Don't download commercial music that you are not allowed to possess.
Instead, try iRATE and get free, legal mp3s.
You don't have to pirate music, and you can still kick the RIAA where it hurts (mindshare).
While iRATE is a great program to discover new music it is an abysmal program as an mp3 player. To get the advantage out of it I need to use it as my mp3 player (otherwise I can't rate and download as easily can I?) and let's see what it lacks... Volume control, Playlist randomizing, easy removal of songs I dont like, lenght of song, position at the current song and control of it, search function for songs...
It's a really nifty idea, I admit that. But it's not usable. since it isn't a good mp3 player and it makes difficult to use a good mp3 player alongside with it. (Now if it'd arrange songs into folders according to score so I could copy all the good songs to my default winamp playlist it might be different deal...)
I believe they would need to know basic unix commands to get the pages in the right places unless you are using a non-*nix web server, in which case, may the force be with you because nothing else will.
So in an *nix system I can't use FTP to upload files where I actually want them? At least that's how I did it with my ISP assigned web space...
Anyway, no reason that can't still be done. Best way to learn about such basics as HTML, UNIX, and FTP. Just give them a UNIX account with a few privileges -- that's what my ISP gave me back in the day.
Remind me again why a kid needs to learn UNIX to publish a home page? Even HTML is debatable as WYSIWYG editors are quite adequate for everything she might need to create.
Those would be ideal but most people people don't do those because OSS is (at least at the moment) developer centric model instead of community centric one. People are rarely motivated by being treated as second class contributors. Can you imagine someone being a respected within a project to the same extent as programmers for let's say... designing the GUI guidelines for project or maybe spending excessive amount of time doing free tech support or for doing excessive usability testing for program with clueless end-users?
Perhaps. This is a purely subjective point that I can't really comment on. I was simply pointing out that people don't pay attention to the basics, and silly ideas to compensate aren't going to cure our security woes.
I agree that best way to prevent hacking would indeed be education. Kinda like communism would be the best solution for poverty. I also think both of them are about as easy solutions to implement. And I also have moral qualms about forcing people to learn internet security when the cost/benefit ratio means that I'd get the bulk of the advantage and they'd pay the bulk of the price. Keeping that in mind, I think we should search for an alternative solution or accept the problem as a fact of like.
Unfortunately it is easy to argue that the alternative solutions aren't that good. Paying money to catch hackers smells of vigilantism, making software developers responsible for the damage their bugs cause would kill practically all developement, especially the noncommercial kind, increased punishments might do the trick but then that'd mean that punishment wouldn't anymore fit the crime. Make ISPs responsible for the computers connected to their network? Only http via proxy would fatally wound the usefullness of internet.
Based on these observations I'd say that the 'best' solution is to just accept hacking as a fact of life and make a lot of backups.
is what frequencies can't be jammed by the Military? Is there some secret form of Maxwell's equations I don't know about?
Frequency that their own military GPS uses? Or any other frequency that's cricital to their operation? In theory they could but that'd do them more harm then good.
No clever ideas like this are, were, or ever will be a suitable substitute for implementing real security. People need to wake up and realize that "hackers" are successful because peole still prefer convenience above all else.
What about when you get people to realize the risks of hackers and they still think the cost in time and effort is not worth it? - "You can either take 50 hours worth of classes in internet security or you can reinstall your computer every fourth month because of hackers and virus infestations" - "Okay, I'm cool with that"
If people dont value computer security as much as you do, you can't do anything to change their mind. And since it's a question of values they're not even wrong.
The people who invented and commercialized that tv didn't have tv in their classrooms.
* The people who put the men on the moon didn't have computers in their classrooms. * The people who invented the computer didn't have computers in their classrooms. * The people who cured polio, mumps, rubella, diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, etc. didn't have computers in their classrooms. * The people who split the atom didn't have computers in their classrooms. * Shakespear, Milton, Dickens, Twain, Dostoyevski, Joyce, Capote, Hemmingway, etc., didn't have computers in their classrooms.
* Pythagoras and Archimedes didn't need mathematics with zero.
How does the voter know that the line printed and the vote saved are the same one? It would be trivial to make the program print a vote for candidate X and mark it as a vote for candidate Y?
There's a difference between HAVING to install new email clients/servers (so that you won't be left behind with the old generation email), and NOT HAVING to update/patch something since it "already works" (even if it's not perfect nor secure).
Exactly how are you going to force them to switch to new generation email? Do you really think the vast majority will get new email-programs when a small minority says they cant communicate with them otherwise? No way. Even if you get the new generation email system up it'll be stagnant at best simply because people are too lazy to upgrade or plain dont know how to do it. Don't believe me? Do you see how popular are new versions of old protocols such as encrypted ftp, encrypted im, https? that one doesn't even require upgrades from the majority of the clients and it's used in maybe 1% of the pages available.
how is this insightful? parent simply doesn't understand the concept of a vaccine.
if you get mod points, wait for something decent to come along, don't immediately blow your load over the first thing you see.
The problem grandparent sees is not with the vaccine I think but with the fact that there is only one surefire way to test if the vaccine ever works, by infecting the victim. Sure you can check blood levels for anti-ebola toxins but you will never be sure untill it has been tried in practice.
I think the industry as a whole would be *MUCH* better off looking for a technical solution rather than hoping for government intervention. Plus, the internet is multinational, so it's a hopeless task for the government to do anything about it. "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" pretty much sums up this article.
Yet any technical solution is doomed to fail. Why? Spam is the problem it is because of open relays. Do you think you can get everyone to change into a new email protocol when you cant even get them to patch and configure their servers? If you say yes then dream on.
We should aim for sociological solution. Why does spam work? What can we do to change it? The fake answers are a start.
Any spam solution should not require new email clients or servers and should not compromise the anonimity or freedom of email while protecting everyone from spam, otherwise it simply wont work.
The trouble is with that 5-letter word: faith. Anything that handles data in an obscure way (read closed-source) relies on user's faith.
Take the position of joe average. You get your hands on the source code. Do you think it is NOT obscure?
E-voting should fail because it cannot be directly trusted or checked by majority or even a large minority. Would you trust your vote on the exclusive hands on $profession that has agendas and attitudes that are easy to see? If not, why would you require it from everyone else?
My brother recently gave me a copy of the old ISO's. You can imagine my surprise when the following happened: I tried to compile something and found that the kernel source isn't installed by default. So I went to install it. Guess what--the kernel source wasn't on any of the CD's! What's up with that?!! Isn't that a violation of the GPL? Is the kernel source on the new ISO's? If not, why? Someone please enlighten me.
It is not a requirement to distribute source along binaries as long as source is available.
We need more books that help Windows users make the change to Linux. Although I probably wouldn't benefit from this book since I'm now used to reading the documentation myself, I would have appreciated such a text a few short years ago.
I don't think they'll help much. People that read documentation are few and far between. Those that actually buy those book are even more rare. Like it or not, Windows has taught people that you shouldn't need to read a manual to run anything and application is broken if you have to.
Slick and easy UI is the way, not books that vast majority will never read.
Problem isn't the GUI. Hasn't been for a while. Problem as that all the apps that make linux great aren't accessible to the masses (read: don't have GUI).
Ask your average Linux user about the greatest things in Linux. Chances are that maybe 1/10 can be done inside a windowmanager.
Your average Windows user knows nothing about computers. It seems to take a few years before even basic things like "My computer", "drag and drop" and the fact that "The computer", "The operating system" and Microsoft Word are not all the same thing sink in. I see very little difference in ease of use between a (well) pre-configured Linux computer and a Windows computer. If anything, a Linux system can be easier to use for a beginner than Windows. No virus worries, for example. We're not talking about compiling the kernel here, just Internet, Office, mail and IM (which covers 99% of usage).
True. But you should notice that the people who have the most social influence on which operating system people use (the family geeks, not the most computer savvy people around but by far more numerous then the advanced users), do not have Linux available to their level of needs and skills.
Consider the people who know what dhcp does, what is a proxy, how p2p works, what is the difference between server and client, but does not hold any deeper knowledge into these things. They not only control their own computers, they control what is installed to the computers of several other people. Or can you honestly say you can have a click&run experience to the advanced feature of Linux? There is no semi-advanced Linux to 'catch' them. a Distro that lets them see all the cool stuff Linux can do. The day then can install a Linux distro and see stuff like QoS, Routing etc without having to get into the Unix stuff (remember, Unix is poison to the 95% of the users) Is the day they will like Linux.
On a more serious note the invention of the Scientific method by Francis Beacon el al is the real cause of the dominance.
The whole concept of progress, not just looking back to a Golden Age coupled with a purpose of study of the Natural Sciences as it was called.
The Purpose was still framed in Christian ethics of Charity ie Betterment of the life of fellow human beings, but this was enough to "shovel off this religious coil" that has keept man's progress down.
The problem with the rest of the world is that the Coil is still there.
Yet the claim that religion prevent advancement is faulty. Both ancient Greece and Medieval Arabia are proof of that.
1. The west embraces the free marketplace of ideas more than others.
yet the idea of free market is quite young. Adam Smith published Wealth of Nation in 1776. How do you explain all the innovations during the reneissance when merchantilism ruled? Or perhaps during the height of Greeks?
I cannot read such an article without thinking of the Therac-25 catastrophe (several people being killed or severely injured because of a poorly designed X-ray device).
My 2 cents: When developing a medical device, don't focus on a nice'n'cool UI, but on safety.
Or rather, focus on building a good and simple UI so that there are no chances for mistakes.
Emphasis mine Same goes for IM. THe only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443. Of course none of the employees have quite figured this out so I am the only one that can IM with outside people. Rendevous only works on the internal network so they can only chat with other employees.
Plus we're not paying people to chat with friends. Funny how project completion times went up after I disabled the port.
Except for you that seems. I'd have little respect for sysadmin that does not honor his own policies.
-Robots can work 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week. -Robots dont form unions. -Robots give you privacy. If it finds your pr0n collection you dont have to be embarrassed. -Wages unvariably go up, cost of robots unvariably go down. -Robots dont do any more mistakes even after a 1000 hour work"day". -Robots are easy to upgrade. -No-one is going to disapprove your use of robots.
Let's assume for a moment that there was a huge conspiracy to cover up UFO, obviously including billions of dollars, thousands of people and high level goverment support. And just by accident they dont have fake documents just in case something like this would happen? Uh-huh. No matter what the case is, the documents will say that it was just a satellite or something like that.
Murder is refusing a person the right to live. That is a basic human right, and not so much an issue of morality. Is there another example you'd like to present? I can't really think of anything offhand, but I'm tired and may be overlooking the obvious. My basic point was that even human rights are a question of morality. If you don't think that is the case, how would you prove human rights exist without even mentioning morality?
Slashdot Mirror
Lets give the RIAA what they want.
Don't download commercial music that you are not allowed to possess.
Instead, try iRATE and get free, legal mp3s.
You don't have to pirate music, and you can still kick the RIAA where it hurts (mindshare).
While iRATE is a great program to discover new music it is an abysmal program as an mp3 player. To get the advantage out of it I need to use it as my mp3 player (otherwise I can't rate and download as easily can I?) and let's see what it lacks... Volume control, Playlist randomizing, easy removal of songs I dont like, lenght of song, position at the current song and control of it, search function for songs...
It's a really nifty idea, I admit that. But it's not usable. since it isn't a good mp3 player and it makes difficult to use a good mp3 player alongside with it. (Now if it'd arrange songs into folders according to score so I could copy all the good songs to my default winamp playlist it might be different deal...)
I believe they would need to know basic unix commands to get the pages in the right places unless you are using a non-*nix web server, in which case, may the force be with you because nothing else will.
So in an *nix system I can't use FTP to upload files where I actually want them? At least that's how I did it with my ISP assigned web space...
Anyway, no reason that can't still be done. Best way to learn about such basics as HTML, UNIX, and FTP. Just give them a UNIX account with a few privileges -- that's what my ISP gave me back in the day.
Remind me again why a kid needs to learn UNIX to publish a home page? Even HTML is debatable as WYSIWYG editors are quite adequate for everything she might need to create.
#2. Money - always appreciated.
#3. Testing & submitting GOOD bug reports.
#4. Helping with documentation.
#5. Maintaining your own "HowTo" for your system.
etc.
Those would be ideal but most people people don't do those because OSS is (at least at the moment) developer centric model instead of community centric one. People are rarely motivated by being treated as second class contributors. Can you imagine someone being a respected within a project to the same extent as programmers for let's say... designing the GUI guidelines for project or maybe spending excessive amount of time doing free tech support or for doing excessive usability testing for program with clueless end-users?
Me neither.
Perhaps. This is a purely subjective point that I can't really comment on. I was simply pointing out that people don't pay attention to the basics, and silly ideas to compensate aren't going to cure our security woes.
I agree that best way to prevent hacking would indeed be education. Kinda like communism would be the best solution for poverty. I also think both of them are about as easy solutions to implement. And I also have moral qualms about forcing people to learn internet security when the cost/benefit ratio means that I'd get the bulk of the advantage and they'd pay the bulk of the price. Keeping that in mind, I think we should search for an alternative solution or accept the problem as a fact of like.
Unfortunately it is easy to argue that the alternative solutions aren't that good. Paying money to catch hackers smells of vigilantism, making software developers responsible for the damage their bugs cause would kill practically all developement, especially the noncommercial kind, increased punishments might do the trick but then that'd mean that punishment wouldn't anymore fit the crime. Make ISPs responsible for the computers connected to their network? Only http via proxy would fatally wound the usefullness of internet.
Based on these observations I'd say that the 'best' solution is to just accept hacking as a fact of life and make a lot of backups.
is what frequencies can't be jammed by the Military? Is there some secret form of Maxwell's equations I don't know about?
Frequency that their own military GPS uses? Or any other frequency that's cricital to their operation? In theory they could but that'd do them more harm then good.
No clever ideas like this are, were, or ever will be a suitable substitute for implementing real security. People need to wake up and realize that "hackers" are successful because peole still prefer convenience above all else.
What about when you get people to realize the risks of hackers and they still think the cost in time and effort is not worth it?
- "You can either take 50 hours worth of classes in internet security or you can reinstall your computer every fourth month because of hackers and virus infestations"
- "Okay, I'm cool with that"
If people dont value computer security as much as you do, you can't do anything to change their mind. And since it's a question of values they're not even wrong.
The people who invented and commercialized that tv didn't have tv in their classrooms.
* The people who put the men on the moon didn't have computers in their classrooms.
* The people who invented the computer didn't have computers in their classrooms.
* The people who cured polio, mumps, rubella, diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, etc. didn't have computers in their classrooms.
* The people who split the atom didn't have computers in their classrooms.
* Shakespear, Milton, Dickens, Twain, Dostoyevski, Joyce, Capote, Hemmingway, etc., didn't have computers in their classrooms.
* Pythagoras and Archimedes didn't need mathematics with zero.
How does the voter know that the line printed and the vote saved are the same one? It would be trivial to make the program print a vote for candidate X and mark it as a vote for candidate Y?
There's a difference between HAVING to install new email clients/servers (so that you won't be left behind with the old generation email), and NOT HAVING to update/patch something since it "already works" (even if it's not perfect nor secure).
Exactly how are you going to force them to switch to new generation email? Do you really think the vast majority will get new email-programs when a small minority says they cant communicate with them otherwise? No way. Even if you get the new generation email system up it'll be stagnant at best simply because people are too lazy to upgrade or plain dont know how to do it. Don't believe me? Do you see how popular are new versions of old protocols such as encrypted ftp, encrypted im, https? that one doesn't even require upgrades from the majority of the clients and it's used in maybe 1% of the pages available.
how is this insightful? parent simply doesn't understand the concept of a vaccine.
if you get mod points, wait for something decent to come along, don't immediately blow your load over the first thing you see.
The problem grandparent sees is not with the vaccine I think but with the fact that there is only one surefire way to test if the vaccine ever works, by infecting the victim. Sure you can check blood levels for anti-ebola toxins but you will never be sure untill it has been tried in practice.
I think the industry as a whole would be *MUCH* better off looking for a technical solution rather than hoping for government intervention. Plus, the internet is multinational, so it's a hopeless task for the government to do anything about it. "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" pretty much sums up this article.
Yet any technical solution is doomed to fail. Why? Spam is the problem it is because of open relays. Do you think you can get everyone to change into a new email protocol when you cant even get them to patch and configure their servers? If you say yes then dream on.
We should aim for sociological solution. Why does spam work? What can we do to change it? The fake answers are a start.
Any spam solution should not require new email clients or servers and should not compromise the anonimity or freedom of email while protecting everyone from spam, otherwise it simply wont work.
The trouble is with that 5-letter word: faith. Anything that handles data in an obscure way (read closed-source) relies on user's faith.
Take the position of joe average. You get your hands on the source code. Do you think it is NOT obscure?
E-voting should fail because it cannot be directly trusted or checked by majority or even a large minority. Would you trust your vote on the exclusive hands on $profession that has agendas and attitudes that are easy to see? If not, why would you require it from everyone else?
My brother recently gave me a copy of the old ISO's. You can imagine my surprise when the following happened: I tried to compile something and found that the kernel source isn't installed by default. So I went to install it. Guess what--the kernel source wasn't on any of the CD's! What's up with that?!! Isn't that a violation of the GPL? Is the kernel source on the new ISO's? If not, why? Someone please enlighten me.
It is not a requirement to distribute source along binaries as long as source is available.
We need more books that help Windows users make the change to Linux. Although I probably wouldn't benefit from this book since I'm now used to reading the documentation myself, I would have appreciated such a text a few short years ago.
I don't think they'll help much. People that read documentation are few and far between. Those that actually buy those book are even more rare. Like it or not, Windows has taught people that you shouldn't need to read a manual to run anything and application is broken if you have to.
Slick and easy UI is the way, not books that vast majority will never read.
Problem isn't the GUI. Hasn't been for a while. Problem as that all the apps that make linux great aren't accessible to the masses (read: don't have GUI).
Ask your average Linux user about the greatest things in Linux. Chances are that maybe 1/10 can be done inside a windowmanager.
I wrote a program in Qbasic to solve it. Is that cheating?
If I build a forklift can I say I can lift 3000 lbs?
Your average Windows user knows nothing about computers. It seems to take a few years before even basic things like "My computer", "drag and drop" and the fact that "The computer", "The operating system" and Microsoft Word are not all the same thing sink in.
I see very little difference in ease of use between a (well) pre-configured Linux computer and a Windows computer. If anything, a Linux system can be easier to use for a beginner than Windows. No virus worries, for example.
We're not talking about compiling the kernel here, just Internet, Office, mail and IM (which covers 99% of usage).
True. But you should notice that the people who have the most social influence on which operating system people use (the family geeks, not the most computer savvy people around but by far more numerous then the advanced users), do not have Linux available to their level of needs and skills.
Consider the people who know what dhcp does, what is a proxy, how p2p works, what is the difference between server and client, but does not hold any deeper knowledge into these things. They not only control their own computers, they control what is installed to the computers of several other people. Or can you honestly say you can have a click&run experience to the advanced feature of Linux? There is no semi-advanced Linux to 'catch' them. a Distro that lets them see all the cool stuff Linux can do. The day then can install a Linux distro and see stuff like QoS, Routing etc without having to get into the Unix stuff (remember, Unix is poison to the 95% of the users) Is the day they will like Linux.
On a more serious note the invention of the Scientific method by Francis Beacon el al is the real cause of the dominance.
The whole concept of progress, not just looking back to a Golden Age coupled with a purpose of study of the Natural Sciences as it was called.
The Purpose was still framed in Christian ethics of Charity ie Betterment of the life of fellow human beings, but this was enough to "shovel off this religious coil" that has keept man's progress down.
The problem with the rest of the world is that the Coil is still there.
Yet the claim that religion prevent advancement is faulty. Both ancient Greece and Medieval Arabia are proof of that.
1. The west embraces the free marketplace of ideas more than others.
yet the idea of free market is quite young. Adam Smith published Wealth of Nation in 1776. How do you explain all the innovations during the reneissance when merchantilism ruled? Or perhaps during the height of Greeks?
I cannot read such an article without thinking of the Therac-25 catastrophe (several people being killed or severely injured because of a poorly designed X-ray device).
My 2 cents: When developing a medical device, don't focus on a nice'n'cool UI, but on safety.
Or rather, focus on building a good and simple UI so that there are no chances for mistakes.
Emphasis mine
Same goes for IM. THe only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443. Of course none of the employees have quite figured this out so I am the only one that can IM with outside people. Rendevous only works on the internal network so they can only chat with other employees.
Plus we're not paying people to chat with friends. Funny how project completion times went up after I disabled the port.
Except for you that seems. I'd have little respect for sysadmin that does not honor his own policies.
-Robots can work 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week.
-Robots dont form unions.
-Robots give you privacy. If it finds your pr0n collection you dont have to be embarrassed.
-Wages unvariably go up, cost of robots unvariably go down.
-Robots dont do any more mistakes even after a 1000 hour work"day".
-Robots are easy to upgrade.
-No-one is going to disapprove your use of robots.
Let's assume for a moment that there was a huge conspiracy to cover up UFO, obviously including billions of dollars, thousands of people and high level goverment support. And just by accident they dont have fake documents just in case something like this would happen? Uh-huh. No matter what the case is, the documents will say that it was just a satellite or something like that.
Murder is refusing a person the right to live. That is a basic human right, and not so much an issue of morality. Is there another example you'd like to present? I can't really think of anything offhand, but I'm tired and may be overlooking the obvious. My basic point was that even human rights are a question of morality. If you don't think that is the case, how would you prove human rights exist without even mentioning morality?