Is anyone else just sick and tired of the same old article? "blah Linux blah blah IBM blah RedHat blah blah blah Apache blah Microsoft...."
The only thing about an article like this that registers above mediocre on the Interesting Scale is the fact that it's better than those MPAA morons who think that "open source" means "steal my life's work."
Why do I get the feeling that Microsoft will probably release their apps (if they release them at all ~cough~vapourware~cough) as x86 binary RPMs for RedHat 6.0+ ?? It just seems like the natural Microsoft way: do it proprietary, screw the users, and alienate people.
Wow, I didn't expect such a response to my post. Hmm..where to begin.
Look guys, I know Slashdot is all about openness, so on, and so forth. But let's face it: what are most of the stories about? Chips, Linux, the Internet, your rights online... are we starting to detect a pattern? It just seems like Anime is the only one that doesn't much fit. Aside from the occasional "it's funny.. laugh" or quickie, when we talk about Slashdot we're talking about a techie site.
Anime has nothing to do with any of that. It's art. Sure, I could uncheck the box in my preferences saying that I don't want to see stories about anime, but you know what? I haven't felt the need to do that for any OTHER topic so far. Not every story posted interests me, but at least they all seem to belong. This just seems like a fringe interest of Rob's or something.
Anyway, I guess if Slashdot were MY site, I wouldn't care about morons who write posts like mine, but I am entitled to my opinion and I think it makes a lot of sense. Whether you want to believe it or not, there IS a loose definition of a geek in place here on Slashdot, and it involves computers, not entertainment.
You know, I consider myself a geek and I feel at home at Slashdot until they go and post something like this. Shouldn't this be on a website dedicated to anime news?
Hey Rob, I know this is your site and you should run it the way you see fit. But Slashdot has grown to become a monster that means a lot to a lot of people. I'm sure there's lots of geeks out there that enjoy anime, but I'm sure there are MANY more anime fans who AREN'T geeks.
The fact is, this story does not belong on Slashdot. Let's stick to software and circuitry.
then why use a title like "It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant" ? You're playing with fire whenever more people have seen a movie than have read the corresponding book. Movies and books ARE fundamentally different because the book is an original piece of art, while the movie is simply a possible interpretation. (this, of course, only applies to movies based on books).
Who cares what Ridley Scott thinks? "Blade Runner" is just the movie interpretation of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Do Androids, in fact, achieves its high level of poignancy by merely SUGGESTING that, under the right circumstances, humanity itself is subjective. Dick didn't need to say whether Deckard was an android... I believe the story is much more interesting by leaving it as a mere possibility. God forbid we should actually ponder something anymore, instead of waiting for the de-facto answers.
I believe Phil K. Dick would not be happy, were he alive today, to learn that other people were deciding to simply change his characters like this.
The internet is more likely to change peoples ideas about sharing, instead of the other way around. The Internet is already too big, with too much money and too many people banking on its success, to be subject to things like "banning FTP" or any such nonsense. The internet is alive, and it will not be contained. If the internet causes us to face abandoning our previous notions of what can and can't be shared, then so be it.
People begin to realize that Linux has little to offer that Unix hasn't offered for years, and with Mac OS X's BSD core and Aqua interface running on cheap hardware, the needs of even die-hard geeks are being met. For those in the Open Source movement, Darwin is all they need.
Call me crazy, but it's been my experience that Apple's very first attempt at a Unix-like system is going to have to turn miracles if it's going to instantaneously replace the need for Unix distributions that have been under scrutinizingly intense development for years. I'm not saying that I might not, one day, switch entirely over to Darwin because it's simply a better choice, but the author of this article seems to suggest that a flashy GUI is the one thing keeping me from really enjoying my FreeBSD box. Try again, Steve... I'm a die-hard geek and if you REALLY wanted my undivided attention, you would make OSX free!
Unfortunately, the author makes the assumption that the only importantl feature in a system is its GUI.
Sealand is obviously very small. Even if you manage your space and resources well, it's obvious that you will have plans for expanding to other island and island-like places in the future. Do you have your sights set on anywhere outside Sealand yet?
SourceForge is still an open-source project, it's just operated in a different way. The closed-development, selective patching nature of the project reminds me a LOT of the BSD and Apache style development model.
So perhaps VA would do well to change the license on SourceForge from GPL to BSD-style. (I'm assuming that SourceForge's code IS under the GPL).
Here at my school, Johns Hopkins, the Physics and Astronomy department is developing the Hubble Advanced Camera. The AdCam will increase the power of the Hubble by 10x.
...but it's not me. Kurt Seifried, the security expert from securityportal.com writes in his article Do you trust your software? that Linux backdoors COULD and probably DO exist because, despite the fact that the source is open, almost nobody is actually reading it. He also claims that many of the exploits found in common open-source software such as BIND and wu-ftpd are placed there intentionally, like by the US government.
Notice: do not flame me. I do not believe in this fairy tale; I'm just reporting on it. I have personally spoken to Kurt on IRC and made him explain himself. He had some good arguments but I still think he's wrong:)
Is it just me, or did the article make a mistake by saying that someone could register "law&order.tv" ? IIRC, '&' is a special character and cannot be used in a domain name.
If I happen to be right, it would partially confirm my suspicion that approximately 99% of people who post replies to Slashdot stories don't actually READ them.
I'm a firm believer in the fact that Propaganda is mostly just the same few basic core designs. Everyone always goes wild over it, and I honestly can't see why. It's all the same lot of swirling patterns in different colors, and to be honest, it gets mad repetitive.
Not all of Propaganda is bad, it's just not deserving fo the praise it constantly receives.
Oh, and marking this as "flamebait" would probably be a good way of enforcing my point, which is that the whole damn Linux/Slashdot community is blindly in love with Propaganda and doesn't want to hear otherwise.
... so-called "third world" countries are trying desperately to find ways to make sure their citizens don't starve. To be honest, any country whose citizens can, en masse, afford the luxury of computers, let alone the internet, does not really qualify as a third-world country.
To get the monitor to display what's on the laptop screen, plug the monitor into the back of the laptop and then turn on the laptop. That's the only way I could get it to work on my Alcam Designer i400, so maybe it's the same on your machine.
seems like far too large a percentage of Slashdot's stories are other sites' old news.
on the other hand, its not that big a deal since slashdot doesn't actually aim to be an up-to-the-minute news source, but rather an all-encompassing method of keeping geeks informed. (read: don't flame me)
The article quotes RIAA spokesman Ron Stone as describing Napster as follows: "It is the single most insidious Web site I've ever seen--it's like a burglar's tool." The funny thing about this is that Stone apparently has never seen Napster or seen it be used. (Napster, obviously, is a software package and not a website like audiogalaxy.com or something) He is what we/. readers call a "moron," a "pompous fool," or simply "the public" His story is all too common: he thinks the Internet IS the Web, and that all activities -legal or illegal- on the Internet take place through the web. ("I mean, its not happening through e-mail so what's left besides the web? Gosh, this internet thing sure isn't all it was cracked up to be..") The RIAA is trying to make an example of Napster, even if it doesn't much care/know what Napster is, what it does, or how it does it. On a side note, I guess the only reason we don't hear much complaining from the/. community about the whole Web != Internet thing is that a good percentage would rather the media/public not know where all the REAL pirated software and music can be found; the average teenage mp3 or warez collector thanks his lucky stars every day that the rest of the world doesn't know what IRC is. It is my feeling that the Napster issue is the first case where the RIAA and the media have actually identified a true, rampant, effective means of piracy, and my personal feeling is that while Napster may beat the rap, it would be better if they lost. Why? Because Napster brings piracy too far into the open. Thievery is a fact of life and is as old as civilization; good thieves know enough to not advertise their activities, even if they CAN play dumb. Napster was playing with fire, and should have known better.
The number one reason I don't like Propaganda is the POOR quality of their tiles. Download them...there are hundreds, but they are ALL THE SAME TILE! It looks like these guys took one basic pattern and used it over and over and over again.
The number two reason I don't like Propaganda is their theme...I'm not offended by their use of JFK, but I think the site is arrogant - it claims to be the liberator of those with boring X desktops, etc, but they clearly spent more time using their website to praise themselves than they did making all those repetitive tiles. When I first went to the site, it took me a full 5 minutes to discover that the site was about graphics!
I leave Propaganda to the quake-kiddies and to the trolls that are going to flame me.
The Dead Kennedies or anyone else could do a satire of Phish if they wanted, and I know I have personally seen a couple decent Phish cover bands. Why would you even ask if they would be able to release Phish tunes? Of course they could! Phish encourages it! (as long as they give credit where credit is due). Phish, after all, regularly performs the music of other bands; I personally have an excellent bootleg of Phish performing Dark Side of the Moon. I feel rather certain that when Phish is long gone, people will continue to play/use/mangle/improve their music much like they have for the Grateful Dead.
You ask what would happen if a "competing group" decided to perform and record a bunch of Phish tunes on an album. Well, what the hell is a "competing group?" Phish isn't in competition with anyone, despite what you may want to believe.
In addition, saying "but the whole myth of 'open source' and Phish is, umm, a myth" demonstrates use of a double-negative and therefore enforces my point instead of yours. But that's why you post as an anonymous coward and I don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Is anyone else just sick and tired of the same old article? "blah Linux blah blah IBM blah RedHat blah blah blah Apache blah Microsoft...."
The only thing about an article like this that registers above mediocre on the Interesting Scale is the fact that it's better than those MPAA morons who think that "open source" means "steal my life's work."
Must be a slow news day.
Just keep in mind whose site it is and that you can always check the little box to keep from seeing topics you don't like.
You people simply DON'T READ. Look at the rest of this thread, Phil. You are redundant, redundant, redundant. And by the way, I hate Star Wars too.
Why do I get the feeling that Microsoft will probably release their apps (if they release them at all ~cough~vapourware~cough) as x86 binary RPMs for RedHat 6.0+ ?? It just seems like the natural Microsoft way: do it proprietary, screw the users, and alienate people.
Wow, I didn't expect such a response to my post. Hmm..where to begin.
Look guys, I know Slashdot is all about openness, so on, and so forth. But let's face it: what are most of the stories about? Chips, Linux, the Internet, your rights online... are we starting to detect a pattern? It just seems like Anime is the only one that doesn't much fit. Aside from the occasional "it's funny.. laugh" or quickie, when we talk about Slashdot we're talking about a techie site.
Anime has nothing to do with any of that. It's art. Sure, I could uncheck the box in my preferences saying that I don't want to see stories about anime, but you know what? I haven't felt the need to do that for any OTHER topic so far. Not every story posted interests me, but at least they all seem to belong. This just seems like a fringe interest of Rob's or something.
Anyway, I guess if Slashdot were MY site, I wouldn't care about morons who write posts like mine, but I am entitled to my opinion and I think it makes a lot of sense. Whether you want to believe it or not, there IS a loose definition of a geek in place here on Slashdot, and it involves computers, not entertainment.
You know, I consider myself a geek and I feel at home at Slashdot until they go and post something like this. Shouldn't this be on a website dedicated to anime news?
Hey Rob, I know this is your site and you should run it the way you see fit. But Slashdot has grown to become a monster that means a lot to a lot of people. I'm sure there's lots of geeks out there that enjoy anime, but I'm sure there are MANY more anime fans who AREN'T geeks.
The fact is, this story does not belong on Slashdot. Let's stick to software and circuitry.
then why use a title like "It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant" ? You're playing with fire whenever more people have seen a movie than have read the corresponding book. Movies and books ARE fundamentally different because the book is an original piece of art, while the movie is simply a possible interpretation. (this, of course, only applies to movies based on books).
I believe your comment simply muddles the point.
Who cares what Ridley Scott thinks? "Blade Runner" is just the movie interpretation of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Do Androids, in fact, achieves its high level of poignancy by merely SUGGESTING that, under the right circumstances, humanity itself is subjective. Dick didn't need to say whether Deckard was an android... I believe the story is much more interesting by leaving it as a mere possibility. God forbid we should actually ponder something anymore, instead of waiting for the de-facto answers.
I believe Phil K. Dick would not be happy, were he alive today, to learn that other people were deciding to simply change his characters like this.
Shut up you troll.
The internet is more likely to change peoples ideas about sharing, instead of the other way around. The Internet is already too big, with too much money and too many people banking on its success, to be subject to things like "banning FTP" or any such nonsense. The internet is alive, and it will not be contained. If the internet causes us to face abandoning our previous notions of what can and can't be shared, then so be it.
Take it easy. It was a moderation error, not an example of American stupidity. Believe it or not, most of us DID notice that the USSR fell in '91.
Perhaps you should spend less time being bitter about Americans...we're really not that bad.
People begin to realize that Linux has little to offer that Unix hasn't offered for years, and with Mac OS X's BSD core and Aqua interface running on cheap hardware, the needs of even die-hard geeks are being met. For those in the Open Source movement, Darwin is all they need.
Call me crazy, but it's been my experience that Apple's very first attempt at a Unix-like system is going to have to turn miracles if it's going to instantaneously replace the need for Unix distributions that have been under scrutinizingly intense development for years. I'm not saying that I might not, one day, switch entirely over to Darwin because it's simply a better choice, but the author of this article seems to suggest that a flashy GUI is the one thing keeping me from really enjoying my FreeBSD box. Try again, Steve... I'm a die-hard geek and if you REALLY wanted my undivided attention, you would make OSX free!
Unfortunately, the author makes the assumption that the only importantl feature in a system is its GUI.
The lizards are coming!! They're coming! 2012!
DavidIcke.com
hehe
--Brian
Sealand is obviously very small. Even if you manage your space and resources well, it's obvious that you will have plans for expanding to other island and island-like places in the future. Do you have your sights set on anywhere outside Sealand yet?
SourceForge is still an open-source project, it's just operated in a different way. The closed-development, selective patching nature of the project reminds me a LOT of the BSD and Apache style development model.
So perhaps VA would do well to change the license on SourceForge from GPL to BSD-style. (I'm assuming that SourceForge's code IS under the GPL).
Here at my school, Johns Hopkins, the Physics and Astronomy department is developing the Hubble Advanced Camera. The AdCam will increase the power of the Hubble by 10x.
http://adcam.pha.jhu.edu is the link for more info.
...but it's not me. Kurt Seifried, the security expert from securityportal.com writes in his article Do you trust your software? that Linux backdoors COULD and probably DO exist because, despite the fact that the source is open, almost nobody is actually reading it. He also claims that many of the exploits found in common open-source software such as BIND and wu-ftpd are placed there intentionally, like by the US government.
:)
Notice: do not flame me. I do not believe in this fairy tale; I'm just reporting on it. I have personally spoken to Kurt on IRC and made him explain himself. He had some good arguments but I still think he's wrong
Is it just me, or did the article make a mistake by saying that someone could register "law&order.tv" ? IIRC, '&' is a special character and cannot be used in a domain name.
If I happen to be right, it would partially confirm my suspicion that approximately 99% of people who post replies to Slashdot stories don't actually READ them.
puhleeze, in my day we had to walk 40 miles uphill in the snow just to scrounge the landfill for the very parts to make our home-made oscilloscope. =)
I'm a firm believer in the fact that Propaganda is mostly just the same few basic core designs. Everyone always goes wild over it, and I honestly can't see why. It's all the same lot of swirling patterns in different colors, and to be honest, it gets mad repetitive.
Not all of Propaganda is bad, it's just not deserving fo the praise it constantly receives.
Oh, and marking this as "flamebait" would probably be a good way of enforcing my point, which is that the whole damn Linux/Slashdot community is blindly in love with Propaganda and doesn't want to hear otherwise.
... so-called "third world" countries are trying desperately to find ways to make sure their citizens don't starve. To be honest, any country whose citizens can, en masse, afford the luxury of computers, let alone the internet, does not really qualify as a third-world country.
To get the monitor to display what's on the laptop screen, plug the monitor into the back of the laptop and then turn on the laptop. That's the only way I could get it to work on my Alcam Designer i400, so maybe it's the same on your machine.
seems like far too large a percentage of Slashdot's stories are other sites' old news.
on the other hand, its not that big a deal since slashdot doesn't actually aim to be an up-to-the-minute news source, but rather an all-encompassing method of keeping geeks informed. (read: don't flame me)
The article quotes RIAA spokesman Ron Stone as describing Napster as follows: /. readers call a "moron," a "pompous fool," or simply "the public" His story is all too common: he thinks the Internet IS the Web, and that all activities -legal or illegal- on the Internet take place through the web. ("I mean, its not happening through e-mail so what's left besides the web? Gosh, this internet thing sure isn't all it was cracked up to be..") The RIAA is trying to make an example of Napster, even if it doesn't much care/know what Napster is, what it does, or how it does it. /. community about the whole Web != Internet thing is that a good percentage would rather the media/public not know where all the REAL pirated software and music can be found; the average teenage mp3 or warez collector thanks his lucky stars every day that the rest of the world doesn't know what IRC is.
"It is the single most insidious Web site I've ever seen--it's like a burglar's tool."
The funny thing about this is that Stone apparently has never seen Napster or seen it be used. (Napster, obviously, is a software package and not a website like audiogalaxy.com or something) He is what we
On a side note, I guess the only reason we don't hear much complaining from the
It is my feeling that the Napster issue is the first case where the RIAA and the media have actually identified a true, rampant, effective means of piracy, and my personal feeling is that while Napster may beat the rap, it would be better if they lost. Why? Because Napster brings piracy too far into the open. Thievery is a fact of life and is as old as civilization; good thieves know enough to not advertise their activities, even if they CAN play dumb. Napster was playing with fire, and should have known better.
The number one reason I don't like Propaganda is the POOR quality of their tiles. Download them...there are hundreds, but they are ALL THE SAME TILE! It looks like these guys took one basic pattern and used it over and over and over again.
The number two reason I don't like Propaganda is their theme...I'm not offended by their use of JFK, but I think the site is arrogant - it claims to be the liberator of those with boring X desktops, etc, but they clearly spent more time using their website to praise themselves than they did making all those repetitive tiles. When I first went to the site, it took me a full 5 minutes to discover that the site was about graphics!
I leave Propaganda to the quake-kiddies and to the trolls that are going to flame me.
The Dead Kennedies or anyone else could do a satire of Phish if they wanted, and I know I have personally seen a couple decent Phish cover bands. Why would you even ask if they would be able to release Phish tunes? Of course they could! Phish encourages it! (as long as they give credit where credit is due). Phish, after all, regularly performs the music of other bands; I personally have an excellent bootleg of Phish performing Dark Side of the Moon. I feel rather certain that when Phish is long gone, people will continue to play/use/mangle/improve their music much like they have for the Grateful Dead.
You ask what would happen if a "competing group" decided to perform and record a bunch of Phish tunes on an album. Well, what the hell is a "competing group?" Phish isn't in competition with anyone, despite what you may want to believe.
In addition, saying "but the whole myth of 'open source' and Phish is, umm, a myth" demonstrates use of a double-negative and therefore enforces my point instead of yours. But that's why you post as an anonymous coward and I don't.