the ssh install, first time you run the progam, a public key is created for you. When you want to tranfer files, a connection is established (maybe even over ssh), public keys are exchanged, and off you go. The are excellent open source programs to do this already (OpenSSH, GnuPG, etc). The wheel has been invented, now its time to use it!
(The even easier solution is not build it into the CAD program, just have people mail files securly with GnuPG/PGP. Why make CAD programmers deal with encryption, its not their baliwick!).
I disagree completely. It is true that ESR is making a big stretch, one that many people would think is invalid. And it is true that Quake has little to do with e-commerce per se. But ESR is not actually comparing Quake to e-commerce. He is comparing development methodologies and their outcome. His points (such as "Don't trust a client") apply just as well to E-commerce as they do to Quake. This is why we see very few client-side e-commerce sites (I can't think of any).
ESR is not saying very much about the Quake problem. He gives no solutions of further insight into Quake. What he is trying to warn people about is that this is nothing new, that Quake still has a closed-source security method that only now has been opened. One can't expect the magical "Open Source" pixie dust to fix fundemental security flaws.
The most important point which ESR makes (or at least hints at) is the crux of the open-source security paradym (sorry, I know people hate that word, but it does fit here): Open Source Makes Security Problems Easier to Find for BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. That last clause is what makes the "debate" between open and closed source security types interesting. Big companies see that it is easier for crackers to break an open source solution and shy away. Open source types see it makes it easier to make a quality product and embrace it. BOTH VIEW ARE CORRECT. That is the crux of the issue, so well demonstrated by Quake. That is not quite ESR's point, but he at least implies it. With this in mind, ESR makes much more sense.
I see what you are saying, and I think we are just differing on semantics. I would not class the reflexes and mental preparedness as `training'. Preperation, maybe. But in that respect, I don't see how Virtua Cop is different from Quake. I mean, they both provide reflexes (you have heard my various Marathon stories) and a mental conception of the trivial nature of death. You could argue (and I think you just did) that what games like Virtua Cop et al. provide is the physical reenforcment to the mental process. Moveing whole arms as opposed to clicking buttons. Perhaps this is true, but there are many other activites that provide a far greater `benefit' training wise, such as a rousing game of basketball or any other physical activity (martial arts, fencing, and other hand-eye type things).
Anyway, my point is maybe `actual gun' style games do provide some preperation to murderers, but I think the amount they provide is very minimally different from any other FPS game, which in and of itself is minimal. It takes an already very disturbed mind to go out and kill 13 people, I dont think FPSs in any form can be considered distubing/preparing/training enough to be in any way a significant factor in any such rampage.
--Nick the done with finals and damn happy about it!
I both agree and disagree. It is true that Quake (and all FPSs) teach nothing in regards to actual skill (as a member of a college rifle team and an ex-rabid-game-junkie [damn wrists], I feel confident is saying that Quake has NO bearing on technical shooting skill). But neither does Virtua Cop, or Duck hunt. The skills required for actual shooting are totally unrelated. In fact, a serious hacker (in the real sense of the word) would be a better shot that an duck-hunt fanatic. Why? Its all about concentration. Duck hunt is the antithesis of what good shooting should be.
Nevertheless, while such games impart no skill, it is distinctly debateable if they impart some distinct apathy. Admittedly, Im sure video games have less of an effect on young children then TV or movies these day, but I cannot help but feel distressed when I see young kids planning how best to kill off the most enemy units without even realizing what it is they are contemplating. Perhaps it is that I remember the times when I would do the very same thing. I remember after playing Myth for several days, I spotted a large group of people and thought to myself "Dwarf! Grenade!". Its was rather scary.
Anyway its late here and I have rambled incoherently enough.
In summary: You are right, Quake teaches no skill. You are wrong, Virtua Cop teaches no skill. You overlook the potential for desensification to violence.
--Nick the Tired (aren't finals fun?)
RMS calls for boycott against Amazon -- Slashdot
ESR calls Fatwah against Mindcraft -- Suck Parody of Slashdot
I, for one, am amused!
--Nick
NAWM: Not a Window Manager
It is not a full window manager, and is intended to run alongside other window managers (although some people I know run it alone). Basically, it takes a config file of keybinding and sits in the X keyboard event stream and if any of those bindings comes up, it does some action. The actions are highly configureable, from executing a program to moving the window 5 pixels to the left to some complex macro that revereses the position of two windows. Basically, any action that can be formally described can be done.
The only weakness I have found (the only time I take my hands off the keyboard) is for Netscape. I have not yet found a solution for that.
NAWM is kinda hard to find, I've never actually seen it packaged. I found the src online once, downloaded each file and compiled it myself. If you really can't find it, email me and I'll see if I can drag the src out of my backups.
--Nick
You are of course completely correct in that flaws are bad both in servers and workstations. Things that are flaws on one role are pretty much always flaws on the other. The point you overlook however is that in different roles different flaws have different importances.
For example, lack of applications could be considered a flaw, as could crashing. Lets say (I don't nececcarly agree, but conventional wisdom which we are analysing has it that) Linux crashes more but has more apps and BSD has less apps but crashes less. In a workstation role, apps are critical. The benfit of more apps outweights the benefits of stability. It is not that crashing is any more "acceptable" in a single-user role, it is just that there are more important concerns. It doesnt matter how little it crashes if it doesnt do what you want!
So, we see that the "Conventional Wisdom" as you put does not say it is OK to crash a little in single-user roles, but just that there are higher priorities.
Of course, then you come to the base assumption of said wisdom which runs along the lines of: Linux has more apps, more drivers, nicer interfaces, and faster paced development but at the cost of stability and 'correctness.'
In my personal experice this is true. I use a Linux workstation every day but when I had to nuke my server (after several years of faithful Linux service) I decided to try FreeBSD. It took me a while to install it, the installation was harder (a priority I consider low on a server, higher on a workstation). But once I finished, I found much the same thing as the reviewer: everything fit together perfectly. make buildworld is an amazing thing to watch. Everything has a place and the documentation is superb. I was very pleased.
Conversely, when it came time to nuke my workstation I didn't even think of BSD. Why? Because its a shitty home-build mutt that has been upgraded over a period of 3 years. FreeBSD did not have all the drivers I needed. In addition, getting apps on FreeBSD is harder. You don't usually need gtk+ on a server, but I sure as hell ain't living without it on my desktop! (I know, gtk is in the ports tree, but it is never up to date).
In summary: you are right. Given infinite development time, there need not be a difference between server OS's and workstation OS's. But, given that there are different priorities in different roles, and given that there are limited developer-hours, having different OS's focus on different roles makes perfect sense.
--Nick
In the story "Our Neural Chernobyl" (I think by Bruce Sterling), this very thing is predicted (except in the story, cancer is completely cured by an altered HIV strain). That was the basis for the story, it went on to show some potential consequences of having gene-splicing technology accessable to bright young hackers (not hax0rs). I won't give it away, but it is very good read.
If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend the anthology "Hackers" (I forget the editors). Its a collection of such stories, dealing with technology getting into the hands of hackers (again, in the good sense) and what are some potential consequences. A wonderful collection. In the same vein, "Mirrorshades" edited by Bruce Sterling (I think it may be out of print though) is another excellent anthology of such stories.
--Nick
Not quite relevent, but I'm curious:
I have never like overclocking because I was under the impression chips burn out faster. Since I am a starving student, lifespans are important to me (the 3 boxen I am running are a k5-75, Cyrix 6x86 P200+ [150 MHz, what a gyp!] and a P-100, all of which have been in use almost 24/7 for 2-3 years).
My question is: assuming the computer stays on 24/7, is the total number of MHz*hours greater with or without overclocking? In other words, taking into account both speed and lifespan, do you get more for your money with or without overclocking?
Obviously, this has a large number of simplifing assumptions: a) the mobo/chip burns out first, b) lifespan is shorter than total upgrade cycle, etc. Still, I'd be curious, does anyone have any sort of numbers one way or the other?
--Nick
(The email is real. I don't check it though)
What I think Tom is saying is that with the BSD license, you have 3 choices:
1) Use the code, publish your code under any random license you want.
2) Use the code, keep the code secret.
3) Don't use the code.
Obviously, these are more choices, and #1 is broader too. Thus you now have more freedom of action than you did with GPL software. This is a good thing.
Personally, I think the GPL helps both the free software and the opensource camps, but I think that BSD type licenses [and systems] help the whole software industry. Obviously having big companies publish their code is good, but the GPL does not cause them to do that, it just causes them to write their own inferior code and ram it down the poor user's throat!
#include
require 'no_flame_me.pm'
--Nick Martin
In my opinion, I think it will be better to make "Not willing to Moderate" the default. If someone who does not have the energy or willingness to change a simple preferences option will probably not have the energy to actually do any moderation. Being a moderator is all well and good, but if you never use the power it is pretty pointless. If you have to set "Willing to Moderate," it is much much more likely you want to moderate, and will do so.
Although I am slightly worried about moderation as a whole (I always worry about systems which have the potential to silence people) I agree that some sort of moderation is needed. I think Rob is doing the right thing overall, and I will reserve judgement about specific plans until I see them work (or fail to work).
--Nick