And that's the problem, isn't it?
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
We simple don't know whether our government, or more specifically our intelligence and military agencies, do such things. In fact, we have no way whatsoever of knowing.
We have great reason to believe that these agencies have in the past done many many things which we have never heard about, and which we probably will never hear about until the government is turned back over to the people.
This is absolutely disgusting, revolting, and yet it is true.
We are the play-things of a few powerful elite. Look even at the past 50 years of classified (and largely "blacked out") documents if you do not believe me. Look at those few we do know about, and consider how many more there are that have been destroyed or remain in a locked cellar somewhere.
Our government has done many many truly dispicable things to us and to this world. It makes me sick. I makes me want to break down and cry.
In cases where there is no compromise available, where it is, "Either I prevent them from running this little app, and doing this or that, or our systems and information can not be as secure as they should be," some users, especially users who know "just enough to be dangerous", will not understand.
They will call you a "nazi". There is nothing you can do short of spending time which you do not have to educate them, or to point out that they do not in fact know what they believe they do, because as far as these users are concerned, they already know more than you do, and it is you who are incompetent.
Having learned how to use ipchains or iptables doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
Having learned how to write scripts for sh or bash doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
Having learned the syntax for sendmail configuration doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
Configuring, patching, and building Linux (kernel) doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
If it is not your job to know these things, and if were you to put in the time and effort you could learn these things, then your not knowing how to do these things says practically nothing about how intelligent you are. These syntaxes and semantics are very ugly, temporal, technical things.
Will we even think of these things in ten years? Is a programmer who knows COBOL like the back of his hand and yet couldn't if his life depended upon it learn to follow good OO programming practices or how to use Scheme or Common LISP, very intelligent so far as this field goes? No, no I do not think we would consider such a programmer to be very intelligent at all.
If doing your job requires that you write VBscript and use a GUI to configure ACLs and various servers, and you have successfully learned to do this, you are in virtue of this alone no more or less intelligent than any GNU/Linux or *BSD admin using shell scripts and text-based configuration files.
Knowledge of these passing things is not the measure of a (wo)man.
From WordNet: intelligent, 1: "having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree."
Until we have nothing left but locked down hardware which self-destructs in response to attempts to study it, distributors can not stop prevent the willing from liberating the information.
Until neighbors are paid off to report neighbors, brothers to report brothers, distributors can not prevent the willing from liberating the information.
Sharing this information over p2p networks I believe is too dangerous. It is far too easy for you to be found, and sentenced to have your future destroyed, without you having accomplished anything. It is too impersonal. To many people, you are just an IP address.
What is far more dangerous to the existing "intellectual property" regime is the in person swapping of the physical media. When you go over to your neighbor's house or apartment for an evening to watch a movie, what if you were to bring copies of the latest DVDs you have bought? Maybe you'll watch one or two of them. What if when you are heading home you say, "Oh, just go ahead and keep them." Who is going to turn your offer down? It's just like being offered money or a gift. They will take it if for no other reason than that they don't want to offend you or seem unfriendly.
It is the widespread practicing of this very personal form of infringement which will spell the end of the corporate "intellectual property" regime.
Because unlike electronic copying, when you look your friend or your neighbor in the face, who has just given you a gift as a fellow person and as a friend and a neighbor, they can not then look at you and say, "Communist!", or "Theif!".
It is against their every intuition to do so, because you aren't just an IP address in a newspaper or court brief. You are their friend and their neighbor in the flesh.
I think that this would have significantly more intuitive appeal to people than the current issues which often seem to focus on electronic sharing.
Or maybe it's just a matter of waiting 20 years until we have middle aged people who have known p2p swapping all of their lives.
Some of us can't aford to give. And others of us just don't want to buy into the big-money game. And if you do or do not, a corresponding grass roots campaign down at the level of the people is essential.
Tell your co-workers, family, friends, and people you run into what these monied interests are doing to our nation, to our world, and to our future.
They will listen. These are not difficult concepts to get across. There exist laws which prevent common citizens from doing what intuitively they believe they ought to be able to do. These laws exist for the benefit of corporate profits, laws bought with this very money.
Unless your father is Dick Cheney himself, even he will understand the simple notion of a law which just seems wrong to ordinary folk.
Do you know what we need? What we need are little printable cards, maybe business-card size or slightly larger, that we can keep in our back pocket and hand out to people, listing the injustices or present "intellectual property" law.
We need a list of some bold facts of simple, incredibly simple, things that just seem wrong, and are wrong.
It also needs to contain a website to go to for further information.
Ideally this website will contain links to specific cases, templates for the cards to print out, congress-people links, quotes from sold-out congress-people, and a philosophy section.
And no, I do not trust the EFF on this, not after the interview of one of the board members here. He does not represent my interests.
I'm not a troll, but I am angry. Why are you going to bat for Microsoft? If you were providing legitimate information, I could understand it, but to say that this "Power Toy" is adequate, is a laughable.
Gee, that's usable, isn't it? In order to use a standard desktop feature you need first of all to hunt down something called "PowerToys", or perhaps figure out why on earth standard desktop "enhancements" are "Power" "Toys", and then come across this:
"Note We've taken great care to ensure that PowerToys operate as they should, but they are not part of Windows and are not supported by Microsoft. For this reason, Microsoft Technical Support is unable to answer questions about PowerToys. PowerToys are for Windows XP only."
And so how is it that an average user is going to get what should be a standard modern desktop feature? How many users do you suppose are going to find their way to this site, know what it is, and download this? How many admins do you think are going to install an unsupported Microsoft add-on?
And what's more, this "Power" toy only allows at most 4 desktops. And do you know what, unless something has been changed, windows from all desktops always appear on the task bar; there is no option to display only the window taskbar items for your current desktop.
I can't count the number of times I have watched in pain as I observe a Windows user who legitimately has 15+ windows open, leaning forwards to see their screen as they scan and mouse-over the taskbar.
If you give the user the tool as a standard part of the desktop, word will get out, they will use it, and their productivity will be improved as they incorporate the new tool into their daily usage.
On a side note, if this is a "Power Toy", does that make Windows by itself just a plain old "Toy"? I always thought as much. It isn't a very fun one either.
Ok, one more time, if you are a company and believe that a general purpose computer smaller than what we have today is patentable just because it is SMALLER, then why don't you pack up right now, and get the hell out of our country, mmmkay?
When I speak to those around me, and even to those of older generations, I do not find a people who have sold out to large oppressive and monied interests. No, I find instead only a people who have again and again been told the lie that things are how they ought to be, the lie that labels those those who dare oppose the status quo as un-American, as radicals, and as communists.
But when I tell these people in plain and simple terms what is happening in this nation and in this world, and what it is doing and going to do to every one of us, they see through the lie these oppressive and monied interests have told them. They know that we are well-meaning just as they are. The know that we care about our country and about its people and about our brothers and our sisters just as they do. They know that the label is a lie. They know it isn't right.
We must rally the people if we are to tear down the corporate "intellectual property" regime. When we see what we have today, we know that our government will not fight for us. If our government will not fight for us, then we must fight to take back our government, and we can do this in no other way than by rallying the people to fight with their vote.
We must tell them that it ain't right We must tell them that it is important to every single person. We must tell the people that they can change it. We must tell them that it is they and they alone who can will the difference.
It must be from the people that change will come. The people of our nation are not bought and sold. They are a decent and ethical people of noble spirit, who must only be exhorted to acknowledge foremost in their minds that the freedom and opportunity we as persons deserve and must secure is ours to be had if only we will join together as fellow brothers and fellow sisters to vote out these dogs whose masters oppress and enslave us.
Woe unto you rich and monied interests on that day if you have abused that privelege we have given you. For when the people of this nation are but made to realize what you have done to us, they will raise up their voices in righteous outrage against this bought and appointed corporate government and against those oppressive and monied interests to which it was long ago sold, and they will vote your cronies out forever more.
I really haven't looked into the architecture of the MSN IM network or its protocol, as I have only used an "IM" once or twice.
However, it is still very possible, as I am sure you all know, to work around this "ban".
First, does MSN IM run under WINE?
If not, one option, I suppose, would be to create a sort of "proxy" that can sit on the Windows machine, and, for communications with any specified users, intercept outgoing communication, and after performing a conversion based upon some mapping between the two protocols, send it to a Jabber or AIM network. Do the reverse for incoming Jabber or AIM communication. I don't know, but I would imagine that some reasonable mapping between the protocols can be established for at least basic communications.
Obviously it could become fairly complicated, but then I suppose so could getting all of your contacts to change their IM client. I've come acorss people with quite a number of them.
Why we want faster and more intrusive ways of being remotely pestered in one's own home, I suppose I just don't always know;)
Now, I know that on Slashdot as of late it has been decided that we will no longer be permitted to discuss things as the following when a shiny new movie is released (as I have well found out by previous moderation), but I thought I would nonetheless try once again.
Why have things changed? Why don't we talk about such things anymore?
That said, I spent a minute or two and started collecting a few rather uninteresting links.
Perhaps Slashdot readers can contribute to this woefully inadequate list? It would be quite nice to have all of the information in one place, so that it can be referenced by a simple link in future stories where it is relevant, as is this one.
And say, has anyone heard about something called DeCSS or the DMCA?
My memory is a bit foggy on this point, but I seem to recall something or another about Warner Bros being involved here? Does it ring a bell for anyone else? Maybe not.
If, as seems to be the suggestion, we will someday be able to create non-biological entities which have human-like function and intelligence, and yet not be members of the moral community, not persons, then surely we may also breed the biological equivalent of such entities from existing human stock, which likewise will not be members of the moral community, will not be persons.
The physical human structure, mechanisms for balance and movement, pattern recognition, reasoning, cleaning, fueling, and replication functionality is already completed for us, it is ready for us to exploit and employ to our own aid, betterment, prosperity, and even to our own satisfaction.
All that we must to do is to breed a human being that is not a person; an entity which though a human being, a member of the species homo sapien, is not a member of the moral community, or which has a moral status sufficiently insignificant relative to our own that we would do no wrong were we to employ such entities to our own aid, betterment, prosperity, and even satisfaction.
Does something here sound deeply troubling?
I think perhaps it should, and yet there is significant agreement that there both may and do exist entities belonging to the species homo sapien, human beings, which are not in fact members of the moral community, are not persons, and to which we have either only but the most minimal of moral obligations, or no moral obligations whatsoever, rights often if not always overridden by our own.
Would such a thing be wrong, if only for the same reason that St. Thomas held it to be wrong to be cruel to animals; the effect upon man of doing so?
Surely it could not be for this reason alone, for given the benefit to our own societies, families, and future were we to exploit such entities in this manner, we do a much greater wrong were we to fail to take such actions, and if we fail to intently work to change and engineer our flawed moral perceptions, to cease to believe that such a thing might be wrong.
I am well within my rights to send a data packet containing this information to Slashdot, and to most any other online forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, and so are you.
It can be taken down, it can be prevented from being posted or distributed at all, we can be asked to stop, but you and I are well within our rights to send such a packet of data.
I don't know whether or not you are representing your own position, and so, if not, this should be taken as a response to that position.
I believe I have met very few people indeed, who, if asked whether or not we have significant moral obligations to the poor and oppressed in our own nation, and the oppressed in other nations, victims of institutionalized oppression, would answer, "No".
Now, yes, there are these moral obligations, but how should we go about satisfying them, we must ask?
Time and time again I hear from Libertarians, "Private charities will help them, because the government will no longer be holding back these private charities and private citizens." When pushed further about the plausibility of such a claim, I find that what it comes down to for such people is, "You know, I really just don't care; I really don't; if they fail given a fair playing field, the free and unrestricted market, it is their own fault; they get what they deserve."
It is for this reason that I find the "private charities" line to be so dishonest; deceitful. It is put out as attempt to appease the very real, and very legitimate concerns of well-intentioned individuals, to try to bring them to the Libertarian way of looking at the world.
I believe it is the attempt to do away with any notion of a Human Right, or of Social Injustice, that allows the Libertarian to hold his or her position in good conscience. Without such notions as these, the sole measure of fairness, or "justice", is so far as I am able to ascertain, the free and unrestricted market.
Briefly: The government should not be a blind mediator. The government must be the voice and the vessel of the people, for it is through it that we as a people act to aspire to and achieve greater and nobler ends than could any of us alone. We must together act to end the institutionalized oppression of women, of minorities, of the politically, socially, and economically disadvantaged, and of all others that suffer at its hands. We must in all deliberations concern ourselves that we benefit first and most the least well off. We must do these things that we might bring about a more egalitarian society, a society where those rights which all possess simply in virtue of their being persons are acknowledged, respected, and satisfied to the fullest extent.
Personal Issues 1) Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) 2) Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. 3) Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. 4) Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. 5) People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose.
Economic Issues 6) Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. 7) People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. 8) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. 9) End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. 10) All foreign aid should be privately funded.
These is perhaps the most irresponsible nonsense I have seen in recent years.
Most disgusting is the attempt to break everything into "Personal" and "Economic" issues. What about "Social" issues? What about "Human Rights" issues? That's the problem with these people; everything comes down to this:
1) You have no obligations to anyone but yourself and those who directly benefit you. 2) The market will sort out everything else.
Yes, (7), (8), (9), and (10) might sound great, but what about the consequences of doing so? There is no reason to believe that any significant number of people taking this poll think about these consequences, because the poll makes no effort whatsoever to indicate that there may even be consequences.
Come on, who isn't going to go along with "free trade", if they do not, and are not even asked or reminded to, think through the potential consequences.
"They were overwhelmingly libertarian. The party marketed this by saying that the homeless know that the government is holding them back.".
Noting that you do say you disagree, I have to say that this sort of propaganda makes me sick.
If only the government would allow these people to whore themselves out to sex with wealthy businessmen, and to openly consume and sell with abandon, drugs and other substances which destroy lives and devestate families, then we'd really have it going how it ought to! And what is this about health care? Talk of government health care is only holding them back! If only the government would stop controlling us, charities would provide health care for them, just like our charities do in Russia, the Ukraine and all over the African continent!
Marvelous I tell you! Marvelous!
I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian overlords.
First, I can hardly see how I might be considered an anarchist; as I understand the term, I want nothing of the sort.
We want our government to be as transparent as possible, from covert military operations which, if known, would be deeply opposed by the public, to conferences and briefings our elected representatives (or those appointed by them) carry on in our name.
Our government should be trustworthy, and yet we should not have to trust it. To the extent that our government is transparent and accountable, our trust is not required.
At the same time, we favor more government control and intervention in matters that affect the satisfaction of basic human rights, and also in the preservation and beautification of our world; we must be good stewards.
We also favor increased government funding of public goods, even when doing so will sometimes compete with existing private interests.
We favor increased top-down control to produce a more egalitarian society where basic human rights are satisfied to a greater degree, even if this in the short term results in a slower rate of increase in technological advancement; though it need not result in this at all.
"the implicit assumption that "large corporate interests" are somehow directly against the interests of "a people""
"large corporate interests" do, generally, directly conflict with the interests of the people. It is in the interest of every business that: 1) workers perform the same labor for lower wages 2) workers' wages continue to be determined by their political and social standing in the white, patriarchal corporate structure, and not by their own abilities and qualities, not by the content of their character. 3) workers accept not having a dental plan or eye insurance 4) the enforcement of health standards outside a smaller cost/benefit ratio be relaxed 5) the enforcement of environmental protection and preservation policies outside a smaller cost/benefit ratio be relaxed 6) workers accept ongoing violations of their basic rights in the interests of positive corporate image and increased profits
"corporations have largely driven the progress/innovations/increase in wealth of the past century".
Yes, this system does work to that end. But as you know, there are greater concerns than technological progress and the increase of wealth. With this in mind, let's try to improve the system, while keeping as much as we in good conscience can of what has been found to work in the past. At the same time though, we also need to be willing to research and try new ways of doing things. The dramatic increase in technology and information surely positions we in these modern times, if anyone, to do so.
"You can go back to guilds or feudalism or hunting and gathering if you like..."
I agree it is good that China's economy is progressing, and hopefully that the quality of living of its people is increasing.
But in this case, isn't the government of China, if any, specifically the sort of government that would have the mandate of the people to fund free and open source solutions?
In the U.S., there seems to be the expectation that government funded products or services will not compete with existing private products or servcies (except in rare cases), but as I understand it, there is no such expectation of the government of China.
I'm not unhappy that more people will be exposed to technology.
I'm just not particularly pleased that the government of China took the side of proprietary software and patent/royalty encumbered standards, when so far as I can tell, it would have been perfectly within its expectations to not do so.
Not that the government of China cares what I think, of course,
WPS Office is proprietary and AVS (their video/audio standard) is patent/royalty encumbered.
While there is Red Flag Linux, I wonder whether we have any reason to believe that the government of China will not act in the interests of proprietary software producers just as much as do the governments of Western nations.
In the case of Red Flag Linux, it may simply be that it is deemed acceptable because there does not exist any satisfactory proprietary and locally produced operating system.
Whereas with an office suite and the audio/video protocol where there are existing local proprietary solutions, the government seems more than willing to favor these existing proprietary solutions over existing open source solutions, and also over developing new open source solutions which would compete with these existing proprietary solutions.
I'm not quite ready to praise the government of China over this move.
Slashdot Mirror
We simple don't know whether our government, or more specifically our intelligence and military agencies, do such things. In fact, we have no way whatsoever of knowing.
We have great reason to believe that these agencies have in the past done many many things which we have never heard about, and which we probably will never hear about until the government is turned back over to the people.
This is absolutely disgusting, revolting, and yet it is true.
We are the play-things of a few powerful elite. Look even at the past 50 years of classified (and largely "blacked out") documents if you do not believe me. Look at those few we do know about, and consider how many more there are that have been destroyed or remain in a locked cellar somewhere.
Our government has done many many truly dispicable things to us and to this world. It makes me sick. I makes me want to break down and cry.
This just isn't so as often as you suggest.
In cases where there is no compromise available, where it is, "Either I prevent them from running this little app, and doing this or that, or our systems and information can not be as secure as they should be," some users, especially users who know "just enough to be dangerous", will not understand.
They will call you a "nazi". There is nothing you can do short of spending time which you do not have to educate them, or to point out that they do not in fact know what they believe they do, because as far as these users are concerned, they already know more than you do, and it is you who are incompetent.
Having learned how to use ipchains or iptables doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
Having learned how to write scripts for sh or bash doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
Having learned the syntax for sendmail configuration doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
Configuring, patching, and building Linux (kernel) doesn't say very much about how intelligent you are.
If it is not your job to know these things, and if were you to put in the time and effort you could learn these things, then your not knowing how to do these things says practically nothing about how intelligent you are. These syntaxes and semantics are very ugly, temporal, technical things.
Will we even think of these things in ten years? Is a programmer who knows COBOL like the back of his hand and yet couldn't if his life depended upon it learn to follow good OO programming practices or how to use Scheme or Common LISP, very intelligent so far as this field goes? No, no I do not think we would consider such a programmer to be very intelligent at all.
If doing your job requires that you write VBscript and use a GUI to configure ACLs and various servers, and you have successfully learned to do this, you are in virtue of this alone no more or less intelligent than any GNU/Linux or *BSD admin using shell scripts and text-based configuration files.
Knowledge of these passing things is not the measure of a (wo)man.
From WordNet: intelligent, 1: "having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree."
That said... Screw you, Microsoft.
Until we have nothing left but locked down hardware which self-destructs in response to attempts to study it, distributors can not stop prevent the willing from liberating the information.
Until neighbors are paid off to report neighbors, brothers to report brothers, distributors can not prevent the willing from liberating the information.
Sharing this information over p2p networks I believe is too dangerous. It is far too easy for you to be found, and sentenced to have your future destroyed, without you having accomplished anything. It is too impersonal. To many people, you are just an IP address.
What is far more dangerous to the existing "intellectual property" regime is the in person swapping of the physical media. When you go over to your neighbor's house or apartment for an evening to watch a movie, what if you were to bring copies of the latest DVDs you have bought? Maybe you'll watch one or two of them. What if when you are heading home you say, "Oh, just go ahead and keep them." Who is going to turn your offer down? It's just like being offered money or a gift. They will take it if for no other reason than that they don't want to offend you or seem unfriendly.
It is the widespread practicing of this very personal form of infringement which will spell the end of the corporate "intellectual property" regime.
Because unlike electronic copying, when you look your friend or your neighbor in the face, who has just given you a gift as a fellow person and as a friend and a neighbor, they can not then look at you and say, "Communist!", or "Theif!".
It is against their every intuition to do so, because you aren't just an IP address in a newspaper or court brief. You are their friend and their neighbor in the flesh.
I think that this would have significantly more intuitive appeal to people than the current issues which often seem to focus on electronic sharing.
Or maybe it's just a matter of waiting 20 years until we have middle aged people who have known p2p swapping all of their lives.
?
Because I'm a zealot.
To compromise is to fail.
Are you happy now?
Some of us can't aford to give. And others of us just don't want to buy into the big-money game. And if you do or do not, a corresponding grass roots campaign down at the level of the people is essential.
Tell your co-workers, family, friends, and people you run into what these monied interests are doing to our nation, to our world, and to our future.
They will listen. These are not difficult concepts to get across. There exist laws which prevent common citizens from doing what intuitively they believe they ought to be able to do. These laws exist for the benefit of corporate profits, laws bought with this very money.
Unless your father is Dick Cheney himself, even he will understand the simple notion of a law which just seems wrong to ordinary folk.
Do you know what we need? What we need are little printable cards, maybe business-card size or slightly larger, that we can keep in our back pocket and hand out to people, listing the injustices or present "intellectual property" law.
We need a list of some bold facts of simple, incredibly simple, things that just seem wrong, and are wrong.
It also needs to contain a website to go to for further information.
Ideally this website will contain links to specific cases, templates for the cards to print out, congress-people links, quotes from sold-out congress-people, and a philosophy section.
And no, I do not trust the EFF on this, not after the interview of one of the board members here. He does not represent my interests.
I'm not a troll, but I am angry. Why are you going to bat for Microsoft? If you were providing legitimate information, I could understand it, but to say that this "Power Toy" is adequate, is a laughable.
Gee, that's usable, isn't it? In order to use a standard desktop feature you need first of all to hunt down something called "PowerToys", or perhaps figure out why on earth standard desktop "enhancements" are "Power" "Toys", and then come across this:
"Note We've taken great care to ensure that PowerToys operate as they should, but they are not part of Windows and are not supported by Microsoft. For this reason, Microsoft Technical Support is unable to answer questions about PowerToys. PowerToys are for Windows XP only."
And so how is it that an average user is going to get what should be a standard modern desktop feature? How many users do you suppose are going to find their way to this site, know what it is, and download this? How many admins do you think are going to install an unsupported Microsoft add-on?
And what's more, this "Power" toy only allows at most 4 desktops. And do you know what, unless something has been changed, windows from all desktops always appear on the task bar; there is no option to display only the window taskbar items for your current desktop.
I can't count the number of times I have watched in pain as I observe a Windows user who legitimately has 15+ windows open, leaning forwards to see their screen as they scan and mouse-over the taskbar.
If you give the user the tool as a standard part of the desktop, word will get out, they will use it, and their productivity will be improved as they incorporate the new tool into their daily usage.
On a side note, if this is a "Power Toy", does that make Windows by itself just a plain old "Toy"? I always thought as much. It isn't a very fun one either.
"Ohhh, this is something else, maybe i should make the tutorial that pops up, or look at some documentation!!"
What!
Er, which users are you talking about again?
Just for that, the next ten Qs are going to get a, "Use the Source Luke The Source!" from me.
Must resist! Must! Anger!
Ok, one more time, if you are a company and believe that a general purpose computer smaller than what we have today is patentable just because it is SMALLER, then why don't you pack up right now, and get the hell out of our country, mmmkay?
I had to go and forget to turn off the karma bonus on that one, too =/
;)
Oh well, it's a shame there isn't a +1 "Documenting young-male gamer forum posting behavior".
From what I recall, it is a fairly accurate portrayl of not a few "gamerz" sites a few years back
right on man!!
it will be a cold day in hell before I buy any of that NVidia shit
3Dfx is a company that is committed to hard core gamerz and not those OEM mommy-buy-me-a-pc pussies at NVIDIA what pansies. screw their market share
hey dude have you heard??? 3Dfx is coming out with the Voodoo4 line this fall.
rumor at voodooextreme has it that it will include SLI support.
wicked ass!!!
studip nvid0t whores i'll take my 4-way Voodoo4 Dual-SLI aany day so SUCK IT
sincerely,
l33t mofo'n mast'a cira. summer '99
When I speak to those around me, and even to those of older generations, I do not find a people who have sold out to large oppressive and monied interests. No, I find instead only a people who have again and again been told the lie that things are how they ought to be, the lie that labels those those who dare oppose the status quo as un-American, as radicals, and as communists.
.
But when I tell these people in plain and simple terms what is happening in this nation and in this world, and what it is doing and going to do to every one of us, they see through the lie these oppressive and monied interests have told them. They know that we are well-meaning just as they are. The know that we care about our country and about its people and about our brothers and our sisters just as they do. They know that the label is a lie. They know it isn't right.
We must rally the people if we are to tear down the corporate "intellectual property" regime. When we see what we have today, we know that our government will not fight for us. If our government will not fight for us, then we must fight to take back our government, and we can do this in no other way than by rallying the people to fight with their vote
We must tell them that it ain't right We must tell them that it is important to every single person. We must tell the people that they can change it. We must tell them that it is they and they alone who can will the difference.
It must be from the people that change will come. The people of our nation are not bought and sold. They are a decent and ethical people of noble spirit, who must only be exhorted to acknowledge foremost in their minds that the freedom and opportunity we as persons deserve and must secure is ours to be had if only we will join together as fellow brothers and fellow sisters to vote out these dogs whose masters oppress and enslave us.
Woe unto you rich and monied interests on that day if you have abused that privelege we have given you. For when the people of this nation are but made to realize what you have done to us, they will raise up their voices in righteous outrage against this bought and appointed corporate government and against those oppressive and monied interests to which it was long ago sold, and they will vote your cronies out forever more.
I really haven't looked into the architecture of the MSN IM network or its protocol, as I have only used an "IM" once or twice.
;)
However, it is still very possible, as I am sure you all know, to work around this "ban".
First, does MSN IM run under WINE?
If not, one option, I suppose, would be to create a sort of "proxy" that can sit on the Windows machine, and, for communications with any specified users, intercept outgoing communication, and after performing a conversion based upon some mapping between the two protocols, send it to a Jabber or AIM network. Do the reverse for incoming Jabber or AIM communication. I don't know, but I would imagine that some reasonable mapping between the protocols can be established for at least basic communications.
Obviously it could become fairly complicated, but then I suppose so could getting all of your contacts to change their IM client. I've come acorss people with quite a number of them.
Why we want faster and more intrusive ways of being remotely pestered in one's own home, I suppose I just don't always know
Now, I know that on Slashdot as of late it has been decided that we will no longer be permitted to discuss things as the following when a shiny new movie is released (as I have well found out by previous moderation), but I thought I would nonetheless try once again.
Why have things changed? Why don't we talk about such things anymore?
Since this is a story about Warner Bros, and given the many Slashdot stories about this fine corporation and its parent company, as well as several regarding a prominent trade organization to which it belongs, I could not help but conclude the following ought to be both relevant and on topic.
To start, I dropped a little write-up in my journal which may or may not have some entertainment value for you.
That said, I spent a minute or two and started collecting a few rather uninteresting links.
Perhaps Slashdot readers can contribute to this woefully inadequate list?
It would be quite nice to have all of the information in one place, so that it can be referenced by a simple link in future stories where it is relevant, as is this one.
Warner Bros orders 15 year-old Christie Chan to turn over www.harrypotternetwork.net.
Warner Bros orders www.harrypotterisawizard.co.uk to be handed over.
Warner Bros orders 15 year-old Claire Field to turn over www.harrypotterguide.co.uk.
Warner Bros demands 10 year-old daughter hand over www.harry-potter-magic.co.uk.
Because Warner Bros cares so much about you, you can not be allowed access to a signal sent into your house, and not even to exercise widely presumed fair use rights over its content.
And say, has anyone heard about something called DeCSS or the DMCA?
My memory is a bit foggy on this point, but I seem to recall something or another about Warner Bros being involved here? Does it ring a bell for anyone else? Maybe not.
If, as seems to be the suggestion, we will someday be able to create non-biological entities which have human-like function and intelligence, and yet not be members of the moral community, not persons, then surely we may also breed the biological equivalent of such entities from existing human stock, which likewise will not be members of the moral community, will not be persons.
The physical human structure, mechanisms for balance and movement, pattern recognition, reasoning, cleaning, fueling, and replication functionality is already completed for us, it is ready for us to exploit and employ to our own aid, betterment, prosperity, and even to our own satisfaction.
All that we must to do is to breed a human being that is not a person; an entity which though a human being, a member of the species homo sapien, is not a member of the moral community, or which has a moral status sufficiently insignificant relative to our own that we would do no wrong were we to employ such entities to our own aid, betterment, prosperity, and even satisfaction.
Does something here sound deeply troubling?
I think perhaps it should, and yet there is significant agreement that there both may and do exist entities belonging to the species homo sapien, human beings, which are not in fact members of the moral community, are not persons, and to which we have either only but the most minimal of moral obligations, or no moral obligations whatsoever, rights often if not always overridden by our own.
Would such a thing be wrong, if only for the same reason that St. Thomas held it to be wrong to be cruel to animals; the effect upon man of doing so?
Surely it could not be for this reason alone, for given the benefit to our own societies, families, and future were we to exploit such entities in this manner, we do a much greater wrong were we to fail to take such actions, and if we fail to intently work to change and engineer our flawed moral perceptions, to cease to believe that such a thing might be wrong.
?
I am well within my rights to send a data packet containing this information to Slashdot, and to most any other online forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, and so are you.
It can be taken down, it can be prevented from being posted or distributed at all, we can be asked to stop, but you and I are well within our rights to send such a packet of data.
It is neither obscene, nor inflammatory.
Fuck Microsoft.
Fuck John Ashcroft.
Fuck the RIAA.
Fuck the MPAA.
Fuck George W. Bush.
Fuck the DMCA.
Say it; wear it; post it; it's your right.
I don't know whether or not you are representing your own position, and so, if not, this should be taken as a response to that position.
I believe I have met very few people indeed, who, if asked whether or not we have significant moral obligations to the poor and oppressed in our own nation, and the oppressed in other nations, victims of institutionalized oppression, would answer, "No".
Now, yes, there are these moral obligations, but how should we go about satisfying them, we must ask?
Time and time again I hear from Libertarians, "Private charities will help them, because the government will no longer be holding back these private charities and private citizens." When pushed further about the plausibility of such a claim, I find that what it comes down to for such people is, "You know, I really just don't care; I really don't; if they fail given a fair playing field, the free and unrestricted market, it is their own fault; they get what they deserve."
It is for this reason that I find the "private charities" line to be so dishonest; deceitful. It is put out as attempt to appease the very real, and very legitimate concerns of well-intentioned individuals, to try to bring them to the Libertarian way of looking at the world.
I believe it is the attempt to do away with any notion of a Human Right, or of Social Injustice, that allows the Libertarian to hold his or her position in good conscience. Without such notions as these, the sole measure of fairness, or "justice", is so far as I am able to ascertain, the free and unrestricted market.
Briefly:
The government should not be a blind mediator. The government must be the voice and the vessel of the people, for it is through it that we as a people act to aspire to and achieve greater and nobler ends than could any of us alone. We must together act to end the institutionalized oppression of women, of minorities, of the politically, socially, and economically disadvantaged, and of all others that suffer at its hands. We must in all deliberations concern ourselves that we benefit first and most the least well off. We must do these things that we might bring about a more egalitarian society, a society where those rights which all possess simply in virtue of their being persons are acknowledged, respected, and satisfied to the fullest extent.
Let's look at what the quiz asks:
Personal Issues
1) Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
2) Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet.
3) Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
4) Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
5) People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose.
Economic Issues
6) Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies.
7) People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
8) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
9) End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
10) All foreign aid should be privately funded.
These is perhaps the most irresponsible nonsense I have seen in recent years.
Most disgusting is the attempt to break everything into "Personal" and "Economic" issues. What about "Social" issues? What about "Human Rights" issues? That's the problem with these people; everything comes down to this:
1) You have no obligations to anyone but yourself and those who directly benefit you.
2) The market will sort out everything else.
Yes, (7), (8), (9), and (10) might sound great, but what about the consequences of doing so? There is no reason to believe that any significant number of people taking this poll think about these consequences, because the poll makes no effort whatsoever to indicate that there may even be consequences.
Come on, who isn't going to go along with "free trade", if they do not, and are not even asked or reminded to, think through the potential consequences.
"They were overwhelmingly libertarian. The party marketed this by saying that the homeless know that the government is holding them back.".
Noting that you do say you disagree, I have to say that this sort of propaganda makes me sick.
If only the government would allow these people to whore themselves out to sex with wealthy businessmen, and to openly consume and sell with abandon, drugs and other substances which destroy lives and devestate families, then we'd really have it going how it ought to! And what is this about health care? Talk of government health care is only holding them back! If only the government would stop controlling us, charities would provide health care for them, just like our charities do in Russia, the Ukraine and all over the African continent!
Marvelous I tell you! Marvelous!
I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian overlords.
It's funny; laugh.
:or any of the other neo-anarchists"
First, I can hardly see how I might be considered an anarchist; as I understand the term, I want nothing of the sort.
We want our government to be as transparent as possible, from covert military operations which, if known, would be deeply opposed by the public, to conferences and briefings our elected representatives (or those appointed by them) carry on in our name.
Our government should be trustworthy, and yet we should not have to trust it. To the extent that our government is transparent and accountable, our trust is not required.
At the same time, we favor more government control and intervention in matters that affect the satisfaction of basic human rights, and also in the preservation and beautification of our world; we must be good stewards.
We also favor increased government funding of public goods, even when doing so will sometimes compete with existing private interests.
We favor increased top-down control to produce a more egalitarian society where basic human rights are satisfied to a greater degree, even if this in the short term results in a slower rate of increase in technological advancement; though it need not result in this at all.
"the implicit assumption that "large corporate interests" are somehow directly against the interests of "a people""
"large corporate interests" do, generally, directly conflict with the interests of the people. It is in the interest of every business that:
1) workers perform the same labor for lower wages
2) workers' wages continue to be determined by their political and social standing in the white, patriarchal corporate structure, and not by their own abilities and qualities, not by the content of their character.
3) workers accept not having a dental plan or eye insurance
4) the enforcement of health standards outside a smaller cost/benefit ratio be relaxed
5) the enforcement of environmental protection and preservation policies outside a smaller cost/benefit ratio be relaxed
6) workers accept ongoing violations of their basic rights in the interests of positive corporate image and increased profits
"corporations have largely driven the progress/innovations/increase in wealth of the past century".
Yes, this system does work to that end. But as you know, there are greater concerns than technological progress and the increase of wealth. With this in mind, let's try to improve the system, while keeping as much as we in good conscience can of what has been found to work in the past. At the same time though, we also need to be willing to research and try new ways of doing things. The dramatic increase in technology and information surely positions we in these modern times, if anyone, to do so.
"You can go back to guilds or feudalism or hunting and gathering if you like..."
Hardly.
I agree it is good that China's economy is progressing, and hopefully that the quality of living of its people is increasing.
But in this case, isn't the government of China, if any, specifically the sort of government that would have the mandate of the people to fund free and open source solutions?
In the U.S., there seems to be the expectation that government funded products or services will not compete with existing private products or servcies (except in rare cases), but as I understand it, there is no such expectation of the government of China.
I'm not unhappy that more people will be exposed to technology.
I'm just not particularly pleased that the government of China took the side of proprietary software and patent/royalty encumbered standards, when so far as I can tell, it would have been perfectly within its expectations to not do so.
Not that the government of China cares what I think, of course,
Argh! =^)
Let this end it once and for all:
"I, for one, welcome our new overlord overlords."
WPS Office is proprietary and AVS (their video/audio standard) is patent/royalty encumbered.
While there is Red Flag Linux, I wonder whether we have any reason to believe that the government of China will not act in the interests of proprietary software producers just as much as do the governments of Western nations.
In the case of Red Flag Linux, it may simply be that it is deemed acceptable because there does not exist any satisfactory proprietary and locally produced operating system.
Whereas with an office suite and the audio/video protocol where there are existing local proprietary solutions, the government seems more than willing to favor these existing proprietary solutions over existing open source solutions, and also over developing new open source solutions which would compete with these existing proprietary solutions.
I'm not quite ready to praise the government of China over this move.
No, really, I do not know whether you are serious or not. Either way, your post is quite clever.
It's so hard to tell on Slashdot these days.
My apologies if you are serious. I wouldn't poke fun at someone who genuinely is not proficient in English.