Microsoft realizes that one of the primary advantages of Linux is its ability to mutate into specialized versions. Microsoft has also realized that their current and potential customers know about this advantage of OSS. But Windows isn't going to change to be more like Linux; in reality, it can't because it is proprietary. So the solution for MS is to downplay that advantage and try to turn it into a disadvantage, at least in the eyes of people who see their advertisements.
If you didn't know anything about OSS and the passion behind it, you might think that it's foolish to rely on a bunch of programmers scattered around the world for your business software needs. After all, there's no real accountability. This is what MS is trying to play off of. But those who are "in the biz," to use the parlance of our times, know that OSS ironically has better reliability and abundant support, despite not being centralized.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
...he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs...
Another point to be made: IIRC, Gore admitted to experimenting with marijuana in the past. Clinton "didn't inhale." It's pretty well-known that Bush was quite the party animal back in the 70s. Yet these hypocrites want to send marijuana users to jail. The fact that these (and many, many, many more) politicians have smoked marijuana in the past should be evidence to them that smoking a joint is no more dangerous (less, in fact) to one's health and wellbeing than smoking a cigarette or having a drink. Browne openly admits that he tried marijuana in the 60s. For me, this says, "I'm not just a politician in some white building in Washington, I'm a real person too."
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
It's not as if Browne is going to take all the money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we know it needs to be phased out - it does not work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or at least a derivative of those plans.
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers, except we can't seem to get it right. I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
Both of these can be privatized. But again, I wouldn't support a sudden cut of such programs, they need to be phased out.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections, establishing a living wage, and providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans.
Nader want to tax the hell out of people who actually work and make money, and then give it to the poor. The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs). Call it trickle-down economics if you want, but a Robin Hood-esque plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work in my book.
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
Nader is riding the wave of people jaded by the political process. My interpretation of the meaning of elections is to vote for the person most qualified for the job.
Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays? If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.
The only example of this that I can think of at the moment is vagina, which was originally a slang term literally meaning the sheath of a sword -- the proper name for that part was c*nt.
I'm sorry, but I can't see what in the world the female genitalia has to do with the value of a penny.
I'm sure they're not going to make their first test run on a fully-outfitted, multi-million dollar F1 car. If they're smart they'll test it in the rain (or some other suitably slick surface). All that does is lower the total (what racers call) traction budget. This would allow the vehicle to operate at considerably lower speeds while still providing meaningful results.
This is a very interesting problem, and not one that I think can be solved in the near future provided that you exclude such technological advancements such as ABS. Newer ABS systems work by sensing lockup in one wheel (not just one axle) and adjusting the brakeing on each individual wheel. I assume the F1 robot wouldn't be afforded the luxury of a sensor on each wheel.
And how about the track itself? I suppose there would have to be something in/around the track that the robot could base its path on. But how would it deal with changing track conditions? Every racer knows that the track (not to mention the car) drives differently as the race progresses. What if oil or gravel is spilled on the track? If the robot comes in "thinking" that turn 4 is the same turn 4 that he entered last lap at 70 miles per hour, there's going to be trouble if that turn has changed drastically. There's no margin for error like that in F1 because the traction budget is already at 100%.
Here at MSU, laptops are required for engineering students in certain classes (the first of which is thermodynamics, usually taken sophomore year). And if I'm not mistaken, I think next year entering freshman engineering students will be required to have a laptop.
Some of the stuff teachers do with the machines is pretty neat. And I suppose for the non-computer literate engineering students - particularly those who have never owned a computer - they probably learn a good bit. But most of the time people are on Napster, playing video games, or talking to people.
I never really did think the integration of computers in the educational process was done the right way. It might work in mid to upper-level college courses (e.g. using Maple for calculus), but my former high school once considered requiring students to have laptops. Bad idea, I'm glad it never became a reality. We need to emphasize the traditional way of doing things now and let students explore other ways of doing them on their own (perhaps by a trip to the school computer lab).
...the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states...
I don't think that requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion can be considered rigorous parental control. Parents have the right (and duty) to keep abreast of what their children are doing, and to essentially dictate how the child lives and what he/she does (within reason, of course). I find it ironic that the issue of parental responsibility as it relates to abortion is popping up once again in a censorware thread.
As far as the issue of censorware in libraries is concerned, why not assign everyone with a library card a login, and apply censorware based on that? Let the parent of a minor decide whether or not censorware should be applied to the child's account. Just because a family can't afford a computer and internet access doesn't mean that they should have to live with absurd rules forced upon them by an ignorant government (or ignorant population, as the case may be).
No, what the MP3 revolution shows is that almost all music fans value the content more than the technical reproduction.
I think you're mistaken. Content doesn't play a role here. Essentially everything available in MP3 format is also available in an uncompressed digital format. But most the vast majority of MP3 listeners can't hear or don't care about the extremely large quality loss that is inherent in the MP3 compression algorithm.
This is the same group of people that use the term "high end car audio" without a hint of irony.
I sent my 10 year old sister into a computer game store to buy a copy of Q3. They would not sell it to her. They said it was too violent for someone that young.
This is more a question than a statement, because I don't know how the law deals with such a situation. Are the store owners required to sell something like Q3 to anyone unless a law says otherwise, or are they allowed to say who can and can't buy a game? Obviously I couldn't open a store and every time a black person came in, refuse to sell them a certain product. But does the same thing go for age?
Hellborn elfchild roadhog mountain fortune hunter man beheaded her.
I'm trying to see how restricting explicit video games to those under 18 (unless a parent/guardian is with them) is any different than doing the same thing for explicit movies. Alright, I give up... how are they different? This is not a ban on violent video games. It's not a free speech issue and it's not censorship. A 2 year old is allowed to play a game rated mature so long as [s]he has his/her parents' blessing.
If I had a 13 year old kid, I'd buy him Halflife or Quake3 if he wanted it. My parents let me have access to whatever video games I wanted, and I never walked into school with a shotgun. Why? Well I think it has something to do with the fact that I was raised well. This law still gives the parents the right to raise their child[ren] as they see fit.
If there was a head on the proverbial nail of Slashdotters, you've hit it. Folks around here just don't to see success from anything other than their select group of interests. While the whole "one click shopping" patent is a little obtuse, Slashdotters instinctively think they should hate Amazon.com. When the issue about Amazon charging different prices to different customers came up, most of/. jumped all over it. What's the problem here? If you don't like it, don't shop there. "Amazon.com has sold out!" No shit. They're in business to make money.
Lately I've seen a lot of pro-Nader posts. I prefer Browne, personally, but Nader makes some good points. But it seems to me that a large number of Slashdotters heard Nader was anti-corporation and jumped on the bandwagon. No, I don't think large corporations should run the country. Yes, I do think that a corporation, no matter what size, deserves to make money if they provide a useful service. I'll spare you the list of companies that/.'ers hate for no good reason other than the fact that they're successful.
And now we're at a new stage ever since Big Money entered "our" world (meaning OSS). Slashdot is aquired by Andover who files for an IPO, Red Hat goes public, etc., etc. Now all of the sudden it's "Slashdot sucks!" and "Red Hat is too commercial!" Fine. Don't go to Slashdot and use a different distro. It's just a matter of choice and opinion.
What do you want from the guy? I think you are expecting too much of him. He's just a guy, with opinions, and wants to express them, much as you have in your post.
I don't think it's expecting too much to ask a little professionalism and journalistic integrity. Rob certainly has a right to express his opinions, but (1) there are more constructive ways to do it than "Signal 11 is an idiot" and (2) he is running a for-profit website here.
Had Rob said, "Signal 11 incorrectly believes that I implemented the karma cap to spite him. He's spreading false information that it's only applied to certain accounts." it would have been much different. Not only is it more informative than "Signal 11 is an idiot," it would also make Rob look like the better man.
I think it's pretty clear to/. readers that Signal 11 is not an idiot. A karma whore? Sure, but I'm certain there are people who enjoy reading his comments occasionally. After all, they do get moderated up quite frequently (I suppose this is where you could argue that the moderation system is broken).
CmdrTaco: I am not a corporate drone (despite what the conspiracy theorists think).
I think it's pretty clear that Rob is saying what he feels. But I think it's gotten to the point where it's unprofessional. Why attack one person with name-calling in a public forum? As others have said, Slashdot has entered the "big time" - much more so now with the aquisition by Andover. I think one thing that needs to stop is the unprofessional behavior by some of the Slashdot staff. Calling your posters idiots or interjecting unfounded opinions while reporting a news story is truly a black eye on this forum.
I'm not trying to defend Signal 11, I'm just saying that CmdrTaco and the/. team really have bigger fish to fry. So what if Sig is a karma whore? There are much bigger problems in the moderation system and with trolls (although I don't think the moderation system is irrepairably broken).
Since I don't want to be one of those people who complains about a problem but doesn't offer a solution, I'll say this: I think Kuro5hin's moderation system is pretty good. Instead of me giving a comment an extra point with a +1 moderation, I'd like to be able to say, "this comment deserves a +3." I do get the feeling, though, that/. doesn't want to move to that kind of moderation system in part because of pride. But pride shouldn't stand in the way of a better system.
Ok, so I'm a few hours late to the party, but maybe one or two people will see this post. First, a preface: I use Linux, I don't particularly like Microsoft products. With that said...
...how am I supposed to convince my company that Apache and open source is a great way to go?
Well, you probably need to show them that Linux will make the company more profitable. As you said, the suits don't care about open source. And they really shouldn't. Personal agendas (e.g. "Microsoft is bad") shouldn't get in the way of what the company is there for: to make money. The same goes for you (the original poster). Just because you like OSS (and you should) doesn't mean that the solution for your company is to use it. There are far too many variables to consider.
Where can I get -credible- data to prove that Apache can outperform IIS?
That's really not a good way to go about it. If you're comparing an Accord and a Camry, you don't want to go looking for information that will prove that the Accord is better. You have to look at it much more objectively. I remember back in '92 when I was looking for a mountain bike. I decided what I wanted before I even started researching, and bought a bike that really wasn't the best for my money. I think the analogy fits this situation somewhat.
Besides all that, as I'm sure a million other people have mentioned, benchmarks aren't very valuable. You've probably heard a quote attributed to Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Look hard enough and you can dig up factual data to back up most anything. But it's rarely the full story.
If you don't think it would benefit others to read, why would you bother posting it in the first place?
I reread my post and can see how I was unclear. DebtAngel got it right... This post (and DebtAngel's) is a perfect example. My reply is in response to your post, and while a couple of people might like to see it, I like to keep posts like this under the +2 boundary so people who don't want to see it don't have to.
Of all the mods I get, "overrated" is nearly half of them. Nobody is keeping moderators who use those options in line.
I moderate as "overrated" a pretty good bit when I have moderator access. In the last month I've been posting to/. a lot more, and as a result have attained the +1 bonus on my posts. But when I want to post something non-anonymously that I don't think would benefit others to read, I disable the +1 and post at just plain 1.
I usually read/. at a +2 threshold and decent into a discussion if I want (unless I'm moderating, when I read at 0, nested). I read at +2 and sort by highest scores first because sometimes I just want to pop in and get a few interesting opinions on a subject. I don't want to see 30 posts at +2 that are just somebody's one-liner comeback buried down in a thread. From what I've read in the/. FAQ and what I believe to be true, this is why "overrated" is in there. I'm not sure about "underrated" though, because if it's underrated then it should be marked as what it is (funny, insightful, informative...).
There are plenty of flaws with the moderation system, but it does a decent job of filtering out bad comments. I'll be interested to see this IRC chat session tonight and the effects of it, especially considering the recent Signal 11 brouhaha.
Doubleclick should be forced to use the TLD of.ads. That way, we can block them out at will.
I really don't think you want that to happen. As it is now, it's not too hard to set up a proxy like junkbuster to filter most of the stuff that you don't want to see. That is to say, it's not too hard for the typical/. reader to set up.
Now fast forward to a time when *everybody* can easily block ads like that. One of two things would happen:
1. Companies like DoubleClick would come up with new, sneaky ways of getting their ads to show up.
2. A lot of good sites that depend on advertising for revenue (let's assume for the sake of argument that/. is considered "good") wouldn't be able to continue. While some people might consider this good -- you know, an anti-commercialism of the internet sort of thing -- I think it would be bad as a whole.
To be fair, saying that Napster allows people to trade copyrighted music is 100% correct, it just neglects to show that there are legitimate uses. But today on CNN I saw some musicians talking about the benefits of Napster. Even some member of one of those new-fangled pop bands was saying (paraphrased), "Yes Napster made us lose sales on our new CD, but sales on our old CD skyrocketed." So at least some media outlets are showing both sides of the story.
But you're right, you won't see a story that says, "_____'s new hunting rifle allows you to shoot infants in the head while they're asleep..."
This reminds me of my former roommate that didn't want to buy a CD player because "something better was coming". This was in 1997.
CD players have improved quite a bit in the last few years. Most of the technology is in the form of digital-to-analog converters. If you think that they're all the same, try throwing a mid to high-end DAC in a system with a CD player more than a few years old (or even a cheap new one). It will make a believer out of you.
Of course, we *know* that better computers are coming out in a year. But if you keep waiting you'll never buy one. It's certainly a thin line to walk, and the concept works for most everything (cars, computers, stereos, TVs, golf clubs...).
I agree sincerely with his belief that you can't just use "cracker" as a catchall for anyone who breaks into a system or anyone who "breaks the law"
I think it boils down to this: hackers make things work, crackers break things. Finding a hole in slashcode and bringing it to light is making something work [better]. Reverse-engineering software so you can use it in a manner it wasn't meant to be used (DeCSS, CueCat, etc., etc.) is hacking.
Of course I'm neither a hacker nor a cracker. The extent of my hacking skills is editing a Makefile, and the extent of my cracking skills is teardropping a friend's Win95 box (he gave me permission). But I like to think that I know at least a little bit of what hacking is about. And the thing is, the media will never get it. Why? Because "Herbert Smith ports foo to operating system bar" is much less exciting than "Korean hackers break into government site" on the 5:00 news.
Re:No moving parts... no truly "magic" b
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 2
Was it a "rapid prototyper"?
That sounds right. I think I remember it being called a Z-CORP something or other. But maybe I'm making it up.
Re:No moving parts... no truly "magic" b
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 2
I've actually seen a machine in action that can produce models of CAD-designed objects in a very cost-effective manner. I can't remember the name of the thing, but it was actually called a printer. You would put a grainy sort of substance in it and it would basically go through and add layers based on the CAD design. IIRC it was accurate to around 1/64 inch. At the time we were doing models of a CAD-designed PDA, and a model could be produced for just a couple of dollars.
Of course they also had the machine over in the manufacturing building that they wouldn't let the undergrads near... it used lasers and was exponentially more expensive.
Re:A rant on licensing and open source
on
CueCat At It Again
·
· Score: 2
Who said that? Cuecat has a pretty solid license agreement that you must agree to before taking the device.
I don't see it that way at all. If DC (or anybody, for that matter) mails me something that I didn't ask for, how can they force me into a license agreement?
The DMV doesn't give you permission to kill people with your car, they give you a license to drive it.
That's true, but I don't think the analogy is valid. I'm the one who makes the decision to get a driver's license. The DMV doesn't just mail them out.
What open source zealots have to get in their heads is not everything can be free.
I don't think that has anything to do with the issue here.
Some companies need to make money to survive.
There's nothing wrong with making money. If a company provides a service that I deem valuable, then they deserve to make that money if I choose to spend it on their service. But what DC is doing is saying, "Here's a product that you didn't ask for. You're free to use it as long as the manner in which you use it benefits us."
It was given away for free, so there's really no need to get so emotional about not cracking it (as opposed to something you pay for, like Tivo).
To tell the truth, I don't really care about CueCat. Sure, it's a fun toy to play with, but this is really about something much bigger. If I were to give you an item that you didn't ask for, I'm basically giving up all rights to tell you what to do with it. If Columbia House sends you a packet trying to get you to sign up for their service, they're not "allowed" to bitch at you because you used their selection booklet to shop for discs you'll end up buying elsewhere.
I could go on and on with analogies, but the point is this: most/.'ers don't really care about the CueCat, they care about their rights. Big businesses (especially with the new "E business model") try to control consumers, and it's important to let them know that we have rights as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft realizes that one of the primary advantages of Linux is its ability to mutate into specialized versions. Microsoft has also realized that their current and potential customers know about this advantage of OSS. But Windows isn't going to change to be more like Linux; in reality, it can't because it is proprietary. So the solution for MS is to downplay that advantage and try to turn it into a disadvantage, at least in the eyes of people who see their advertisements.
If you didn't know anything about OSS and the passion behind it, you might think that it's foolish to rely on a bunch of programmers scattered around the world for your business software needs. After all, there's no real accountability. This is what MS is trying to play off of. But those who are "in the biz," to use the parlance of our times, know that OSS ironically has better reliability and abundant support, despite not being centralized.
...he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs...
Another point to be made: IIRC, Gore admitted to experimenting with marijuana in the past. Clinton "didn't inhale." It's pretty well-known that Bush was quite the party animal back in the 70s. Yet these hypocrites want to send marijuana users to jail. The fact that these (and many, many, many more) politicians have smoked marijuana in the past should be evidence to them that smoking a joint is no more dangerous (less, in fact) to one's health and wellbeing than smoking a cigarette or having a drink. Browne openly admits that he tried marijuana in the 60s. For me, this says, "I'm not just a politician in some white building in Washington, I'm a real person too."
Note that Browne's site has a banner for NORML.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
It's not as if Browne is going to take all the money in SS and stash it for himself. SS as we know it needs to be phased out - it does not work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or at least a derivative of those plans.
He is competely against universal healthcare, which most wealthy nations are handing out like flyers, except we can't seem to get it right. I hope no one voting for Browne is getting federal grants and loans for college, cause it ain't going to be there much longer.
Both of these can be privatized. But again, I wouldn't support a sudden cut of such programs, they need to be phased out.
I'm going for Nader because he want's the federal government to work especially with publically funding elections, establishing a living wage, and providing universal healthcare to 80-100 mil uninsured Americans.
Nader want to tax the hell out of people who actually work and make money, and then give it to the poor. The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs). Call it trickle-down economics if you want, but a Robin Hood-esque plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work in my book.
He also plans to establish a 'none of the above' options in elections so people like Katz and company don't sit out but voice their protest and force another election if no one gets a decent majority.
Nader is riding the wave of people jaded by the political process. My interpretation of the meaning of elections is to vote for the person most qualified for the job.
Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays? If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.
The only example of this that I can think of at the moment is vagina, which was originally a slang term literally meaning the sheath of a sword -- the proper name for that part was c*nt.
I'm sorry, but I can't see what in the world the female genitalia has to do with the value of a penny.
I'm sure they're not going to make their first test run on a fully-outfitted, multi-million dollar F1 car. If they're smart they'll test it in the rain (or some other suitably slick surface). All that does is lower the total (what racers call) traction budget. This would allow the vehicle to operate at considerably lower speeds while still providing meaningful results.
This is a very interesting problem, and not one that I think can be solved in the near future provided that you exclude such technological advancements such as ABS. Newer ABS systems work by sensing lockup in one wheel (not just one axle) and adjusting the brakeing on each individual wheel. I assume the F1 robot wouldn't be afforded the luxury of a sensor on each wheel.
And how about the track itself? I suppose there would have to be something in/around the track that the robot could base its path on. But how would it deal with changing track conditions? Every racer knows that the track (not to mention the car) drives differently as the race progresses. What if oil or gravel is spilled on the track? If the robot comes in "thinking" that turn 4 is the same turn 4 that he entered last lap at 70 miles per hour, there's going to be trouble if that turn has changed drastically. There's no margin for error like that in F1 because the traction budget is already at 100%.
Here at MSU, laptops are required for engineering students in certain classes (the first of which is thermodynamics, usually taken sophomore year). And if I'm not mistaken, I think next year entering freshman engineering students will be required to have a laptop.
Some of the stuff teachers do with the machines is pretty neat. And I suppose for the non-computer literate engineering students - particularly those who have never owned a computer - they probably learn a good bit. But most of the time people are on Napster, playing video games, or talking to people.
I never really did think the integration of computers in the educational process was done the right way. It might work in mid to upper-level college courses (e.g. using Maple for calculus), but my former high school once considered requiring students to have laptops. Bad idea, I'm glad it never became a reality. We need to emphasize the traditional way of doing things now and let students explore other ways of doing them on their own (perhaps by a trip to the school computer lab).
11. God replaces Earth_Linux 2.4 with Windows 2000 Professional.
...the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states...
I don't think that requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion can be considered rigorous parental control. Parents have the right (and duty) to keep abreast of what their children are doing, and to essentially dictate how the child lives and what he/she does (within reason, of course). I find it ironic that the issue of parental responsibility as it relates to abortion is popping up once again in a censorware thread.
As far as the issue of censorware in libraries is concerned, why not assign everyone with a library card a login, and apply censorware based on that? Let the parent of a minor decide whether or not censorware should be applied to the child's account. Just because a family can't afford a computer and internet access doesn't mean that they should have to live with absurd rules forced upon them by an ignorant government (or ignorant population, as the case may be).
No, what the MP3 revolution shows is that almost all music fans value the content more than the technical reproduction.
I think you're mistaken. Content doesn't play a role here. Essentially everything available in MP3 format is also available in an uncompressed digital format. But most the vast majority of MP3 listeners can't hear or don't care about the extremely large quality loss that is inherent in the MP3 compression algorithm.
This is the same group of people that use the term "high end car audio" without a hint of irony.
I sent my 10 year old sister into a computer game store to buy a copy of Q3. They would not sell it to her. They said it was too violent for someone that young.
This is more a question than a statement, because I don't know how the law deals with such a situation. Are the store owners required to sell something like Q3 to anyone unless a law says otherwise, or are they allowed to say who can and can't buy a game? Obviously I couldn't open a store and every time a black person came in, refuse to sell them a certain product. But does the same thing go for age?
Hellborn elfchild roadhog mountain fortune hunter man beheaded her.
I'm trying to see how restricting explicit video games to those under 18 (unless a parent/guardian is with them) is any different than doing the same thing for explicit movies. Alright, I give up... how are they different? This is not a ban on violent video games. It's not a free speech issue and it's not censorship. A 2 year old is allowed to play a game rated mature so long as [s]he has his/her parents' blessing.
If I had a 13 year old kid, I'd buy him Halflife or Quake3 if he wanted it. My parents let me have access to whatever video games I wanted, and I never walked into school with a shotgun. Why? Well I think it has something to do with the fact that I was raised well. This law still gives the parents the right to raise their child[ren] as they see fit.
If there was a head on the proverbial nail of Slashdotters, you've hit it. Folks around here just don't to see success from anything other than their select group of interests. While the whole "one click shopping" patent is a little obtuse, Slashdotters instinctively think they should hate Amazon.com. When the issue about Amazon charging different prices to different customers came up, most of /. jumped all over it. What's the problem here? If you don't like it, don't shop there. "Amazon.com has sold out!" No shit. They're in business to make money.
/.'ers hate for no good reason other than the fact that they're successful.
Lately I've seen a lot of pro-Nader posts. I prefer Browne, personally, but Nader makes some good points. But it seems to me that a large number of Slashdotters heard Nader was anti-corporation and jumped on the bandwagon. No, I don't think large corporations should run the country. Yes, I do think that a corporation, no matter what size, deserves to make money if they provide a useful service. I'll spare you the list of companies that
And now we're at a new stage ever since Big Money entered "our" world (meaning OSS). Slashdot is aquired by Andover who files for an IPO, Red Hat goes public, etc., etc. Now all of the sudden it's "Slashdot sucks!" and "Red Hat is too commercial!" Fine. Don't go to Slashdot and use a different distro. It's just a matter of choice and opinion.
What do you want from the guy? I think you are expecting too much of him. He's just a guy, with opinions, and wants to express them, much as you have in your post.
I don't think it's expecting too much to ask a little professionalism and journalistic integrity. Rob certainly has a right to express his opinions, but (1) there are more constructive ways to do it than "Signal 11 is an idiot" and (2) he is running a for-profit website here.
Had Rob said, "Signal 11 incorrectly believes that I implemented the karma cap to spite him. He's spreading false information that it's only applied to certain accounts." it would have been much different. Not only is it more informative than "Signal 11 is an idiot," it would also make Rob look like the better man.
This really surprised me:
/. readers that Signal 11 is not an idiot. A karma whore? Sure, but I'm certain there are people who enjoy reading his comments occasionally. After all, they do get moderated up quite frequently (I suppose this is where you could argue that the moderation system is broken).
/. team really have bigger fish to fry. So what if Sig is a karma whore? There are much bigger problems in the moderation system and with trolls (although I don't think the moderation system is irrepairably broken).
/. doesn't want to move to that kind of moderation system in part because of pride. But pride shouldn't stand in the way of a better system.
CmdrTaco: Signal 11 is an idiot.
I think it's pretty clear to
CmdrTaco: I am not a corporate drone (despite what the conspiracy theorists think).
I think it's pretty clear that Rob is saying what he feels. But I think it's gotten to the point where it's unprofessional. Why attack one person with name-calling in a public forum? As others have said, Slashdot has entered the "big time" - much more so now with the aquisition by Andover. I think one thing that needs to stop is the unprofessional behavior by some of the Slashdot staff. Calling your posters idiots or interjecting unfounded opinions while reporting a news story is truly a black eye on this forum.
I'm not trying to defend Signal 11, I'm just saying that CmdrTaco and the
Since I don't want to be one of those people who complains about a problem but doesn't offer a solution, I'll say this: I think Kuro5hin's moderation system is pretty good. Instead of me giving a comment an extra point with a +1 moderation, I'd like to be able to say, "this comment deserves a +3." I do get the feeling, though, that
Ok, so I'm a few hours late to the party, but maybe one or two people will see this post. First, a preface: I use Linux, I don't particularly like Microsoft products. With that said...
...how am I supposed to convince my company that Apache and open source is a great way to go?
Well, you probably need to show them that Linux will make the company more profitable. As you said, the suits don't care about open source. And they really shouldn't. Personal agendas (e.g. "Microsoft is bad") shouldn't get in the way of what the company is there for: to make money. The same goes for you (the original poster). Just because you like OSS (and you should) doesn't mean that the solution for your company is to use it. There are far too many variables to consider.
Where can I get -credible- data to prove that Apache can outperform IIS?
That's really not a good way to go about it. If you're comparing an Accord and a Camry, you don't want to go looking for information that will prove that the Accord is better. You have to look at it much more objectively. I remember back in '92 when I was looking for a mountain bike. I decided what I wanted before I even started researching, and bought a bike that really wasn't the best for my money. I think the analogy fits this situation somewhat.
Besides all that, as I'm sure a million other people have mentioned, benchmarks aren't very valuable. You've probably heard a quote attributed to Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Look hard enough and you can dig up factual data to back up most anything. But it's rarely the full story.
If you don't think it would benefit others to read, why would you bother posting it in the first place?
I reread my post and can see how I was unclear. DebtAngel got it right... This post (and DebtAngel's) is a perfect example. My reply is in response to your post, and while a couple of people might like to see it, I like to keep posts like this under the +2 boundary so people who don't want to see it don't have to.
Of all the mods I get, "overrated" is nearly half of them. Nobody is keeping moderators who use those options in line.
/. a lot more, and as a result have attained the +1 bonus on my posts. But when I want to post something non-anonymously that I don't think would benefit others to read, I disable the +1 and post at just plain 1.
/. at a +2 threshold and decent into a discussion if I want (unless I'm moderating, when I read at 0, nested). I read at +2 and sort by highest scores first because sometimes I just want to pop in and get a few interesting opinions on a subject. I don't want to see 30 posts at +2 that are just somebody's one-liner comeback buried down in a thread. From what I've read in the /. FAQ and what I believe to be true, this is why "overrated" is in there. I'm not sure about "underrated" though, because if it's underrated then it should be marked as what it is (funny, insightful, informative...).
I moderate as "overrated" a pretty good bit when I have moderator access. In the last month I've been posting to
I usually read
There are plenty of flaws with the moderation system, but it does a decent job of filtering out bad comments. I'll be interested to see this IRC chat session tonight and the effects of it, especially considering the recent Signal 11 brouhaha.
Doubleclick should be forced to use the TLD of .ads. That way, we can block them out at will.
/. reader to set up.
/. is considered "good") wouldn't be able to continue. While some people might consider this good -- you know, an anti-commercialism of the internet sort of thing -- I think it would be bad as a whole.
I really don't think you want that to happen. As it is now, it's not too hard to set up a proxy like junkbuster to filter most of the stuff that you don't want to see. That is to say, it's not too hard for the typical
Now fast forward to a time when *everybody* can easily block ads like that. One of two things would happen:
1. Companies like DoubleClick would come up with new, sneaky ways of getting their ads to show up.
2. A lot of good sites that depend on advertising for revenue (let's assume for the sake of argument that
To be fair, saying that Napster allows people to trade copyrighted music is 100% correct, it just neglects to show that there are legitimate uses. But today on CNN I saw some musicians talking about the benefits of Napster. Even some member of one of those new-fangled pop bands was saying (paraphrased), "Yes Napster made us lose sales on our new CD, but sales on our old CD skyrocketed." So at least some media outlets are showing both sides of the story.
But you're right, you won't see a story that says, "_____'s new hunting rifle allows you to shoot infants in the head while they're asleep..."
This reminds me of my former roommate that didn't want to buy a CD player because "something better was coming". This was in 1997.
CD players have improved quite a bit in the last few years. Most of the technology is in the form of digital-to-analog converters. If you think that they're all the same, try throwing a mid to high-end DAC in a system with a CD player more than a few years old (or even a cheap new one). It will make a believer out of you.
Of course, we *know* that better computers are coming out in a year. But if you keep waiting you'll never buy one. It's certainly a thin line to walk, and the concept works for most everything (cars, computers, stereos, TVs, golf clubs...).
I agree sincerely with his belief that you can't just use "cracker" as a catchall for anyone who breaks into a system or anyone who "breaks the law"
I think it boils down to this: hackers make things work, crackers break things. Finding a hole in slashcode and bringing it to light is making something work [better]. Reverse-engineering software so you can use it in a manner it wasn't meant to be used (DeCSS, CueCat, etc., etc.) is hacking.
Of course I'm neither a hacker nor a cracker. The extent of my hacking skills is editing a Makefile, and the extent of my cracking skills is teardropping a friend's Win95 box (he gave me permission). But I like to think that I know at least a little bit of what hacking is about. And the thing is, the media will never get it. Why? Because "Herbert Smith ports foo to operating system bar" is much less exciting than "Korean hackers break into government site" on the 5:00 news.
Was it a "rapid prototyper"?
That sounds right. I think I remember it being called a Z-CORP something or other. But maybe I'm making it up.
I've actually seen a machine in action that can produce models of CAD-designed objects in a very cost-effective manner. I can't remember the name of the thing, but it was actually called a printer. You would put a grainy sort of substance in it and it would basically go through and add layers based on the CAD design. IIRC it was accurate to around 1/64 inch. At the time we were doing models of a CAD-designed PDA, and a model could be produced for just a couple of dollars.
Of course they also had the machine over in the manufacturing building that they wouldn't let the undergrads near... it used lasers and was exponentially more expensive.
Who said that? Cuecat has a pretty solid license agreement that you must agree to before taking the device.
I don't see it that way at all. If DC (or anybody, for that matter) mails me something that I didn't ask for, how can they force me into a license agreement?
The DMV doesn't give you permission to kill people with your car, they give you a license to drive it.
That's true, but I don't think the analogy is valid. I'm the one who makes the decision to get a driver's license. The DMV doesn't just mail them out.
What open source zealots have to get in their heads is not everything can be free.
I don't think that has anything to do with the issue here.
Some companies need to make money to survive.
There's nothing wrong with making money. If a company provides a service that I deem valuable, then they deserve to make that money if I choose to spend it on their service. But what DC is doing is saying, "Here's a product that you didn't ask for. You're free to use it as long as the manner in which you use it benefits us."
It was given away for free, so there's really no need to get so emotional about not cracking it (as opposed to something you pay for, like Tivo).
/.'ers don't really care about the CueCat, they care about their rights. Big businesses (especially with the new "E business model") try to control consumers, and it's important to let them know that we have rights as well.
To tell the truth, I don't really care about CueCat. Sure, it's a fun toy to play with, but this is really about something much bigger. If I were to give you an item that you didn't ask for, I'm basically giving up all rights to tell you what to do with it. If Columbia House sends you a packet trying to get you to sign up for their service, they're not "allowed" to bitch at you because you used their selection booklet to shop for discs you'll end up buying elsewhere.
I could go on and on with analogies, but the point is this: most
Fiserv has a partnership with Security First Technologies. It will be interesting to watch how their stock changes tomorrow as this news gets around.
Fiserv: NASDAQ FISV
SFT: NASDAQ SONE