Unfortunately, the Slashdot editors always seem to forget to verify that there's a link to the SCO website somewhere in the stories. Does anobody knows what their URL is ? I'm Google-impaired and it would help me a lot to go and buy a Linux license for my Debian box. Thank you guys.
*wakes up* AAAAAAAAAAH ! What the hell was THAT ?!
My Hotmail account is for anti-spam purposes. I use other e-mail addresses to communicate at work and with my friends, but I use this disposable address for public stuff like my Web page, Slashdot, chatrooms and whatnot. I think preserving my inboxen clean while filling MS servers with junk is definitely a win-win situation, moreover when you consider that I got plug-ins to block their ads.
As for the Flash stuff on my site, it's just getting pretty old:) I've made these animations like last year, and at that time I didn't know much about alternatives to mainstream software so I took the obvious path. Anyway, I've been thinking about new stuff to put in there soon, and of course I'll get rid of Flash stuff at one point. Thanks for your interest in my Web pages sir, any suggestions ?;)
I definitely agree with you on most of your post. Some restrictions on software you're talking about are my main problems with the GPL, and that's the case I pointed out in my last post ( RMS on Debian offering non-free packages ). I mean, even if I think something is immoral, I won't forbid someone from doing it : that'd be policespeak. I'm all for getting rid of licenses you know, but I do understand that due to the business model mostly used in the software industry right now, some kinds of limits are to be drawn. I'll be quite thrilled if the situation exists where all licenses could be gotten rid of, but that's revolution stuff and I won't get into this here;)
BTW, I do realize there are MUCH more important issues, and I do spend time on some of the ones you talked about and on others too ( popular education, for example ). But I'm on Slashdot here, not on infoshop.org, you know;)
( I'm conscious I'm using many ( haha ) vague terms like "many" or "sometimes" quite often here. It's only because I don't know of statistics about this. These are my observations and while I think they're accurate, please take them as so. I don't have higher pretentions about them. )
You're right when you say that nobody would give a fuck about the FSF if only dozens of people would agree with the ideas it maintains. Now, browse a little on SourceForge and look at the projects going on under the GPL ; yes, sometimes prior license issues are the cause of this, but it's obvious many people license their new software by choice. Same thing for the bunch of GNU projects out there. Nuff said.
I'm rather surprised by the remainder of your argument ( "Source code isn't political" and such ). What about source codes for voting machines, privacy and "national security" concerns ? These are very politically decisive examples, don't you think ? Whether it is politicized or not is not relevent since it actually happens and shapes our political systems in subtle ways, whatever you might think about it.
Refusing to see the political aspect of technology is the problem I'm referring to. I'd like to know how you think that me being interested in this perspective is a problem to the programming community.
BTW, I do realize that Apple getting SOME OF its sources public in a way is already a Good Thing. All I was saying in my original post is that it could be better. It matters to me because of its political implications and possible long-term effects on the software community, in practicality as well. Consider that a molehill if you please ; I don't.
I thought the link I made with the FSF statement on the APSL made that point clear enough : it's a practical and moral matter for many programmers to follow the FSF guidelines, moreover when software release is concerned. Maybe they could still do it in most cases, but many simply wouldn't because of Free Software principles.
rant And moral issues are always relevent to moral people. For example, even if I think RMS pushes the enveloppe too far sometimes ( like his views on Debian in this interview ), I agree with most of his public statements. I think that everything is political in some way ( y'all ought to take some time to think about that if you didn't already ), and that sacrificing morality for mere practicality is dangerously frivolous. /rant
Anyway, thanks for the reply mate, I realize my previous message could have been clearer:)
That's because this package is in fact an alpha release ( 0.2 ) of "Pac Man Forever", and since we've been waiting for it all these years, they've loaded it with neat stuff like 2.5D and multiplayer modes and shit.
I know they are, that's why I said it was an hypothesis. Having gained very solid evidence in the past years doesn't mean that a concept is beyond doubt, though it seems like new theories are always very controversial before they are widely accepted. Anyway, we'll see, and I'm sorry if my post left a "sure shot" kind of impression even if it seems to work according to what I know right now. Please link some pages about this controversy if you have some, I'd be pretty interested about that.
Well since you would have to be familiar to MANY ( think tens ) distinct pictures at the same time to get caught by P300 scanners, I guess this probability is pretty small, but there are chances it still might happen indeed so in essence, you are quite correct. Particularly in your conclusion, as you may expect I would by my sig;) In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if such scanners were used as we're talking in Guantanamo. But not in Washington though... yet.
is found in new techniques involving brain scans. A brain wave pattern called P300 ( "positive wave" 300 ms after onset ) has been discovered to be activated when a person looks at a familiar object ( the P300 hypothesis has gained very solid evidence since a few years ). So you can display some pictures to the accused person and embed in these actual crime scenes pictures, and then tell if the accusee is familiar with crime scene pictures ( like what the place looked like, weapons involved, etc. ). Of course, you have to display pictures that has not been released to the media and whatnot, but the uniqueness of the combinations needed to figure out that someone is involved in the crime is pretty high. Links here, here and here.
This polygraph stuff got to be thrown away at some point anyway, since it's based on reaction patterns that many people just don't have so its accuracy isn't high enough for the important task it has to do.
Slashdot Mirror
but the entire Navy/MC WAN is NT4
What is that I'm hearing ? Oh, seems like it's just a bunch of Chinese generals laughing their ass off. Gee, I wonder why.
Unfortunately, the Slashdot editors always seem to forget to verify that there's a link to the SCO website somewhere in the stories. Does anobody knows what their URL is ? I'm Google-impaired and it would help me a lot to go and buy a Linux license for my Debian box. Thank you guys.
*wakes up* AAAAAAAAAAH ! What the hell was THAT ?!
They obviously did imply it, just check the From: header ( dunno if the log's real though ). What else could it be, a mole at SCO ? Hell, I wish
Sorry to point this out, but it's spelled D-A-I-L-Y ;)
My Hotmail account is for anti-spam purposes. I use other e-mail addresses to communicate at work and with my friends, but I use this disposable address for public stuff like my Web page, Slashdot, chatrooms and whatnot. I think preserving my inboxen clean while filling MS servers with junk is definitely a win-win situation, moreover when you consider that I got plug-ins to block their ads.
:) I've made these animations like last year, and at that time I didn't know much about alternatives to mainstream software so I took the obvious path. Anyway, I've been thinking about new stuff to put in there soon, and of course I'll get rid of Flash stuff at one point. Thanks for your interest in my Web pages sir, any suggestions ? ;)
As for the Flash stuff on my site, it's just getting pretty old
I definitely agree with you on most of your post. Some restrictions on software you're talking about are my main problems with the GPL, and that's the case I pointed out in my last post ( RMS on Debian offering non-free packages ). I mean, even if I think something is immoral, I won't forbid someone from doing it : that'd be policespeak. I'm all for getting rid of licenses you know, but I do understand that due to the business model mostly used in the software industry right now, some kinds of limits are to be drawn. I'll be quite thrilled if the situation exists where all licenses could be gotten rid of, but that's revolution stuff and I won't get into this here ;)
;)
BTW, I do realize there are MUCH more important issues, and I do spend time on some of the ones you talked about and on others too ( popular education, for example ). But I'm on Slashdot here, not on infoshop.org, you know
( I'm conscious I'm using many ( haha ) vague terms like "many" or "sometimes" quite often here. It's only because I don't know of statistics about this. These are my observations and while I think they're accurate, please take them as so. I don't have higher pretentions about them. )
You're right when you say that nobody would give a fuck about the FSF if only dozens of people would agree with the ideas it maintains. Now, browse a little on SourceForge and look at the projects going on under the GPL ; yes, sometimes prior license issues are the cause of this, but it's obvious many people license their new software by choice. Same thing for the bunch of GNU projects out there. Nuff said.
I'm rather surprised by the remainder of your argument ( "Source code isn't political" and such ). What about source codes for voting machines, privacy and "national security" concerns ? These are very politically decisive examples, don't you think ? Whether it is politicized or not is not relevent since it actually happens and shapes our political systems in subtle ways, whatever you might think about it.
Refusing to see the political aspect of technology is the problem I'm referring to. I'd like to know how you think that me being interested in this perspective is a problem to the programming community.
BTW, I do realize that Apple getting SOME OF its sources public in a way is already a Good Thing. All I was saying in my original post is that it could be better. It matters to me because of its political implications and possible long-term effects on the software community, in practicality as well. Consider that a molehill if you please ; I don't.
I thought the link I made with the FSF statement on the APSL made that point clear enough : it's a practical and moral matter for many programmers to follow the FSF guidelines, moreover when software release is concerned. Maybe they could still do it in most cases, but many simply wouldn't because of Free Software principles.
:)
rant
And moral issues are always relevent to moral people. For example, even if I think RMS pushes the enveloppe too far sometimes ( like his views on Debian in this interview ), I agree with most of his public statements. I think that everything is political in some way ( y'all ought to take some time to think about that if you didn't already ), and that sacrificing morality for mere practicality is dangerously frivolous.
/rant
Anyway, thanks for the reply mate, I realize my previous message could have been clearer
After all, even a fuckin' teletype can run Linux ;) Too bad the Apple Public Source License sucks so much though, since it discourages many fine programmers to write new stuff that MacOS X could run as well.
P.S. It's not because the parent message was offtopic that my reply is. Anyway, do as you please.
Right on brother, right on :)
It's often what Slashdot is all about, anyway ;)
That's because this package is in fact an alpha release ( 0.2 ) of "Pac Man Forever", and since we've been waiting for it all these years, they've loaded it with neat stuff like 2.5D and multiplayer modes and shit.
Thanks for the advice, Herr Himmler ;)
That's Jekyll ;) Here's the book for those interested.
In fact, five prototypes have already been used for quite a while now.
And you've never downloaded or used files or softwares you shouldn't have according to law, right ? Give me a break.
This kind of situation is in fact a good argument for anarchists, and I'm proud to be one.
I know they are, that's why I said it was an hypothesis. Having gained very solid evidence in the past years doesn't mean that a concept is beyond doubt, though it seems like new theories are always very controversial before they are widely accepted. Anyway, we'll see, and I'm sorry if my post left a "sure shot" kind of impression even if it seems to work according to what I know right now. Please link some pages about this controversy if you have some, I'd be pretty interested about that.
Well since you would have to be familiar to MANY ( think tens ) distinct pictures at the same time to get caught by P300 scanners, I guess this probability is pretty small, but there are chances it still might happen indeed so in essence, you are quite correct. Particularly in your conclusion, as you may expect I would by my sig ;) In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if such scanners were used as we're talking in Guantanamo. But not in Washington though... yet.
is found in new techniques involving brain scans. A brain wave pattern called P300 ( "positive wave" 300 ms after onset ) has been discovered to be activated when a person looks at a familiar object ( the P300 hypothesis has gained very solid evidence since a few years ). So you can display some pictures to the accused person and embed in these actual crime scenes pictures, and then tell if the accusee is familiar with crime scene pictures ( like what the place looked like, weapons involved, etc. ). Of course, you have to display pictures that has not been released to the media and whatnot, but the uniqueness of the combinations needed to figure out that someone is involved in the crime is pretty high. Links here, here and here.
This polygraph stuff got to be thrown away at some point anyway, since it's based on reaction patterns that many people just don't have so its accuracy isn't high enough for the important task it has to do.
"De do do do, de da da da"
Is all I want to say to you
Indeed.
my expertise, which is FIXING the Windows Operating System
Which reminds me of something. Do you know Escher ?
Please educate yourself before writing such stereotypical crap. Seems like you didn't, or like you want to spread political FUD.
( And yes, this message and its parent are offtopic. Mod down if you please. )
All your brain are belong to us.
Really, someone did.
OK OK, no-one did.
Never forget the guy's a freakin' moron. Americans need to offer a gift to all mankind in 2004 by kicking this pathetic braindead out of office.
/. than be a living flamebait myself like Bush is.
And yes, you can consider this flamebait if you please ; I'd rather get modded down on