The fact still remains that the BSD community has reached an order of magnitude that brings sufficient returns.
The fact that it is not imperative to return code is irrelevant. There are many corporate users who have returned portions of their code who would not have used the GPL in the first place because they can not pick and choose.
I think it was friday that I and a couple of others (including JKH) helped you with your IPFilter problem.
If I remember correctly, you said you had very little experience with FreeBSD. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about and are using blind and misappropriated speculation.
Congratulations, you just eliminated the only honest ways for the author to earn a living after having finished P
It was under the BSD license. He didn't care if another company used his code. If it didn't stop him before, it won't stop him now.
If you don't mind earning your money
Yes, true. There are many cases where this is possible. Unfortunately though, many companies want a solution now instead of later. This means putting all your time in before and selling the product later. There is that as well as the pain in finding enough customers to collaborate on pricing schemes for you to get that done. It may work for small time work, but I doubt that it scales well.
However, that doesn't stop me from releasing parts of my products with a BSD license. I've been working on a Java imaging SDK that supports more formats than JIMI and Advanced Imaging SDK. It has, unfortunately not seen the light of day yet in the free software world, because there has been argument that they own it at least in part because I worked on it during company time. They of course will remain unnamed..
The market doesn't see the potential of open source. The market sees the potential to make profit because of overhyped words and the endless flocks of bleeting sheep.
If they were really thinking about the viability of open source, they would have noticed that many of these companies' business models aren't exactly sustainable.
Of course, with billions of dollars, they should hopefully be able to work out some scheme to eventually turn a profit.
You weren't hurt at all; You gave your software away for free. Oh, you were talking about being hypocritical and wanting money or work from others in exchange for your "free" software.
The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.
Just because you do not wish to offer your software for free with no strings doesn't mean the BSD license is flawed.
And people wonder why the commercialization of Linux brings proprietary or more limited licenses in additions to their distribution. Well duh, if they're putting thousands of hours into it, they must be stupid to want to be paid to do so. Or should they just give their time and competitive advantages to every company in the industry? If you think a support based business model (which is very competitive since we give everything we do right back to the community) that also demands many in house developers is a sustainable model, you're crazy.
Code under the BSD is not "forever free"
False. Your definition of free includes an obligation for those adding to your product to contribute code back. The BSD license does not force this. Under the BSD license, the modifications to your product belongs to each programmer who does so. If they want to give back to the community, they will. If they want to spend thousands of hours extending this product and find selling it is the only way to eat, they will. This is free, the GPL definition is less free.
One of your arguments is that using the BSD license would be stupid. Why? Because you demand each and every addition to your product to come directly back to you? There are plenty of BSD licensed products that have a sustainable community.
1) Money: I was selling P before
Then it wasn't free. Either that or you're tricking people into buying completely free software -- perhaps disguised as your expert knowledge in pointing them to it.
4) Ethics/Morals
There's nothing lost because those that use the BSD license choose to actually give their software time/work away for free. The GPL demands software and time/work in return.
Every license has its uses. Use whatever the hell you want -- but don't put down those who wish to actually give their software away for free (or those who wish to sell it for that matter).
"GPL is not 'viral'."
Agreed. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. It is, however, not a good idea to use if you wish to directly make money from programming software. The same, of course, goes for the BSD license.
While this post may make it seem like I am a BSD loving advocate, see my previous posts to understand that licensing is purely one relating to a number of situationals.
Anyway, you could have just stated that your expectation in giving to the community is that of forced return if any intend to expand or extend your product. In other words, we're enforcing community.
This does work very well when the community isn't reliant on the software which they are programming. This is why you see the the commercialization of Linux bringing commercial or more restricted licensing on extensions of the products they offer. A business model which relies on non differentiated product and very competitive support schemes is not sustainable.
The BSD license asks for the good in human nature to give back -- whereas the GPL demands it -- and even then, authors often demand to profit from the commercialization of their efforts.
I do, however, diverge from others in that I can see that both licences can be good. It's your choice to impose restrictions on how free your software is.
However, those that demand software to be GPL'd are missing the point completely. If a business model is based upon profits from software, there is nothing wrong with that. What I think some people are missing is that they are not directly dependent on the software that they build -- so the GPL can't hurt their bottom line. Arguing the virtues of free and commercial licenses without applying situationals is nonsense.
Could Sun really completely GPL Java without losing money due to the developers they have in-house? Their expert knowledge would only go so far as expert knowledge in competing firms when intending to offer support. This is why so many people argue against blind hordes of people advocating the application of the GPL on everything.
The connotation commonly attached to the word 'fuck' in this context does work; at least, in my opinion. He was being both negative and questioning the thought and actions of this research, in a playful manner.
Of course, words as general as fuck often make for confusion due to its connotation being open to such wide interpretation. He could have just as easily meant for the word to exert power, obsession, or the foolishness involved in seeking out and the action of...
Who's playing good and evil? The law is the law. Are you trying to tell me that many script kiddies are trying to exercise civil disobedience? Even on so called political hacks, I have yet to see a very valid or well though out explanation as to how the hack occured.
As far as mass media goes, anyone knowledgable in most topics they discuss can laugh knowing they are often presenting candy coated, biased, and misrepresented material.
CNN may have done this -- though you should remember that reporters all have different perspectives on a situation (as do the readers). But yes, I think defamation is wrong when material is misrepresented or deflected to those who did something stupid in name of a cause (think WTO protests).
Are they not Job security for you?
So? What, was I supposed to present a purely biased and flawed argument in my favor?:)
Seriously though, I think you are oversimplifying. The same script kiddies hacking and replacing web pagses through a number of know exploits are also gaining remote root access for the purposes of local and remote password sniffing. Whether it be for their warez server or one of a number of boxes to launch DoS attacks, depends on the particular script kiddie.
Why are they still script kiddies? Because you can teach anyone with a basic amount of computer knowledge how to do these things in about 10 minutes.
What script kiddies do is illegal. Period. Likening them to the thief who breaks windows is valid. Just because you aren't in a corporeal world doesn't mean people aren't losing money or time. I should know, I get paid to do damage control as well as passing on important security information before (as to their services running as well as how to properly run a firewall et al).
You know where most corporate hacks originate? Inside the company.
Oh, and by the way, any kiddie with a couple of accounts on decent links can completely obliterate the httpd daemon on any host with a couple hundred thousand of spoofed syns a second (firewalls can't protect open services unless they dynamically and elegantly drop attacks such as this -- and even then are a mixed bag).
Take a ride over to EFNET (and some other) IRC networks some time. A large percentage of these dorks hang out there.
While it may be their duty to protect their business model through the use of patents -- it is not their duty to use those patents to damage competition. Amazon is doing nothing but taking advantage of the system with so-called "innovative" patents.
Unfortunately, the same system that granted them the patent may uphold it in court.
It depends on what you think the goal is. Did anyone say that this was intended to hurt their bottom line?
It may:
a) help B&N in court battle because so many people complained about the obviousness of their "innovative" patent
b) keep *some* revenue out or Amazon's pockets
"Eventually somebody else will correct this broken system now, right"
Yep, if eventually given enough complaints -- the system will change. Doing nothing accomplishes nothing. Doing something *may* accomplish a goal. Looking for an immediate and broad effect is short-sighted.
Now, we may wish for a greater effect to come of this -- but really, doing nothing doesn't help a problem.
Anyway, both are advertising on the same target market in a different phase of being prepared to purchase.
Actually, tv car ads are mostly just for brand awareness so that if you ever think of purchasing a car or truck, it will be the first thing that comes to mind. While it has less effect than purchases that are more impulse, it does have an effect -- at least subliminally -- on brands that aren't sufficiently differentiated in price or features. The auto oligopoly generally has similar prices as per the current price setter -- so prices of similar model car are usually very similar. There of course is still product differentiation -- but market share is usually more or less stable. Moves to obtain more market share are also often very slow. Unfortunately with the barriers on the market, no new competitor can join in and really innovate and produce cars that dont fall apart within 3 years.
In correlation to the story, to not be so off topic -- it does show that the media and advertising does affect us -- but we aren't often aware of it, even if we've taken some business or advertising courses and can identify the key words used to elicit a sale, in a testimonial or whatever. Fortunately we're able to filter this information more efficiently as adults; otherwise we'd all be going to Devry, eating pringles for dinner, and being like mike and using product x.
If you knew the answer, you would have stated so. Another flame with no substance.
England, Canada, Switzerland all have lower crime per capita as well as less violent crimes involving guns.
There are, however, socioeconomic factors that may skew comparisons.
The closest comparison is the US vs Canada. Even then, we have social systems that the US does not, so that's not even a relatively good comparison. Many people in the US also tend to be very self righteous which can also fuel the flames.
I'm sure people could go on for hours just stating all the possible factors, and it would take years to come up with a system to rank these factors -- and even then, it would be based on a snapshot of a certain time -- and become irrelevant the next..
I at least feel safe knowing that there isn't that same guy with a gun for protection, using it against me.
And then you hear people saying; "But then people will use knives instead!" Well go ahead, I can run from knives not weighted for throwing (in those situations where I was aware of the threat):).
I tend to think that less guns means less crazy or poor or emotionally challenged people who were previously thought not to be using them. I can actually live in a community where there is a lot less recipricol fear of death.
Now, *everyone* having guns also works. It's kind of hard to execute a massacre when everyone and their mother is carrying an uzi. The problem with this is that there is a neverending cycle of hate and fear. It's necessary for countries that need consciption to survive -- but I wouldn't recommend it for any country that expects to live in relative peace in the not so distant future.
Sure there, bud. The simple truth is that both occur.
Bob had high grades and self esteem. Bob has a death in the family or is regularly abused by his schoolmates or recently broke up with a long time girlfriend. Those grades fall as a result of low self esteem.
Mary has low grades; she feels incapable of competing with the other kids; she fell behind in grade 7 and hasn't been able to catch up since; teachers label her as the stupid kid; other students laugh at her when she announces a b+. The result is low self esteem.
True -- though I haven't heard many arguments targeted at groups these large that were valid.
I visit Muslim countries and all I hear about is the worldwide jewish conspiracy; I visit Israel and all I hear from jews is all the arabs/muslims are trash and will take over israel if provided the opportunity in an instant (oh wait, that last one was true); In turkey it's the greeks; In greece it's the turks; In cali it's all those damn mexicans taking over; in Ireland it's the..
A friend in Egypt told me the media there was making jokes about the jewish controlled americans who had shot down the EgyptAir flight with a new high tech laser gun.
Lets face it; Most people are simple minded when it comes to anything outside of their profession or daily life. Simple people want simple solutions and targetting a particular group is very convenient.
Some of the criticism is sometimes true -- but is more often either completely bent to fit a convenient lie; or complete and utter paranoia.
It gets more complex when those paranoia propogators make up more paranoia and lies to cover their tracks, but you get the drift.
The only partially valid criticism I can think of right now about israeli's(im not saying jews because im jewish but not a f***ing israeli) is that they are treating palestinians bad. Even then, though, if you look at the big picture; the hate goes both ways and gets particularly ugly when dealing with land -- especially when its deemed to be "holy".
Remember when texas wanted to become independent?
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and people are conditioned to accept criticism of certain groups -- at least on a subliminal level. Think about it though, if it was ok to criticise the minority, then things like asian/jewish/[insert minority here] opression during world war II might occur again in the near future.
It's better to be overly politically correct of minorities than to let human stupidity take over.
For some wacko funny shit, head over to radioislam.net. The sad part, however, is that I have heard some Muslims in canada propogating this mindless hate and even believing it themselves. If you think american government conspiracy theories are extreme, get a load of this stuff. It makes all sense now! The jews are controlling all american media and the government! Me and my jewish friends are in our basemint on a hush hush conference call with clinton every tuesday at 3am to deliver our demands or we raze your country. And guess what? We're not humans. We're aliens from the planet xentar and we really enjoy anally probing hicks from alabama;)
Potential buyers aren't always ready to jump out there and purchase. There are probably a much larger number considering or wishing to buy a car and advertising reaches them and at least gets the company name and car model in their head so that they will at least consider it when the time comes around. By sheer numbers of those who watch whatever media, they are sure to get someone.
Yes, the ads by themselves don't sell the cars -- but they do make you interested. I saw a Lincoln LS car ad (great commercial btw), and then went online to see great reviews of the car and then went out to buy one myself. Without that advertising, I probably wouldn't have even knew the car existed. Even if I did, come on, this is Lincoln here, I doubt I would have bought a lincoln based on what I've seen from their cars in the past.
Local dealer advertising? Give me a break. They don't show much of anything; they just blather on about deals and "Hi, mom!".
Both are good for what they are for, I guess. Local dealer ads for those directly considering pricing and an immediate > 3 months purchase -- and those extolling the virtues of the car in motion to get the word out.
I played carmageddon as well as just about every other game involving senseless murder. I, like you, really enjoy most of them as well.
I also played paper based RPG games and read a lot of fantasy/Sci-Fi books.
In the first few years of high school I found myself having fantasies about having special powers and being part of some epic plot to destroy or save the world (depending on my mood).
I also had low self esteem due to having to constantly move to new schools because of parents obligations as well as being excluded from groups in school due to what I wore, how I talked, or what my interests were.
Anyway, the bounds of reality were often stretched and I sometimes found myself not knowing what was real and what was imagination.
Fortunately, my parents also taught me basic fair play, lessons about reality, made sure I did my school work, and pushed me into interaction with my peers (through sports, youth groups, whatever).
I could have just as easily exploded.
What I'm trying to get across here, is that these elements could have just as easily combined to result in chemically unbalanced volatile person who might just have done something incredibly stupid. Now that I am not clouded by emotions and my incredibly puny 14 year old mind who just wanted to be accepted, it does seem really stupid. I also see that my parents should have done something other than ask me "If I was ok". Of course I was going to say yes.
I think I remember in grade 9, having a fantasy about sticking a pencil in the back of the neck of someone who was constantly pestering me and throwing spitballs at me in class. Teachers? They did nothing. One day I just burst out crying; I don't think I had cried since my father had died years before (the story behind that and the abuse is not pretty). I didn't stop crying for almost an hour.
Do you think people understood then? Nope. Months later I had heard a teacher joking with a student about me -- And do you think I would have thought about the consequences or even appreciated the fact that anything mattered if it was me engaging in a violent act just like one recently acted out? I couldn't even appreciate and understand my own feelings, let alone someone elses.
Why did someone so borderline, without a serious grasp on reality, fair play, and with such low self esteem explode? In part because my parents finally woke up and in another part being exposed to religion. I am an athiest today -- as I have outgrown its crutch, but I did learn some fairly serious teachings that helped me through my early days.
Anyway, back on topic. Did games effect my actions? In my case, I think they mostly helped me to expend all that built up energy, hate, and held back emotions. I also found that online in games, as well as on IRC, I was accepted for who I was -- not excluded because of who I should be. Did games and the media in general give me ideas as to how I could use violence to make things better? Yeah I guess -- fortunately there are probably virtually no guns in my community. I also had fantasies of stabbing people with pencils or snowjobbing them to death in winter too. I have never been not exposed to violent media and games -- so I can't make a hypothesis as to what their imagined actions would be -- but I'm sure most humans learn early on that violence is a fast and easy way to extract revenge and expend anger. Before there were video games or television, I'm sure there were bullies and those like me who imagined violence, death and destruction. They are human realities. The past five thousand years of documented human history are full of violence.
Those that blame the media, video games, youth, whatever, either have a political agenda or are simple minded, inexperienced or both.
If you asked many of the people I knew, they would have just said that I appeared normal.
Today I would say that I am a well rounded successful person. I feel sorry for the victims and those who thought they were victors in violent crimes as such.
The reason why I don't allude to violence in media an games as a factor in adult violence, is because I would assume most have the ability to tell the difference between imagination and reality. I would also assume that one would be able to make a 'good' decision -- but then again...
Art imitating life, or life imitating art? I think both, but the second is a lesser affect and is a lesser evil by far.
As long as there isn't inflation, I don't see why insanity like this can't continue. If people want to throw their money away at 250 bucks a share, then let them.
VA Linux is a good company though. With all this money flow, they *should* be able to create a lot of profit. If you hadn't noticed, they are already becoming more than just a generic computer reseller.
Nothing can substitute personal experience. I've tried just about every Linux distribution, and never taken heed of reviewers doing one paragraph showdown articles. If you want real reviews, just log in to IRC or other chat community and ask people what they like.
In the context of the C|net article, I think slackware and debian definitely deserve what they received. There's no point in complaining when they are catering to their audience (well, the majority of it at least). I know a lot of people who are willing to try linux now, but *really* do need that support or toll free number. There is nothing wrong with that. I'd need a toll free number if I was trying to install a stereo in my car.. so what?
Regarding Redhat, I never experienced much instability with Gnome. It was slow, yes, but not particularly instable. The only application that I found annoying was LinuxConf. This was because it often didn't work as it was supposed to (well that and the incredibly ugly rc file setup). It's not so bad as a workstation though. I'm not really into tweaking workstation setups anyway.
I like Corel Linux too. In fact it is my current favorite. Now, when people ask me to install linux, I install Corel Linux. It has a pretty good installer, kde + some proprietary applications of their own, and some application frontends to debian. I've ran into some installation difficulties in the 10 or so systems I have installed, but it hasn't acted up much.
Slackware though? I can't stand having to compile half the applications that I install (well that or having fun setting up RPM). The debian package and freebsd ports collections are what I use because I really don't like wasting my time when installing applications. The installer is 'OK, but not that intuitive -- there is also no net install a' la Redhat or freebsd et al. It's a pretty good distro only if you enjoy endless hours of tweaking. Well, unless you only want a basic system install.
For the more technically inclined (or those willing to spend time learning things instead of just giving up), I'd say Debian is king. I was amazed the first time I used dpkg. The system setup was also elegant to me, because it matched my mindset. I think it's the closest to a standard system setup than any other distro available. It feels good to actually have a system where you know where everything is. The DOS install was also cool. I didn't even have to go find some old floppy disks to initiate an install:).
Really though, I find installing and playing with each distro fun, even if i find it's not what I like. That's why, right now, I have about 8 systems between work and here, each with something different on it. Heck, I'm even playing with windows98 + X-win32 on remote FreeBSD + wmaker and various X apps running on Linux to Solaris to HP/UX all on my win32 desktop (hey, I've got to use Symantec V. Cafe). It's pretty nice, except for the 3-8 weekly reboots due to various unknown OS problems:).
Most people don't have that many systems to play on though, so I do understand that you may want more advanced reviews; but understand that C|net isn't the right forum for that. Maybe someone will answer your plea now, and do as such -- though the more technically inclined and more experienced with a system people get, the more opinionative and tending to like particulars, soo...
OK, you just don't understand the context. Not a loss leader to bring in business for other store product, loss leader to drive out other local businesses -- of which the last is illegal.
The default config if you have a lancity on Rogers is usually as such. I know people in BC and ON who both have the exact same 47KB/s uplink limit -- but yes, service does differ as per locality.
Why not just mrtg your ethernet adapters. Install UCD-SNMP, install mrtg, query mrtg, get statistics. Here is my traffic statistics page for my external ethernet adapter which is connected to a cable modem. I have friends doing the same on rogers.
Now that you mention it, though, I do wonder if my terayon modem has SNMP MIB's that would allow my provider to measure traffic..:-).
Slashdot Mirror
5) they don't have the momemtum gained from the endless hype in positioning it as an 'MS killer'
6) a less divergent path where supporting anything and everything isn't a top priority
7) lower key users who are less likely to advocate their OS choice
The fact still remains that the BSD community has reached an order of magnitude that brings sufficient returns.
The fact that it is not imperative to return code is irrelevant. There are many corporate users who have returned portions of their code who would not have used the GPL in the first place because they can not pick and choose.
I think it was friday that I and a couple of others (including JKH) helped you with your IPFilter problem.
If I remember correctly, you said you had very little experience with FreeBSD. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about and are using blind and misappropriated speculation.
BSD is not a cult. You are just full of shit.
Congratulations, you just eliminated the only honest ways for the author to earn a living after having finished P
It was under the BSD license. He didn't care if another company used his code. If it didn't stop him before, it won't stop him now.
If you don't mind earning your money
Yes, true. There are many cases where this is possible. Unfortunately though, many companies want a solution now instead of later. This means putting all your time in before and selling the product later. There is that as well as the pain in finding enough customers to collaborate on pricing schemes for you to get that done. It may work for small time work, but I doubt that it scales well.
However, that doesn't stop me from releasing parts of my products with a BSD license. I've been working on a Java imaging SDK that supports more formats than JIMI and Advanced Imaging SDK. It has, unfortunately not seen the light of day yet in the free software world, because there has been argument that they own it at least in part because I worked on it during company time. They of course will remain unnamed..
The market doesn't see the potential of open source. The market sees the potential to make profit because of overhyped words and the endless flocks of bleeting sheep.
If they were really thinking about the viability of open source, they would have noticed that many of these companies' business models aren't exactly sustainable.
Of course, with billions of dollars, they should hopefully be able to work out some scheme to eventually turn a profit.
So in other words, give us the code AND fuck off.
How was I hurt?
You weren't hurt at all; You gave your software away for free. Oh, you were talking about being hypocritical and wanting money or work from others in exchange for your "free" software.
The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.
Just because you do not wish to offer your software for free with no strings doesn't mean the BSD license is flawed.
And people wonder why the commercialization of Linux brings proprietary or more limited licenses in additions to their distribution. Well duh, if they're putting thousands of hours into it, they must be stupid to want to be paid to do so. Or should they just give their time and competitive advantages to every company in the industry? If you think a support based business model (which is very competitive since we give everything we do right back to the community) that also demands many in house developers is a sustainable model, you're crazy.
Code under the BSD is not "forever free"
False. Your definition of free includes an obligation for those adding to your product to contribute code back. The BSD license does not force this. Under the BSD license, the modifications to your product belongs to each programmer who does so. If they want to give back to the community, they will. If they want to spend thousands of hours extending this product and find selling it is the only way to eat, they will. This is free, the GPL definition is less free.
One of your arguments is that using the BSD license would be stupid. Why? Because you demand each and every addition to your product to come directly back to you? There are plenty of BSD licensed products that have a sustainable community.
1) Money: I was selling P before
Then it wasn't free. Either that or you're tricking people into buying completely free software -- perhaps disguised as your expert knowledge in pointing them to it.
4) Ethics/Morals
There's nothing lost because those that use the BSD license choose to actually give their software time/work away for free. The GPL demands software and time/work in return.
Every license has its uses. Use whatever the hell you want -- but don't put down those who wish to actually give their software away for free (or those who wish to sell it for that matter).
"GPL is not 'viral'."
Agreed. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. It is, however, not a good idea to use if you wish to directly make money from programming software. The same, of course, goes for the BSD license.
While this post may make it seem like I am a BSD loving advocate, see my previous posts to understand that licensing is purely one relating to a number of situationals.
Thank you for that absurd story.
Anyway, you could have just stated that your expectation in giving to the community is that of forced return if any intend to expand or extend your product. In other words, we're enforcing community.
This does work very well when the community isn't reliant on the software which they are programming. This is why you see the the commercialization of Linux bringing commercial or more restricted licensing on extensions of the products they offer. A business model which relies on non differentiated product and very competitive support schemes is not sustainable.
The BSD license asks for the good in human nature to give back -- whereas the GPL demands it -- and even then, authors often demand to profit from the commercialization of their efforts.
I do, however, diverge from others in that I can see that both licences can be good. It's your choice to impose restrictions on how free your software is.
However, those that demand software to be GPL'd are missing the point completely. If a business model is based upon profits from software, there is nothing wrong with that. What I think some people are missing is that they are not directly dependent on the software that they build -- so the GPL can't hurt their bottom line. Arguing the virtues of free and commercial licenses without applying situationals is nonsense.
Could Sun really completely GPL Java without losing money due to the developers they have in-house? Their expert knowledge would only go so far as expert knowledge in competing firms when intending to offer support. This is why so many people argue against blind hordes of people advocating the application of the GPL on everything.
Agreed. However, some prefer to force the community to give back. This is probably based on the notion that we may act in self interest otherwise.
Either way, I'm sure business will either extend or modularize to a point where they are not obligated to submit that which gives them an edge.
The connotation commonly attached to the word 'fuck' in this context does work; at least, in my opinion. He was being both negative and questioning the thought and actions of this research, in a playful manner.
Of course, words as general as fuck often make for confusion due to its connotation being open to such wide interpretation. He could have just as easily meant for the word to exert power, obsession, or the foolishness involved in seeking out and the action of...
Who's playing good and evil? The law is the law. Are you trying to tell me that many script kiddies are trying to exercise civil disobedience? Even on so called political hacks, I have yet to see a very valid or well though out explanation as to how the hack occured.
:)
As far as mass media goes, anyone knowledgable in most topics they discuss can laugh knowing they are often presenting candy coated, biased, and misrepresented material.
CNN may have done this -- though you should remember that reporters all have different perspectives on a situation (as do the readers). But yes, I think defamation is wrong when material is misrepresented or deflected to those who did something stupid in name of a cause (think WTO protests).
Are they not Job security for you?
So? What, was I supposed to present a purely biased and flawed argument in my favor?
You mean, like you?
Seriously though, I think you are oversimplifying. The same script kiddies hacking and replacing web pagses through a number of know exploits are also gaining remote root access for the purposes of local and remote password sniffing. Whether it be for their warez server or one of a number of boxes to launch DoS attacks, depends on the particular script kiddie.
Why are they still script kiddies? Because you can teach anyone with a basic amount of computer knowledge how to do these things in about 10 minutes.
What script kiddies do is illegal. Period. Likening them to the thief who breaks windows is valid. Just because you aren't in a corporeal world doesn't mean people aren't losing money or time. I should know, I get paid to do damage control as well as passing on important security information before (as to their services running as well as how to properly run a firewall et al).
You know where most corporate hacks originate? Inside the company.
Oh, and by the way, any kiddie with a couple of accounts on decent links can completely obliterate the httpd daemon on any host with a couple hundred thousand of spoofed syns a second (firewalls can't protect open services unless they dynamically and elegantly drop attacks such as this -- and even then are a mixed bag).
Take a ride over to EFNET (and some other) IRC networks some time. A large percentage of these dorks hang out there.
While it may be their duty to protect their business model through the use of patents -- it is not their duty to use those patents to damage competition. Amazon is doing nothing but taking advantage of the system with so-called "innovative" patents.
Unfortunately, the same system that granted them the patent may uphold it in court.
"This boycott is doomed to failure"
It depends on what you think the goal is. Did anyone say that this was intended to hurt their bottom line?
It may:
a) help B&N in court battle because so many people complained about the obviousness of their "innovative" patent
b) keep *some* revenue out or Amazon's pockets
"Eventually somebody else will correct this broken system now, right"
Yep, if eventually given enough complaints -- the system will change. Doing nothing accomplishes nothing. Doing something *may* accomplish a goal. Looking for an immediate and broad effect is short-sighted.
Now, we may wish for a greater effect to come of this -- but really, doing nothing doesn't help a problem.
Oh :).
Anyway, both are advertising on the same target market in a different phase of being prepared to purchase.
Actually, tv car ads are mostly just for brand awareness so that if you ever think of purchasing a car or truck, it will be the first thing that comes to mind. While it has less effect than purchases that are more impulse, it does have an effect -- at least subliminally -- on brands that aren't sufficiently differentiated in price or features. The auto oligopoly generally has similar prices as per the current price setter -- so prices of similar model car are usually very similar. There of course is still product differentiation -- but market share is usually more or less stable. Moves to obtain more market share are also often very slow. Unfortunately with the barriers on the market, no new competitor can join in and really innovate and produce cars that dont fall apart within 3 years.
In correlation to the story, to not be so off topic -- it does show that the media and advertising does affect us -- but we aren't often aware of it, even if we've taken some business or advertising courses and can identify the key words used to elicit a sale, in a testimonial or whatever. Fortunately we're able to filter this information more efficiently as adults; otherwise we'd all be going to Devry, eating pringles for dinner, and being like mike and using product x.
If you knew the answer, you would have stated so. Another flame with no substance.
:).
England, Canada, Switzerland all have lower crime per capita as well as less violent crimes involving guns.
There are, however, socioeconomic factors that may skew comparisons.
The closest comparison is the US vs Canada. Even then, we have social systems that the US does not, so that's not even a relatively good comparison. Many people in the US also tend to be very self righteous which can also fuel the flames.
I'm sure people could go on for hours just stating all the possible factors, and it would take years to come up with a system to rank these factors -- and even then, it would be based on a snapshot of a certain time -- and become irrelevant the next..
I at least feel safe knowing that there isn't that same guy with a gun for protection, using it against me.
And then you hear people saying;
"But then people will use knives instead!" Well go ahead, I can run from knives not weighted for throwing (in those situations where I was aware of the threat)
I tend to think that less guns means less crazy or poor or emotionally challenged people who were previously thought not to be using them. I can actually live in a community where there is a lot less recipricol fear of death.
Now, *everyone* having guns also works. It's kind of hard to execute a massacre when everyone and their mother is carrying an uzi. The problem with this is that there is a neverending cycle of hate and fear. It's necessary for countries that need consciption to survive -- but I wouldn't recommend it for any country that expects to live in relative peace in the not so distant future.
"Newer better studies"
Sure there, bud. The simple truth is that both occur.
Bob had high grades and self esteem. Bob has a death in the family or is regularly abused by his schoolmates or recently broke up with a long time girlfriend. Those grades fall as a result of low self esteem.
Mary has low grades; she feels incapable of competing with the other kids; she fell behind in grade 7 and hasn't been able to catch up since; teachers label her as the stupid kid; other students laugh at her when she announces a b+. The result is low self esteem.
Hi, I'm bob. Meet my sister mary.
True -- though I haven't heard many arguments targeted at groups these large that were valid.
;)
I visit Muslim countries and all I hear about is the worldwide jewish conspiracy; I visit Israel and all I hear from jews is all the arabs/muslims are trash and will take over israel if provided the opportunity in an instant (oh wait, that last one was true); In turkey it's the greeks; In greece it's the turks; In cali it's all those damn mexicans taking over; in Ireland it's the..
A friend in Egypt told me the media there was making jokes about the jewish controlled americans who had shot down the EgyptAir flight with a new high tech laser gun.
Lets face it; Most people are simple minded when it comes to anything outside of their profession or daily life. Simple people want simple solutions and targetting a particular group is very convenient.
Some of the criticism is sometimes true -- but is more often either completely bent to fit a convenient lie; or complete and utter paranoia.
It gets more complex when those paranoia propogators make up more paranoia and lies to cover their tracks, but you get the drift.
The only partially valid criticism I can think of right now about israeli's(im not saying jews because im jewish but not a f***ing israeli) is that they are treating palestinians bad. Even then, though, if you look at the big picture; the hate goes both ways and gets particularly ugly when dealing with land -- especially when its deemed to be "holy".
Remember when texas wanted to become independent?
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and people are conditioned to accept criticism of certain groups -- at least on a subliminal level. Think about it though, if it was ok to criticise the minority, then things like asian/jewish/[insert minority here] opression during world war II might occur again in the near future.
It's better to be overly politically correct of minorities than to let human stupidity take over.
For some wacko funny shit, head over to radioislam.net. The sad part, however, is that I have heard some Muslims in canada propogating this mindless hate and even believing it themselves. If you think american government conspiracy theories are extreme, get a load of this stuff. It makes all sense now! The jews are controlling all american media and the government! Me and my jewish friends are in our basemint on a hush hush conference call with clinton every tuesday at 3am to deliver our demands or we raze your country. And guess what? We're not humans. We're aliens from the planet xentar and we really enjoy anally probing hicks from alabama
Potential buyers aren't always ready to jump out there and purchase. There are probably a much larger number considering or wishing to buy a car and advertising reaches them and at least gets the company name and car model in their head so that they will at least consider it when the time comes around. By sheer numbers of those who watch whatever media, they are sure to get someone.
Yes, the ads by themselves don't sell the cars -- but they do make you interested. I saw a Lincoln LS car ad (great commercial btw), and then went online to see great reviews of the car and then went out to buy one myself. Without that advertising, I probably wouldn't have even knew the car existed. Even if I did, come on, this is Lincoln here, I doubt I would have bought a lincoln based on what I've seen from their cars in the past.
Local dealer advertising? Give me a break. They don't show much of anything; they just blather on about deals and "Hi, mom!".
Both are good for what they are for, I guess. Local dealer ads for those directly considering pricing and an immediate > 3 months purchase -- and those extolling the virtues of the car in motion to get the word out.
I played carmageddon as well as just about every other game involving senseless murder. I, like you, really enjoy most of them as well.
...?
I also played paper based RPG games and read a lot of fantasy/Sci-Fi books.
In the first few years of high school I found myself having fantasies about having special powers and being part of some epic plot to destroy or save the world (depending on my mood).
I also had low self esteem due to having to constantly move to new schools because of parents obligations as well as being excluded from groups in school due to what I wore, how I talked, or what my interests were.
Anyway, the bounds of reality were often stretched and I sometimes found myself not knowing what was real and what was imagination.
Fortunately, my parents also taught me basic fair play, lessons about reality, made sure I did my school work, and pushed me into interaction with my peers (through sports, youth groups, whatever).
I could have just as easily exploded.
What I'm trying to get across here, is that these elements could have just as easily combined to result in chemically unbalanced volatile person who might just have done something incredibly stupid. Now that I am not clouded by emotions and my incredibly puny 14 year old mind who just wanted to be accepted, it does seem really stupid. I also see that my parents should have done something other than ask me "If I was ok". Of course I was going to say yes.
I think I remember in grade 9, having a fantasy about sticking a pencil in the back of the neck of someone who was constantly pestering me and throwing spitballs at me in class. Teachers? They did nothing. One day I just burst out crying; I don't think I had cried since my father had died years before (the story behind that and the abuse is not pretty). I didn't stop crying for almost an hour.
Do you think people understood then? Nope. Months later I had heard a teacher joking with a student about me -- And do you think I would have thought about the consequences or even appreciated the fact that anything mattered if it was me engaging in a violent act just like one recently acted out? I couldn't even appreciate and understand my own feelings, let alone someone elses.
Why did someone so borderline, without a serious grasp on reality, fair play, and with such low self esteem explode? In part because my parents finally woke up and in another part being exposed to religion. I am an athiest today -- as I have outgrown its crutch, but I did learn some fairly serious teachings that helped me through my early days.
Anyway, back on topic. Did games effect my actions? In my case, I think they mostly helped me to expend all that built up energy, hate, and held back emotions. I also found that online in games, as well as on IRC, I was accepted for who I was -- not excluded because of who I should be. Did games and the media in general give me ideas as to how I could use violence to make things better? Yeah I guess -- fortunately there are probably virtually no guns in my community. I also had fantasies of stabbing people with pencils or snowjobbing them to death in winter too. I have never been not exposed to violent media and games -- so I can't make a hypothesis as to what their imagined actions would be -- but I'm sure most humans learn early on that violence is a fast and easy way to extract revenge and expend anger. Before there were video games or television, I'm sure there were bullies and those like me who imagined violence, death and destruction. They are human realities. The past five thousand years of documented human history are full of violence.
Those that blame the media, video games, youth, whatever, either have a political agenda or are simple minded, inexperienced or both.
If you asked many of the people I knew, they would have just said that I appeared normal.
Today I would say that I am a well rounded successful person. I feel sorry for the victims and those who thought they were victors in violent crimes as such.
The reason why I don't allude to violence in media an games as a factor in adult violence, is because I would assume most have the ability to tell the difference between imagination and reality. I would also assume that one would be able to make a 'good' decision -- but then again...
Art imitating life, or life imitating art? I think both, but the second is a lesser affect and is a lesser evil by far.
Then again, what is a definition of evil
As long as there isn't inflation, I don't see why insanity like this can't continue. If people want to throw their money away at 250 bucks a share, then let them.
VA Linux is a good company though. With all this money flow, they *should* be able to create a lot of profit. If you hadn't noticed, they are already becoming more than just a generic computer reseller.
Nothing can substitute personal experience. I've tried just about every Linux distribution, and never taken heed of reviewers doing one paragraph showdown articles. If you want real reviews, just log in to IRC or other chat community and ask people what they like.
:).
:).
...
In the context of the C|net article, I think slackware and debian definitely deserve what they received. There's no point in complaining when they are catering to their audience (well, the majority of it at least). I know a lot of people who are willing to try linux now, but *really* do need that support or toll free number. There is nothing wrong with that. I'd need a toll free number if I was trying to install a stereo in my car.. so what?
Regarding Redhat, I never experienced much instability with Gnome. It was slow, yes, but not particularly instable. The only application that I found annoying was LinuxConf. This was because it often didn't work as it was supposed to (well that and the incredibly ugly rc file setup). It's not so bad as a workstation though. I'm not really into tweaking workstation setups anyway.
I like Corel Linux too. In fact it is my current favorite. Now, when people ask me to install linux, I install Corel Linux. It has a pretty good installer, kde + some proprietary applications of their own, and some application frontends to debian. I've ran into some installation difficulties in the 10 or so systems I have installed, but it hasn't acted up much.
Slackware though? I can't stand having to compile half the applications that I install (well that or having fun setting up RPM). The debian package and freebsd ports collections are what I use because I really don't like wasting my time when installing applications. The installer is 'OK, but not that intuitive -- there is also no net install a' la Redhat or freebsd et al. It's a pretty good distro only if you enjoy endless hours of tweaking. Well, unless you only want a basic system install.
For the more technically inclined (or those willing to spend time learning things instead of just giving up), I'd say Debian is king. I was amazed the first time I used dpkg. The system setup was also elegant to me, because it matched my mindset. I think it's the closest to a standard system setup than any other distro available. It feels good to actually have a system where you know where everything is. The DOS install was also cool. I didn't even have to go find some old floppy disks to initiate an install
Really though, I find installing and playing with each distro fun, even if i find it's not what I like. That's why, right now, I have about 8 systems between work and here, each with something different on it. Heck, I'm even playing with windows98 + X-win32 on remote FreeBSD + wmaker and various X apps running on Linux to Solaris to HP/UX all on my win32 desktop (hey, I've got to use Symantec V. Cafe). It's pretty nice, except for the 3-8 weekly reboots due to various unknown OS problems
Most people don't have that many systems to play on though, so I do understand that you may want more advanced reviews; but understand that C|net isn't the right forum for that. Maybe someone will answer your plea now, and do as such -- though the more technically inclined and more experienced with a system people get, the more opinionative and tending to like particulars, soo
OK, you just don't understand the context. Not a loss leader to bring in business for other store product, loss leader to drive out other local businesses -- of which the last is illegal.
The default config if you have a lancity on Rogers is usually as such. I know people in BC and ON who both have the exact same 47KB/s uplink limit -- but yes, service does differ as per locality.
Why not just mrtg your ethernet adapters. Install UCD-SNMP, install mrtg, query mrtg, get statistics. Here is my traffic statistics page for my external ethernet adapter which is connected to a cable modem. I have friends doing the same on rogers.
:-).
Now that you mention it, though, I do wonder if my terayon modem has SNMP MIB's that would allow my provider to measure traffic..