Many of the protesters of the RNC were not democrats. I, for one, am not, and was also protesting at the DNC.
The important issues here:
1. The RNC delegates are public figures. The DNC delegates had their names and phone numbers posted publicly by, well, the democrats.
2. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would want to talk to an RNC delegate. Would you object to someone posting a list of republican congressmen and their contact information?
3. Regardless of what you think of its morality, it is clearly protected free speech and the secret service is harassing the website that is doing nothing more than hosting the free speech.
4. The RNC should be far less important than free speech. What should be discussed here is indymedia, not the fucking RNC. The RNC is over, yet the investigation is continuing. Nor is this the first harassment of indymedia activists.
(Full disclosure: I am involved with indymedia, and know quite well one of the 4 imcistas who is being represented by the ACLU in this case)
It's funny how most techie people agree that the FCC sucks and needs to be eliminated, yet when people on more local scales attempt to regulate themselves, they cry over the fact that the regulation *isn't* coming from the infamous FCC.
Fuck the FCC.
Due to my terrible inactivity, sourceforge took away my chessd project page a long time ago, and there is now a new project that's using the same name (grumble) which is bound to create some confusion.
As for timestamp, anyone who thought about it for a second knew it was a horribly insecure model, however, we decided it would be better for all of us not to address it. Not until we could come up with a better model- something I haven't yet seen.
I have all of the sources for chessd and fischer (the server that used an irc-like protocol) around here somewhere...
Thankfully, there are no Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, Blacks, or members of the ACLU in the Republican Party- and certainly not as a delegate to the convention- so nobody will have to be victimized by appearing on multiple lists.
Re:the obligatory remark....a bit late
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
The two-state solution was implemented a long time ago. All the land from the Mediterranean Sea through Transjordan comprises Palestine, and all of it was originally to be for the Jews.
According to what? Britain, the recognized power in Mandate Palestine, never took any steps to endorse a Jewish State. Contrary to popular belief, the Balfour Declaration was specifically worded as to *not* mention statehood, and that's for one key reason: The British weren't Zionists.
More importantly, *nothing* gave Israel the right to transfer non-Jews, either by scare tactics, or to deny the UNDHR Article 13 right to return to one's home. Not that I need to argue that the *Universal* Declaration of Human Rights has to be applied here, as it always applies, but this was recognized in everything from Balfour all the way through the UNSCOP recommendations- whenever they mentioned any sort of Zionist/Jewish entity in Palestine, they made it clear that nothing was to infringe upon the rights of the populous already there. Go read Balfour, if you don't believe me.
How come when the leadership of Israel considers agreeing to ethnically cleanse half its land of Jews in accordance with the wishes of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and Hizbullah, it's "creating peace," but when Jews live peaceably in their communities like any other decent folk, it's "making war"?
Yeah, except it's not their communities. These "communities" have been ethnically cleansed of non-Jews, and use Israeli law to prevent not only non-Israelis from living there, but also non-Jews.
Frankly, I'm not going to dignify your other propgandaized arguments with a response. I trust that slashdot readers will be smart enough to do a little research into your other points and realize your clearly racist arguments ("Black Africans have an entire contitnent, why do they need South Africa?") for what they are.
When Syria starts making moves towards peace negotiations, Israeli officials start talking about plans to expand civilian settlement in the occupied Golan Heights (Syrian territory, or if you'd like to get ultra-technical, part of it is Lebanese territory). Many agree that it's in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention for a government to encourage civilians to move into an occupied territory, especially for the purpose of changing demographics (what Article 49 was designed to prevent).
While Iraq has been neutralized as a threat and Iran and Libya have taken steps towards WMD disclosure and disarmanment, Israel prepares to take steps to bar Vanunu from leaving the country upon his release, and rebuffs any suggestion that Israel should consider disarming as well.
When Palestinians suggest a two-state solution along 1967 lines if the late 70s, and this idea gains international recognition and acceptance, Israel invades Palestinian refugee camps and other areas that Palestnians were living in in Lebanon in the 1980s. There were no cross-border attacks leading up to the war, despite what some may try to tell you today, with the best provocation being an Israeli army jeep that hit a land mine in Lebanon; where the Israeli army had no legal business driving. In the war, Israel killed tens of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and set the Palestinians back decades from having any sort of united leadership.
In the 1990s, Yitzhak Rabin started the Oslo process, but reassured his constitutents that it would not lead to a Palestinian state- despite the fact that Israel led the Palestinians (and the world) to believe otherwise. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza doubled in the Oslo years. Netanyahu ran, and won, on a campaign to foil the Oslo accords by doing only the bare minimum required to avoid international scrutinty and doing everything Israel could to undo the rest.
And 120,000 Israelis protested today against any sort of withdrawl from the settlements. take a look or just check out the crowd.
If that's trying to create peace, I'd hate to see Israel attempt to create war.
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, the conservative is whining about how unfair life is to him because he has to deal with a webpage blacking out.
Tell me this, Mr. Conservative, why should I care about what you see as unfair when 0.5% of the US population controls 25.6% of the wealth in the country? How fair is that? How fair is it that the US is planning on entering in free trade agreements with countries in which the labor cost is kept artificailly low for the use of force? Is that fair?
When a conservative says "it isn't fair" he means "it isn't advantaged to me like everything else is." Fuck you.
I recall the system fondly. It was a 486 DX4 with 24 megs ram, a 540 meg harddrive, an S3 VIRGE with 8 megs of onboard ram, and a Soundblaster PCI 128.
It could not play 128kbps 44.1 khz mp3s in stereo at all in windows. I could listen to mp3s in stereo if I wasn't doing anything else (XFree86 included) in Linux, and in FreeBSD I could start X, load netscape, and listen to mp3s in stereo. Could just be I wasn't adept enough to tweak Linux, but it was at that point I made up my mind about the winner with regards to performance.
YMMV, but don't discount FreeBSD.
...hoping this thread is rekindled after being featured again- missed it the first time.
Hams use only a small portion of the spectrum. As for mass scale services, don't pretend this is the only way to get people internet. Fiber optic lines have been and continue to be, by far, the best way to move large amounts of digital data and RF interference is simply not an issue. Hams may keep their skills in tune by just communicating with Ecuador, but in the event of any sort of civil emergency in which the lines go down they may very well be the only method of communication still reliably working.
If you compare truly wireless services (which are good for civil defense purposes) to services involving wires (which are not), runing the entire HF band because we want to use a wired communication method doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
And as a minor nitpick, he said it'd be no sad loss if they died, not that they wanted the person to die. There's a slight difference.
Firstly speach doesn't have to be peaceful. Nobody said it did. Supreme court rulings talk about how advocation of violence can be illegal in some circumstances, when there's a clear and present danger (i.e. you're giving orders). But that's not the case here, is it?
Also of note is
background on the case, where if you scroll down you find out about all sorts of better bomb making knoweldge you can get from a library or amazon.com. Legally. What makes this case different, unfortunately, is that it was done by someone who had unpopular views. So apparently some things are only illegal if you're a dissident - and that should worry us all.
It's 100 megs of compiled code, not C. Also, the overhead of an interpreted language is inappropriate for the kind of command that's expected to be ran often and not take up too much time (like most of the applications found in various toolchains on unix)
It's also not true that "everybody else manages to ship it." NetBSD doesn't, off the top of my head. And, frankly, when the FreeBSD developers decide to make serious decisions simply because "everybody else" is doing it, that's a sign that the OS will start going quickly downhill.
C is used extensively throughout the base operating system, in nearly all applications it's faster, it's proven over the course of decades, and it's very widely understood. Why switch to perl? If someone is looking to develop something using perl, they're free to do so. Build the port and get on with your life.
It is very unfair, in my opinion, to refer to the process of system call translation (the driving force behind FreeBSD's linuxulator, which enables, for those of you who don't know, software *compiled for Linux* to run on FreeBSD- of note only for the Linux software that does not have source available) as emulation.
It is binary compatibility of the highest order. Simply put, it does little more than translate syscall numbers on the fly, also adjusting for things like differences in arguments.
Quickly sizing up the FreeBSD system source tree right now, the code for linux compatiblity comes in at under 256KB.
The overhead per system call of the linuxulator is not measured in fractions of a second but rather in instructions. Add to that the possiblity that FreeBSD may be doing the system call itself faster, or be more responsive for other reasons, and you quickly see that there's no reason to assume the footing is unequal because the binaries were compiled for Linux.
The fact is your idea of a "base" install is a little off. The operating system is broken into just a few groups, such as manpages, binaries, documents, sources, and a couple others. You can choose the distribution sets that make the most sense to you (me, if I'm installing from a CD I'll typically take minimal+docs+sources) and then you're left with a nice, clean, bare system.
Perl is icky to have for a few reasons. The first is for most tasks the cost of the interpreter generally offsets any gains you might receive for command-line utilities that are poorly written in C. The second is size: perl is 12 megabytes, and I sincerely doubt you could reduse the entire distribution size by adding perl and rewriting the C utilities. I mean, it's a given you have a C compiler and standard libraries installed, so there's no marginal overhead for a C userland.
From the point of view of people working on FreeBSD, this reduces the need to have perl imported *and* maintain a port. If the perl folks seriously screw up somehow, it does not mean FreeBSD disintergrates into nothing. If you want to have perl, build the port. Install the package. Do so before you quit sysinstall, if you must.
Really, looking over the "100 or so megs" of the minimal install, there's not a lot of stuff I find that most people wouldn't want. This is bare, and I like it that way. Perl was just being used in fewer and fewer places...
I don't think it's fair to label SMPng as a rewrite. It is a refinement of a locking procedure and as such no sizeable portions were thrown out; a giant lock was replaced by several smaller locks. Call it an overhaul if you want, but I would not characterize it as a rewrite.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
it spawned the opensource movement
Revisionist history indeed. BSD (in the form of Unix patchkits) were available as "open source" when Linus was still in diapers.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 2
So there are a lot of BSD-based operating systems. There are also a lot of SysV based operating systems. BSD can't help the fact that they're such a large tree of the Unix family.
If you want to say "there's a bunch of BSDs" then I could say "there are a bunch of SysVs [including Linux]" and then on top of that I could say there are a lot of Linux distributions.
The moral of the story is if you are based on or modeled after a Unix, you are in a large family. Period. There's more than one of you.
BRE had a few problems, but all in all it was the best strategy game I've ever played. Interplanetary, of course. Strategy games should be about sending messages to the players to organize attacks, alliances, allegiances, etc. even more than building units; and that's something that only BRE seemed to master.
I still have fond memories of, some 6-7 years ago, I told everyone on my planet I was going to try to infilitrate the enemy planet (two planet world) by letting them think I would be willing to turn on my home planet if they reinforced me, and I told everyone on my planet that I was going to convince the other planet that I was working for them and then take advantage of them.
In the end, I was receiving countless tanks and money from the populations of both planets, and nobody attacked me. Good times.
Except these subliminal messages were determined countless years ago (see the first lawsuits regarding subliminal messages) because the brain simply discards the information. And, when you think about it, it makes sense. Take a billboard on the street. Walk by it. Now drive by it at 60mph. Now drive by it at 180mph. As you increase your speed, you approach having seen it for the equivilient of one frame of film. Do you think it has more impact, or less?
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine denatured ethanol would do the trick just as well.
Yes, promising to withdraw toops with dignity. That's how Nixon won in '68.
Many of the protesters of the RNC were not democrats. I, for one, am not, and was also protesting at the DNC.
The important issues here:
1. The RNC delegates are public figures. The DNC delegates had their names and phone numbers posted publicly by, well, the democrats.
2. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would want to talk to an RNC delegate. Would you object to someone posting a list of republican congressmen and their contact information?
3. Regardless of what you think of its morality, it is clearly protected free speech and the secret service is harassing the website that is doing nothing more than hosting the free speech.
4. The RNC should be far less important than free speech. What should be discussed here is indymedia, not the fucking RNC. The RNC is over, yet the investigation is continuing. Nor is this the first harassment of indymedia activists.
(Full disclosure: I am involved with indymedia, and know quite well one of the 4 imcistas who is being represented by the ACLU in this case)
It's funny how most techie people agree that the FCC sucks and needs to be eliminated, yet when people on more local scales attempt to regulate themselves, they cry over the fact that the regulation *isn't* coming from the infamous FCC. Fuck the FCC.
Due to my terrible inactivity, sourceforge took away my chessd project page a long time ago, and there is now a new project that's using the same name (grumble) which is bound to create some confusion.
As for timestamp, anyone who thought about it for a second knew it was a horribly insecure model, however, we decided it would be better for all of us not to address it. Not until we could come up with a better model- something I haven't yet seen.
I have all of the sources for chessd and fischer (the server that used an irc-like protocol) around here somewhere...
You forget that we CMU students are in Pittsburgh.
but have you ever played Bureaucracy? That surely wins the title for "funniest text adventure ever made," and hands down.
http://infocom.elsewhere.org/gallery/bureaucracy/b ureaucracy.html
Thankfully, there are no Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, Blacks, or members of the ACLU in the Republican Party- and certainly not as a delegate to the convention- so nobody will have to be victimized by appearing on multiple lists.
Methane is odorless.
The two-state solution was implemented a long time ago. All the land from the Mediterranean Sea through Transjordan comprises Palestine, and all of it was originally to be for the Jews.
According to what? Britain, the recognized power in Mandate Palestine, never took any steps to endorse a Jewish State. Contrary to popular belief, the Balfour Declaration was specifically worded as to *not* mention statehood, and that's for one key reason: The British weren't Zionists.
More importantly, *nothing* gave Israel the right to transfer non-Jews, either by scare tactics, or to deny the UNDHR Article 13 right to return to one's home. Not that I need to argue that the *Universal* Declaration of Human Rights has to be applied here, as it always applies, but this was recognized in everything from Balfour all the way through the UNSCOP recommendations- whenever they mentioned any sort of Zionist/Jewish entity in Palestine, they made it clear that nothing was to infringe upon the rights of the populous already there. Go read Balfour, if you don't believe me.
How come when the leadership of Israel considers agreeing to ethnically cleanse half its land of Jews in accordance with the wishes of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and Hizbullah, it's "creating peace," but when Jews live peaceably in their communities like any other decent folk, it's "making war"?
Yeah, except it's not their communities. These "communities" have been ethnically cleansed of non-Jews, and use Israeli law to prevent not only non-Israelis from living there, but also non-Jews.
Frankly, I'm not going to dignify your other propgandaized arguments with a response. I trust that slashdot readers will be smart enough to do a little research into your other points and realize your clearly racist arguments ("Black Africans have an entire contitnent, why do they need South Africa?") for what they are.
though they do try.
Do they?
When Syria starts making moves towards peace negotiations, Israeli officials start talking about plans to expand civilian settlement in the occupied Golan Heights (Syrian territory, or if you'd like to get ultra-technical, part of it is Lebanese territory). Many agree that it's in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention for a government to encourage civilians to move into an occupied territory, especially for the purpose of changing demographics (what Article 49 was designed to prevent).
While Iraq has been neutralized as a threat and Iran and Libya have taken steps towards WMD disclosure and disarmanment, Israel prepares to take steps to bar Vanunu from leaving the country upon his release, and rebuffs any suggestion that Israel should consider disarming as well.
When Palestinians suggest a two-state solution along 1967 lines if the late 70s, and this idea gains international recognition and acceptance, Israel invades Palestinian refugee camps and other areas that Palestnians were living in in Lebanon in the 1980s. There were no cross-border attacks leading up to the war, despite what some may try to tell you today, with the best provocation being an Israeli army jeep that hit a land mine in Lebanon; where the Israeli army had no legal business driving. In the war, Israel killed tens of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and set the Palestinians back decades from having any sort of united leadership.
In the 1990s, Yitzhak Rabin started the Oslo process, but reassured his constitutents that it would not lead to a Palestinian state- despite the fact that Israel led the Palestinians (and the world) to believe otherwise. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza doubled in the Oslo years. Netanyahu ran, and won, on a campaign to foil the Oslo accords by doing only the bare minimum required to avoid international scrutinty and doing everything Israel could to undo the rest.
And 120,000 Israelis protested today against any sort of withdrawl from the settlements. take a look or just check out the crowd.
If that's trying to create peace, I'd hate to see Israel attempt to create war.
I see you're an optimist. The world has come painfully close to nuclear war more than most people would care to know.
Tell me this, Mr. Conservative, why should I care about what you see as unfair when 0.5% of the US population controls 25.6% of the wealth in the country? How fair is that? How fair is it that the US is planning on entering in free trade agreements with countries in which the labor cost is kept artificailly low for the use of force? Is that fair?
When a conservative says "it isn't fair" he means "it isn't advantaged to me like everything else is." Fuck you.
I recall the system fondly. It was a 486 DX4 with 24 megs ram, a 540 meg harddrive, an S3 VIRGE with 8 megs of onboard ram, and a Soundblaster PCI 128.
It could not play 128kbps 44.1 khz mp3s in stereo at all in windows. I could listen to mp3s in stereo if I wasn't doing anything else (XFree86 included) in Linux, and in FreeBSD I could start X, load netscape, and listen to mp3s in stereo. Could just be I wasn't adept enough to tweak Linux, but it was at that point I made up my mind about the winner with regards to performance. YMMV, but don't discount FreeBSD.
Hams use only a small portion of the spectrum. As for mass scale services, don't pretend this is the only way to get people internet. Fiber optic lines have been and continue to be, by far, the best way to move large amounts of digital data and RF interference is simply not an issue. Hams may keep their skills in tune by just communicating with Ecuador, but in the event of any sort of civil emergency in which the lines go down they may very well be the only method of communication still reliably working.
If you compare truly wireless services (which are good for civil defense purposes) to services involving wires (which are not), runing the entire HF band because we want to use a wired communication method doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
And as a minor nitpick, he said it'd be no sad loss if they died, not that they wanted the person to die. There's a slight difference.
Also of note is background on the case, where if you scroll down you find out about all sorts of better bomb making knoweldge you can get from a library or amazon.com. Legally. What makes this case different, unfortunately, is that it was done by someone who had unpopular views. So apparently some things are only illegal if you're a dissident - and that should worry us all.
We consider France to be an ally because they're too white to be our enemy.
It's also not true that "everybody else manages to ship it." NetBSD doesn't, off the top of my head. And, frankly, when the FreeBSD developers decide to make serious decisions simply because "everybody else" is doing it, that's a sign that the OS will start going quickly downhill.
C is used extensively throughout the base operating system, in nearly all applications it's faster, it's proven over the course of decades, and it's very widely understood. Why switch to perl? If someone is looking to develop something using perl, they're free to do so. Build the port and get on with your life.
It is very unfair, in my opinion, to refer to the process of system call translation (the driving force behind FreeBSD's linuxulator, which enables, for those of you who don't know, software *compiled for Linux* to run on FreeBSD- of note only for the Linux software that does not have source available) as emulation. It is binary compatibility of the highest order. Simply put, it does little more than translate syscall numbers on the fly, also adjusting for things like differences in arguments. Quickly sizing up the FreeBSD system source tree right now, the code for linux compatiblity comes in at under 256KB. The overhead per system call of the linuxulator is not measured in fractions of a second but rather in instructions. Add to that the possiblity that FreeBSD may be doing the system call itself faster, or be more responsive for other reasons, and you quickly see that there's no reason to assume the footing is unequal because the binaries were compiled for Linux.
Rubbish.
The fact is your idea of a "base" install is a little off. The operating system is broken into just a few groups, such as manpages, binaries, documents, sources, and a couple others. You can choose the distribution sets that make the most sense to you (me, if I'm installing from a CD I'll typically take minimal+docs+sources) and then you're left with a nice, clean, bare system.
Perl is icky to have for a few reasons. The first is for most tasks the cost of the interpreter generally offsets any gains you might receive for command-line utilities that are poorly written in C. The second is size: perl is 12 megabytes, and I sincerely doubt you could reduse the entire distribution size by adding perl and rewriting the C utilities. I mean, it's a given you have a C compiler and standard libraries installed, so there's no marginal overhead for a C userland.
From the point of view of people working on FreeBSD, this reduces the need to have perl imported *and* maintain a port. If the perl folks seriously screw up somehow, it does not mean FreeBSD disintergrates into nothing. If you want to have perl, build the port. Install the package. Do so before you quit sysinstall, if you must.
Really, looking over the "100 or so megs" of the minimal install, there's not a lot of stuff I find that most people wouldn't want. This is bare, and I like it that way. Perl was just being used in fewer and fewer places...
I don't think it's fair to label SMPng as a rewrite. It is a refinement of a locking procedure and as such no sizeable portions were thrown out; a giant lock was replaced by several smaller locks. Call it an overhaul if you want, but I would not characterize it as a rewrite.
Revisionist history indeed. BSD (in the form of Unix patchkits) were available as "open source" when Linus was still in diapers.
If you want to say "there's a bunch of BSDs" then I could say "there are a bunch of SysVs [including Linux]" and then on top of that I could say there are a lot of Linux distributions.
The moral of the story is if you are based on or modeled after a Unix, you are in a large family. Period. There's more than one of you.
BRE had a few problems, but all in all it was the best strategy game I've ever played. Interplanetary, of course. Strategy games should be about sending messages to the players to organize attacks, alliances, allegiances, etc. even more than building units; and that's something that only BRE seemed to master.
I still have fond memories of, some 6-7 years ago, I told everyone on my planet I was going to try to infilitrate the enemy planet (two planet world) by letting them think I would be willing to turn on my home planet if they reinforced me, and I told everyone on my planet that I was going to convince the other planet that I was working for them and then take advantage of them.
In the end, I was receiving countless tanks and money from the populations of both planets, and nobody attacked me. Good times.
Except these subliminal messages were determined countless years ago (see the first lawsuits regarding subliminal messages) because the brain simply discards the information. And, when you think about it, it makes sense. Take a billboard on the street. Walk by it. Now drive by it at 60mph. Now drive by it at 180mph. As you increase your speed, you approach having seen it for the equivilient of one frame of film. Do you think it has more impact, or less?