2 out of 3 links broken. Questionable sources. Circlular references to posts on Slashdot, that have already been recinded.
Does anybody even glance at these articles before they post them?
Re:Linux rehashs 70s era OS.. wow, special.
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 1
Sideways from what? A GUI is not an OS. You might think that an OS without a fancy GUI isnt useful, but that doesnt make it a fact.
Sure the GUI != the OS but it is the part that you use in a desktop system.
Have you noticed in computer comercials (Gateway, Dell,..) that when they show "the computer" they normally only show a monitor and a keyboard. People don't care about the underlying technology they only care about their interface to it.
A shovel with a crooked, broken, or sharp and prickly handle may use a better underlying technology but that doesn't make it a better shovel.
It could be argued that the core of the OS is the tricky part and the GUI is trivial. But I think it is much more likely to be the other way around.
Linux rehashs 70s era OS.. wow, special.
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 5
I think the real future of Unix looks something like MacOS X, not Linux.
The communinity development model so far has been unable to do anything other than kludge together something as important of the GUI. Gnome and KDE are just the first iteration towards a useful user experience.
Apple, on the other hand, has taken the core of a Unix system and used a single vision/goal/thingy to synthesize something new and exciting from two fairly stagnant OSs. Borrowing from the low level functionality of Unix and the elegant UI of MacOS they have made a real step forward.
I'm saying that a BSD licensed piece of software is more useful to ME than a GPLd piece of software. If the author doesn't care about making his software more useful for other people, but instead prefers to limit its usefulness for ideological reasons that's fine. I think it's stupid but it is up to the author.
J. C.: Yeah, the network stuff did not go as smooth as could have been with Sega. [...] They couldn't tell us when anything was gonna be done, and we basically said, "Look, if you give us the specs for the modem DSP we can write our own TCP stack. I can just take some FreeBSD code and we can have something together and just get it done."
Let's see a GPL'd TCP stack do that. Sure they didn't actually end up using the FreeBSD stack, but at least they could have. Although I basically agree with the GPL it can at times get in the way of "just getting it done", which I think is what most programmers really want. I really don't care if information wants to be free, I just want to get stuff done.
My favorite point, the one I've been talking about for years, the one that is silently happening already, is embedding advertising in the content.
We can only skip commercials because they are a seperate chunk from the main program. Significant product placement already goes on, but I think "The Truman Show" with its constant barrage of background characters selling products (because it has "no commercials") gives the most accurate taste of what is to come.
Why is it we don't like ads? Is it because they are intrusive? Like blaring used car commericals and telemarketers or because we don't like to feel like we're being manipulated.
If ads can be smuggled in with legitimate programming, is that a bad thing because it is even more subliminal or is it a good thing because it removes interruptions?
Just because we think something should be free (speech) doesn't mean it's a sound business model to make it free (beer). I think even the FSF would agree with this.
If you want access to the full feed of data you can hook up a newsfeed of your own. If what you really want is a convienent way of doing it then you're going to have to chip in some of the costs. Get over it.
I remember trading mp3s several years ago. Almost everyone you chatted with (people would sometimes do that back then) had taste in music. I wouldn't say everyone had good taste, but they knew what they liked and they cared enough to try to figure out what else they would like.
Napster and similar services may make life easier for someone trying to find the latest Christina Agulargagainabottle to sonicly beat off to but it doesn't do much good if you love music and are looking for like minded people to trade tips with.
I'm sure there's still a few dark corners of the internet where people who love music still gather, far from the bright lights of commerical pop, but for know I think I'll just go back to hanging out at the record store every now and then and shoot the shit with people who care.
The reason for using 5.004, 5.005, etc was originally because in some cases version numbers were compared as strings so something like 5.9 -> 5.10 would be misinterpreted. They left enough head room so they could have more than 100 minor revisions between majors. Newer version of perl know how to compare version numbers as numbers so the old numbering system can be thrown out for a sensible one.
6. BACKUP COPY... you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT soley for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA,
you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
(bold is mine)
IANAL but that seems pretty clear to me. Does anyone here ever read the license agreements? or just bitch about them and try to pseudo-lawyer around them?
The women I know all think I use the computer too much. They also have absolutely no interest in knowing any more than they have to in order use them. Sure that's practical and all, but that's no way to become a skillful hacker.
You might as well be asking why there aren't more female mechanics or inventors. Most women don't seem to have that weird, driven curiosity that we here all understand far too well.
At some point women are going to have to take responsibility for their lack of curiosity. Especially if we have to take responsibility for fear of commitment! =)
It's the FBI's job to hunt these guys down (maybe, do they have jurisdiction if the attack is launched from another country?) But the media has fixated on the cops and robbers aspect of this story.
If we don't solve the underlying problem this will just keep happening and we'll all be dependent on the FBI to come and save our e-commerce asses.
If you build your house on a cliff made of silt, it is your fault if it slides into the ocean.
DDoS attacks are just one kind of the "forces of nature" you get on the Internet.
Maybe an individual is ultimately responsible for this attack but catching him won't make anyone significantly safer.
We find the people responsible for this particular attack, so what?
The problem is in the architecture of the Internet. The FBI will say that they need more access to snoop on traffic, but what if the FBI gets cracked? (or heaven forbid, the US government turns out to be untrustworthy).
Strong authentication all along the data path is what we really need. That won't stop the attacks but it will help point the finger of blame and that can be an excellent incentive to strengthen an organizations security practices. Just imagine if UCSB and Stanford got blacklisted by their upstream provider until they could prove that they had fixed their security problems.
It's not the attackers' fault that 99.9% of the organizations on the Internet don't take security seriously. There's a problem with the system people and it needs fixin'.
Other than being incredibly cyberpunkish, what would be the benefit of integrating computers and clothing?
Jeans that zip up for you.
Armpits that warn you if you're sweating too much
T-Shirts with screensaverish designs
Day of the week underwear that automatically updates
Just imagine if your laundry could sniff itself and tell you if you could wear it one more day without your even having to get out of bed! Anyone have any other ideas?
The test we really need is one to filter out all the suckups who only get by through hours of studying. They throw off the curve and make the dorms boring.
University should be for people who are interested in learning *new* things, experimental stuff. If you only want to regurgitate textbooks go to a vocational school.
Something that measures adaptability and creativity instead of rote knowledge is definitely a step in the right direction.
XHTML is specifically designed to work in existing browsers if you follow the considerations in Appendix C of the spec. You can code your pages in XHTML now and they will continue to work. Good luck trying to do a cross browser layout using only XHTML-strict and style sheets though.
Looks like this guy is another fine graduate of the "Enough to be Dangerous School of Law."
I think it's great that people are examining the GPL for loopholes. But can we stop jumping to conclusions? There really isn't a need to go off to slashdot half-cocked screaming about glaring flaws that completely invalidate the entire GPL everytime you think you may have something.
Re:What goes around comes around..
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 1
The GPL doesn't allow an employee to take the work he has done on company time and distribute it for free. The GPL doesn't require anyone to distribute anything, it just specifies the terms that you are allowed to distribute under (you must include source with binary modifications, etc).
IANAL but I don't believe the company is "distributing" the software to its employees, the employees are using the software as an agent of the company.
Slashdot Mirror
2 out of 3 links broken. Questionable sources. Circlular references to posts on Slashdot, that have already been recinded.
Does anybody even glance at these articles before they post them?
Sideways from what? A GUI is not an OS. You might think that an OS without a fancy GUI isnt useful, but that doesnt make it a fact.
Sure the GUI != the OS but it is the part that you use in a desktop system.
Have you noticed in computer comercials (Gateway, Dell,..) that when they show "the computer" they normally only show a monitor and a keyboard. People don't care about the underlying technology they only care about their interface to it.
A shovel with a crooked, broken, or sharp and prickly handle may use a better underlying technology but that doesn't make it a better shovel.
It could be argued that the core of the OS is the tricky part and the GUI is trivial. But I think it is much more likely to be the other way around.
I think the real future of Unix looks something like MacOS X, not Linux.
The communinity development model so far has been unable to do anything other than kludge together something as important of the GUI. Gnome and KDE are just the first iteration towards a useful user experience.
Apple, on the other hand, has taken the core of a Unix system and used a single vision/goal/thingy to synthesize something new and exciting from two fairly stagnant OSs. Borrowing from the low level functionality of Unix and the elegant UI of MacOS they have made a real step forward.
Linux so far is a step sideways at best.
I'm saying that a BSD licensed piece of software is more useful to ME than a GPLd piece of software. If the author doesn't care about making his software more useful for other people, but instead prefers to limit its usefulness for ideological reasons that's fine. I think it's stupid but it is up to the author.
My favorite point, the one I've been talking about for years, the one that is silently happening already, is embedding advertising in the content.
We can only skip commercials because they are a seperate chunk from the main program. Significant product placement already goes on, but I think "The Truman Show" with its constant barrage of background characters selling products (because it has "no commercials") gives the most accurate taste of what is to come.
Why is it we don't like ads? Is it because they are intrusive? Like blaring used car commericals and telemarketers or because we don't like to feel like we're being manipulated.
If ads can be smuggled in with legitimate programming, is that a bad thing because it is even more subliminal or is it a good thing because it removes interruptions?
Hmm.. ok.. maybe that will work then.
Thanks for the quarter!
If anybody else wants to send me money to prove a point, please feel free.
This model will only ever work on a wide / large scale with a convienent way of doing micro-payments.
Any transaction less than a couple dollars is going to get a very significant amount snarfed up by the credit card companies.
Just because we think something should be free (speech) doesn't mean it's a sound business model to make it free (beer). I think even the FSF would agree with this.
If you want access to the full feed of data you can hook up a newsfeed of your own. If what you really want is a convienent way of doing it then you're going to have to chip in some of the costs. Get over it.
I remember trading mp3s several years ago. Almost everyone you chatted with (people would sometimes do that back then) had taste in music. I wouldn't say everyone had good taste, but they knew what they liked and they cared enough to try to figure out what else they would like.
Napster and similar services may make life easier for someone trying to find the latest Christina Agulargagainabottle to sonicly beat off to but it doesn't do much good if you love music and are looking for like minded people to trade tips with.
I'm sure there's still a few dark corners of the internet where people who love music still gather, far from the bright lights of commerical pop, but for know I think I'll just go back to hanging out at the record store every now and then and shoot the shit with people who care.
I think maybe he meant, it would be cool if we finally took a first step.
Anyway living off of your own refuse in the arctic is kinda cool... not
The reason for using 5.004, 5.005, etc was originally because in some cases version numbers were compared as strings so something like 5.9 -> 5.10 would be misinterpreted. They left enough head room so they could have more than 100 minor revisions between majors. Newer version of perl know how to compare version numbers as numbers so the old numbering system can be thrown out for a sensible one.
At least that's what I remember hearing once.
What if instead of just passively dropping off the network, the US nodes started broadcasting null routes? or somesuch other evil thing?
IANAL but that seems pretty clear to me. Does anyone here ever read the license agreements? or just bitch about them and try to pseudo-lawyer around them?
The women I know all think I use the computer too much. They also have absolutely no interest in knowing any more than they have to in order use them. Sure that's practical and all, but that's no way to become a skillful hacker.
You might as well be asking why there aren't more female mechanics or inventors. Most women don't seem to have that weird, driven curiosity that we here all understand far too well.
At some point women are going to have to take responsibility for their lack of curiosity. Especially if we have to take responsibility for fear of commitment! =)
It's the FBI's job to hunt these guys down (maybe, do they have jurisdiction if the attack is launched from another country?) But the media has fixated on the cops and robbers aspect of this story.
If we don't solve the underlying problem this will just keep happening and we'll all be dependent on the FBI to come and save our e-commerce asses.
If you build your house on a cliff made of silt, it is your fault if it slides into the ocean.
DDoS attacks are just one kind of the "forces of nature" you get on the Internet.
Maybe an individual is ultimately responsible for this attack but catching him won't make anyone significantly safer.
We find the people responsible for this particular attack, so what?
The problem is in the architecture of the Internet. The FBI will say that they need more access to snoop on traffic, but what if the FBI gets cracked? (or heaven forbid, the US government turns out to be untrustworthy).
Strong authentication all along the data path is what we really need. That won't stop the attacks but it will help point the finger of blame and that can be an excellent incentive to strengthen an organizations security practices. Just imagine if UCSB and Stanford got blacklisted by their upstream provider until they could prove that they had fixed their security problems.
It's not the attackers' fault that 99.9% of the organizations on the Internet don't take security seriously. There's a problem with the system people and it needs fixin'.
Just imagine if your laundry could sniff itself and tell you if you could wear it one more day without your even having to get out of bed! Anyone have any other ideas?
But I didn't get enough of the flat rectangles!
The test we really need is one to filter out all the suckups who only get by through hours of studying. They throw off the curve and make the dorms boring.
University should be for people who are interested in learning *new* things, experimental stuff. If you only want to regurgitate textbooks go to a vocational school.
Something that measures adaptability and creativity instead of rote knowledge is definitely a step in the right direction.
XHTML is specifically designed to work in existing browsers if you follow the considerations in Appendix C of the spec. You can code your pages in XHTML now and they will continue to work. Good luck trying to do a cross browser layout using only XHTML-strict and style sheets though.
Looks like this guy is another fine graduate of the "Enough to be Dangerous School of Law."
I think it's great that people are examining the GPL for loopholes. But can we stop jumping to conclusions? There really isn't a need to go off to slashdot half-cocked screaming about glaring flaws that completely invalidate the entire GPL everytime you think you may have something.
The GPL doesn't allow an employee to take the work he has done on company time and distribute it for free. The GPL doesn't require anyone to distribute anything, it just specifies the terms that you are allowed to distribute under (you must include source with binary modifications, etc).
IANAL but I don't believe the company is "distributing" the software to its employees, the employees are using the software as an agent of the company.
That's ok, Jennifer Connelly is even more hot in Dark City and she was definitely legal then.