The headline is highly misleading.
Maya is notfree software by any stretch of imagination,
it's not even open source software. There are strings attached, be careful.
Actually, no. Not at all. I don't force them to watch those sick pictures of disgustingly humiliated people. They like it. Therefore they are perverts. It is not my fault. This is a fact. If they don't want to be called perverts then why won't they stop being perverts in the first place?
Oh, and if someone likes strawberry ice cream with crushed Oreos on top and you find the taste disgusting, then I guess that would qualify them to be a pervert?
No, becaue of the lack of sick deviant nature of eating, as opposed to the very act of masturbating. (But it's a good strawman argument -- nice try.)
I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least? They get what they are asking for if you ask me.
You pay them to eat lunch, too?
No, of course I don't.
As long as your acceptable use policy allows personal use during lunch hours (checking mail, etc.) or at other times,
Are you kidding? Do you really think that I allow them to do anything with our equipment which is not work related? Maybe I should also allow them to run DDoS attacks while we're at it?
then I'm still of the opinion that threatening someone and their employment and labeling them a "pervert" simply for viewing an image that is assumed to be pr0n simply because it isn't indexed on google is over the top, and may be grounds for legal action against you.
What may be a "c00l 1337 pr0n" for you might as well be illegal in the eyes of the judge.
It was a ground for legal action against me, bacause I provided the techical tools (i.e. the TCP/IP network connected to the Internet) which allowed sick perverted deviants to watch pornography in our lab. Please read the rest of this thread.
Please... No one has ever told them it will be easy job. If they want to quit I have lots of other people waiting in the line. I'm not forcing anyone to work here, although I have to admit they will be lucky if they get even a web monkey job not violating the NDA they signed here. But they were not forced to sign it and that's what's important -- free will.
True, but I'm guessing nobody ever told them they'd be abused and threatened, either.
Nobody has ever needed to tell them how they were going to be treated because our employees are treated much better than before when they were on the test period for the first three months (at least those hired without my personal recommendation) when they were not paid and were constantly exploited by our full-time workers.
Somehow they like our money. Do you think they are crying all the way to the bank?
I don't think so.
I'm certainly NOT an advocate of socialism -- I believe that you need to put in a day's work for a day's pay.
Oh, please, for the love of god... You just lost a perfectly valid argument in the very second you introduced socialism to the discussion. You may compare anything to Hitler and Nazi Germany but the argument is completely lost.
But it works both ways -- you need to have some respect for your employees, too. Contrary to what you apparently believe, you don't OWN them. It's people with attitudes like yours, IMO, that drive a lot of people to what seems to be an ever-increasing socialist "you owe me" mentality against business owners/bosses, etc.
But if you're serious about digital recording you're doing 24 bit. And I'm tired of hearing about how it doesn't matter, because it does. You may not be able to hear high frequencies directly, but I strongly believe you perceive them indirectly, such as in the subtleties of imaging, in the timbre of woodwinds, and in the overall resonance of a piano. *subtle* but important, IMO, and it *is* My O that matters here.
I agreed with basically all you said up to this point. It is important to record in 24 bits indeed but it doesn't have anything to do with inaudible high frequencies (24 bits is all about quantization, not sampling) and even if it did, they are still inaudible in the same way as ultraviolet is invisible. Of course a painter could use ultraviolet paint because in his opinion
"[y]ou may not be able to see high frequencies directly, but [he] strongly believe[s] you perceive them indirectly, such as in the subtleties of imaging..." etc.
Even if you really did "perceive" the sound in some magical way without the involvement of your ears (in the same way as deaf people would percieve them -- hint: they don't) they would still be removed by the lowpass filter used in every player to remove the high frequency noise caused by the rectangular edges in digital signal representation.
You are postulating existence of the same phenomena as Professor Collins
(an amateur psychoacoustician)
in
this discussion from over a year ago.
Please notice the answer by Monty of Xiphophorus fame
(author of Ogg Project (including the famous Vorbis CODEC), CCDA Paranoia and Icecast) who systematically invalidates every single argument of Professor Collins point by point.
Now, back to the 24-bit quantization (once again, having nothing to do with sampling frequency), it is important, because you want to be able to e.g. compress or expand the recorded track without loosing the resolution of 16-bit samples. For example you can easily add 20dB do a very quiet portion of sound, still using the full 16-bit resolution of samples on a final CD (24-bit samples have 256 times higher resolution than 16-bit) but that's about it.
It is like processing graphics using 48-bit RGB (or 64-bit RGBA) because you can play with gamma and contrast without the need to sacrifice the final quality.
High sampling frequency can only make sense if you want to downsample it later to play the sound few octaves lower than the original. It is used in techno but is pointless in real music because it sounds awful (low C of any given instrument sounds differently than downsampled high C).
As about the cost of DAC on the minidisc recorders (or CD players for that matter) it is actually surprisingly cheap if you use a 1-bit DAC and the only analog component needed is the lowpass filter but I totally agree with you about the intentional suboptimal quality of consumer equipment. It is exactly like slowing the graphics card in drivers, so you could sell more expensive "pro" version of the very same hardware.
By the way, the -96bB of quiet is expensive indeed, but one have to keep in mind that it is 150000 times quieter than the lowest order bit of 16-bit samples and still 600 times quieter than the lowest bit of 24-bit samples so it is very expensive and equally pointless even when you use 24-bit quantization. You'd need 33-34 bits for -96bB to make any difference but I highly doubt the interference on your wires would introduce the noise lower than that and of course such a recording would only make sense if you are planning to add few tens dB before the finall CD mastering.
Now, I hate the techno/pop/rock crap as much as the next guy and I'm really
The record industry is doomed because we no longer need any industry to record data (musical or otherwise) thanks to personal computers which even using entirely free software can be better then entire recording studios few years ago. We don't need multi-million-dollar equipment, so there is no point in centralization. RIAA knows that and they are desperately trying to do anything to save their obsolete business model. They can only be safe if there is DRM everywhere and people need a license to publish their work in a way readable with most of the equipment of the future (Palladium/TCPA/etc.).
In the past we needed the recording industry becuse they were the only ones who had the equipment. In the future we'll need the recording industry becuse they will be the only ones who will have the encryption keys. Thank god we have
FSF,
EFF
and similar organizations fighting for our freedom because I'm sure as hell I don't want to live in such a future.
As much as I agree that the workplace generally isn't the time and place for pr0n (unless that's your work, of course) -- don't you think that someone might find your repeated use of "sick perverts" offensive?
Actually, no. Not at all. I don't force them to watch those sick pictures of disgustingly humiliated people. They like it. Therefore they are perverts. It is not my fault. This is a fact. If they don't want to be called perverts then why won't they stop being perverts in the first place?
Don't you think that making a threat against an employee might be a bit over the top just because they wanted to browse their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip, on a site that might actually not let their pictures be indexed or just hasn't been crawled recently?
I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question:
Don't you think that
browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip
during the time I pay them to work
is a little bit unfair, to say the very least?
They get what they are asking for if you ask me.
Oh, and you must have a WONDERFUL work environment, wherever you are, with the constant threats of lawsuits against employees, throwing the word "pervert" around all the time, as well as generally inspiring work effort with the fear of a lawsuit.
Please... No one has ever told them it will be easy job. If they want to quit I have lots of other people waiting in the line. I'm not forcing anyone to work here, although I have to admit they will be lucky if they get even a web monkey job
not violating the NDA they signed here. But they were not forced to sign it and that's what's important -- free will.
Can you send me an application?
Somehow I highly doubt you'd get the required security clearance.
Do you have a resume published on the web somewhere? I could see what I can do.
(Especially if hiring you is good for me,
if you follow my drift.)
Trusted computing is what the Internet needs. We use PGP and SSL to encrypt our sensitive information. Now hackers cant read our emails, files, etc.
PGP and SSL is not what "trusted computing" is all about. The word "trusted" here is closer to the meaning we used in DoD, i.e. the system or component is considered "trusted" if it is able to violate the security policy. It may seem strange at first but is actually very logical. I don't have to trust someone who can't betray me anyway.
This news is very interesting considering the fact that Bill Gates during his visit in Poland today has made a great deal in supporting Polish language, giving Windows to every school, to the government (even the source code with the ability to modify and compile!) like the 99.8% (plus being the only OS supporting the mandatory tax software) was not enough. Poland, like Israel, has been repeatedly exploited by Germans (and Poles, just like Jews, often hate Germans for what they did to their people) who incidentally are opposing Microsoft domination, scientology roots of core Microsoft developers and the recent SCO FUD campain, but now, when Poland is joining the EU, it is much better camrade for Microsoft to fight Germans than Israel is, thanks to its veto power in European Parlament and corrupted government (from the lowest levels up to prime minister). Or is it just US being grateful because Poland has blindly followed Bush in his Iraq invasion? Obviously nobody can be sure about it, but certainly I can't wait to see how it will end.
Maybe he could actually talk to his girlfriend... Devellop a real relationship based on comprehension and understanding, then they could work together on satisfying both their sexual needs.
Why bother when you can have fun with Google instead... *sigh*
This is how we get so many sick perverts in our society.
Besides, sex with 15 year old child is illegal not without a reason. Children are not ready for sex and no amount of pornography can change it.
Transmeta wants to reserve the freedom[sic] to change their internal instruction set at any time, without breaking anything.
What about our freedom then? We're not even allowed to use the very instruction set mentioned above, much less to break anything. I wouldn't expect something like that from Linus Torvalds who may encourage boycotting the FSF
but still has done a lot for free software per se
(I mean the technical rather then political aspects of his work).
They have already done it, in fact - the original TM3200/5400/5600/5800 have a 64-bit VLIW instruction set, the new Efficeon TM8000 has a new 128-bit one.
In the world of free software there is little need for binary compatibility, as long as there's source compatibility. What they should do is to provide appropriate gcc backends for their architectures and everyone would have the best of both worlds.
I hope they are reading this.
Are you paying Google the appropriate fees for automated use of their service?
Of course I'm paying the (inappropriate in my opinion) fees. Do you think I'm stupid?
I was sued by a coworker for allowing other pervert watching pornography on our equipment, do you think I'd like to be sued by Google now? The answer is: no, I most certainly would not.
You knew that's against their TOS if you're not paying for it, right?
Yes. Right. Stop asking. Are you Google's lawyer or what?
"Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."
"But your honor, I was only
providing information on anatomy, gynecology and safe-sex advice to those kids in the park!"
Wow, how intelligent way to start an argument...
I am really impressed.
Two years ago we were sued by a woman employee who saw pornography on the screen of one of our workers and she won.
Did you not think of ever blaming her?
Oh, great... Just blame the victim!
For the love of god! Are you insane?
Why should some moron sue because they saw a pornographic image?
Did it damage her eyes? Did it cause here to have a heart attack?
Have you ever stopped to think about menthal health issues? Of course it didn't damage her eyes! That's the most stupid question I've ever heard!
Was there any physical evidence of harm at all whatsoever?
Actually, there was a very physical evidence all over the place, since she puked. I was hoping I wouldn't be forced to talk about it, but here you go. Are you satisfied? Physical enough for you?
The answer, with a probabilitiy exceeding 99.99999%, is no. Bullshit lawsuits are a problem with the legal system, not employees looking at nudy pictures.
Those "nudy pictures" as all of you perverts keep calling illegal pornography was no bullshit in the eyes of a judge. As I've already said, she won the case.
Therefore, while your argument is strong when adhering to the concept of employee productivity, it is ruined by your example of frivolous litigation.
My example of frivolous litigation?
I'm sorry, but I was the one who was sued, god damn it! For me it wasn't a "frivolous litigation" (quote and quote) as you call it! I was terrified.
Your argument contains another startling flaw: The original article was not talking about images. It was talking about text. Filtering images and text are two totally different things.
Please... It's all ones and zeroes to me. I don't care if I pay someone to work and he wastes this time on consuming pornography in the form of pictures, sound, text or a freaking holograms!
Pornography is pornography.
For one thing, the employee whose screen you got sued for could have written "dirty" text during his time at the office. I doubt very much that he could be manufacturing "dirty" images during his hours at the office.
He was masturbating for god's sake! How much more "dirty" you can possibly get? I just can't believe how much sympathy you have for this fucking pervert!
I for one am glad he's in jail now.
The real filtering danger this article is pointing out is the danger of filtering text. If you do not want your employees to look at porn images, make them use Lynx or block all images at the firewall. People would still be able to get the information they need. Changing the news, however, is censorship and an attempt at thought control. Are you working for the Ministry of Thought?
Ministry of Thought?! Thought control???
Are you nuts?!
Heve you even read my comment?
It is nice to know that there are people out there like you who think they have the right to decide what the rest of us think and know. Why don't you move to a totalitarian state? I think you would be happy there.
I am not trying to
"decide what the rest of [you] think and know" for crying out loud! It was my arse which was sued because I was the one who let a menthally unstable young mother see a fucking sick perverted bastard jerking off watching child pornography on the fucking hardware which I personally installed and configured!!!
I'm sorry I reminded you about your god damned orwellian phobias! Sue me!!!
You make me sick.
"circumvented its local carrier and reduced monthly service fees from $530,000 to a mere $6,000 by using voice over IP technology"
I remember when back in the good old days I
circumvented our local carrier and reduced monthly service fees from $38,000 to a mere $25 by using a then revolutionary blue-boxing technology.
Needless to say, I quickly faced prosecution.
Now, when circumvention itself became illegal thanks to DMCA act, I wonder how long before people start being prosecuted for using VoIP. Is this madness ever going to stop?
This is great but wouldn't it mean Mozilla (and by extention Linux) could recieve wide reconition in mainstream (read: stupid people) culture, of the inferior alternative to proprietary software? I hope I'm wrong here but we all have to be really careful before we jump to premature conclusions. Never underestimate the power of proprietary marketing.
Wouldn't it be faster if we programmers could target the real instruction set of Transmeta CPUs instead of writing the legacy x86 only to have it "morphed" into the real deal? Wouldn't it make more sense to work with gcc staff telling them about all of this software emulation voodoo magic and give us the option of turning it off, so we could use the internal beautiful RISC architecture and have even faster and more efficeont arch? Could someone please explain it to me? I haven't got any answers from Transmeta core team about those very issues.
"I have mix feelings about this, on one hand, even though the text in this case was meant as a joke and the content wasn't very offensive,[sic] I was using company equipment. But on the other hand, this company is a government regulated entity"
[emphasis added]
As someone responsible for network administration in a "government regulated entity" (quote and quote) I am just sick of employees caught on watching pornography saying "Oh, come on! It wasn't that offensive! Someone just sent me a joke and I absolutely had to see it in my work time!" I'm sorry but I cannot tolerate it. Two years ago we were sued by a woman employee who saw pornography on the screen of one of our workers and she won. We will not make this mistake again. Actually I was the one who opted for not only filtering, but also modifying the content of packets travelling through our routers. I used snort(8) and ngrep(8) together with netsed(1) and a custom libcap app to change pornographic pictures into our special picture
(it changes the img html tags src attribute)
with text saying usually something like "We are watching you! We have 328 resumes of people willing to take your place, you sick pervert! One more time and you're out!" and I have to admit, it works like a charm. We had to fire few sick bastards to show that we're serious, but those new kids are working much harder than them, so it was actually good to our organization.
How do I say a picture is pornographic you might ask? Simple. If it's not on images.google.com with
strict filtering on.
Of course people are still willing to cheat using "covert channels" but we made it clear that those are in violation of our internal policy and we can sue them for it. It's much better to work here now, but of course I still have to monitor all of the traffic. You wouldn't belive how innovative those sick perverts can be. Unfortunately we cannot fire all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? I, for one, most certainly do. I'm sure there are lots of people on Slashdot who don't want to violate the copyright law.
PHP Scales As Well As Java -- is that a good thing? I'm not sure how well Java scales. How does it compare to Perl or Smalltalk?
The headline is highly misleading. Maya is not free software by any stretch of imagination, it's not even open source software. There are strings attached, be careful.
No, becaue of the lack of sick deviant nature of eating, as opposed to the very act of masturbating. (But it's a good strawman argument -- nice try.)
No, of course I don't.
Are you kidding? Do you really think that I allow them to do anything with our equipment which is not work related? Maybe I should also allow them to run DDoS attacks while we're at it?
What may be a "c00l 1337 pr0n" for you might as well be illegal in the eyes of the judge. It was a ground for legal action against me, bacause I provided the techical tools (i.e. the TCP/IP network connected to the Internet) which allowed sick perverted deviants to watch pornography in our lab. Please read the rest of this thread.
Nobody has ever needed to tell them how they were going to be treated because our employees are treated much better than before when they were on the test period for the first three months (at least those hired without my personal recommendation) when they were not paid and were constantly exploited by our full-time workers. Somehow they like our money. Do you think they are crying all the way to the bank? I don't think so.
Oh, please, for the love of god... You just lost a perfectly valid argument in the very second you introduced socialism to the discussion. You may compare anything to Hitler and Nazi Germany but the argument is completely lost.
If (and I sa
But if you're serious about digital recording you're doing 24 bit. And I'm tired of hearing about how it doesn't matter, because it does. You may not be able to hear high frequencies directly, but I strongly believe you perceive them indirectly, such as in the subtleties of imaging, in the timbre of woodwinds, and in the overall resonance of a piano. *subtle* but important, IMO, and it *is* My O that matters here.
I agreed with basically all you said up to this point. It is important to record in 24 bits indeed but it doesn't have anything to do with inaudible high frequencies (24 bits is all about quantization, not sampling) and even if it did, they are still inaudible in the same way as ultraviolet is invisible. Of course a painter could use ultraviolet paint because in his opinion "[y]ou may not be able to see high frequencies directly, but [he] strongly believe[s] you perceive them indirectly, such as in the subtleties of imaging..." etc.
Even if you really did "perceive" the sound in some magical way without the involvement of your ears (in the same way as deaf people would percieve them -- hint: they don't) they would still be removed by the lowpass filter used in every player to remove the high frequency noise caused by the rectangular edges in digital signal representation.
You are postulating existence of the same phenomena as Professor Collins (an amateur psychoacoustician) in this discussion from over a year ago. Please notice the answer by Monty of Xiphophorus fame (author of Ogg Project (including the famous Vorbis CODEC), CCDA Paranoia and Icecast) who systematically invalidates every single argument of Professor Collins point by point.
Now, back to the 24-bit quantization (once again, having nothing to do with sampling frequency), it is important, because you want to be able to e.g. compress or expand the recorded track without loosing the resolution of 16-bit samples. For example you can easily add 20dB do a very quiet portion of sound, still using the full 16-bit resolution of samples on a final CD (24-bit samples have 256 times higher resolution than 16-bit) but that's about it. It is like processing graphics using 48-bit RGB (or 64-bit RGBA) because you can play with gamma and contrast without the need to sacrifice the final quality.
High sampling frequency can only make sense if you want to downsample it later to play the sound few octaves lower than the original. It is used in techno but is pointless in real music because it sounds awful (low C of any given instrument sounds differently than downsampled high C).
As about the cost of DAC on the minidisc recorders (or CD players for that matter) it is actually surprisingly cheap if you use a 1-bit DAC and the only analog component needed is the lowpass filter but I totally agree with you about the intentional suboptimal quality of consumer equipment. It is exactly like slowing the graphics card in drivers, so you could sell more expensive "pro" version of the very same hardware.
By the way, the -96bB of quiet is expensive indeed, but one have to keep in mind that it is 150000 times quieter than the lowest order bit of 16-bit samples and still 600 times quieter than the lowest bit of 24-bit samples so it is very expensive and equally pointless even when you use 24-bit quantization. You'd need 33-34 bits for -96bB to make any difference but I highly doubt the interference on your wires would introduce the noise lower than that and of course such a recording would only make sense if you are planning to add few tens dB before the finall CD mastering.
Now, I hate the techno/pop/rock crap as much as the next guy and I'm really
The record industry is doomed because we no longer need any industry to record data (musical or otherwise) thanks to personal computers which even using entirely free software can be better then entire recording studios few years ago. We don't need multi-million-dollar equipment, so there is no point in centralization. RIAA knows that and they are desperately trying to do anything to save their obsolete business model. They can only be safe if there is DRM everywhere and people need a license to publish their work in a way readable with most of the equipment of the future (Palladium/TCPA/etc.). In the past we needed the recording industry becuse they were the only ones who had the equipment. In the future we'll need the recording industry becuse they will be the only ones who will have the encryption keys. Thank god we have FSF, EFF and similar organizations fighting for our freedom because I'm sure as hell I don't want to live in such a future.
Actually, no. Not at all. I don't force them to watch those sick pictures of disgustingly humiliated people. They like it. Therefore they are perverts. It is not my fault. This is a fact. If they don't want to be called perverts then why won't they stop being perverts in the first place?
I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least? They get what they are asking for if you ask me.
Please... No one has ever told them it will be easy job. If they want to quit I have lots of other people waiting in the line. I'm not forcing anyone to work here, although I have to admit they will be lucky if they get even a web monkey job not violating the NDA they signed here. But they were not forced to sign it and that's what's important -- free will.
Somehow I highly doubt you'd get the required security clearance. Do you have a resume published on the web somewhere? I could see what I can do. (Especially if hiring you is good for me, if you follow my drift.)
Where have you got those benchmarks from?
PGP and SSL is not what "trusted computing" is all about. The word "trusted" here is closer to the meaning we used in DoD, i.e. the system or component is considered "trusted" if it is able to violate the security policy. It may seem strange at first but is actually very logical. I don't have to trust someone who can't betray me anyway.
This news is very interesting considering the fact that Bill Gates during his visit in Poland today has made a great deal in supporting Polish language, giving Windows to every school, to the government (even the source code with the ability to modify and compile!) like the 99.8% (plus being the only OS supporting the mandatory tax software) was not enough. Poland, like Israel, has been repeatedly exploited by Germans (and Poles, just like Jews, often hate Germans for what they did to their people) who incidentally are opposing Microsoft domination, scientology roots of core Microsoft developers and the recent SCO FUD campain, but now, when Poland is joining the EU, it is much better camrade for Microsoft to fight Germans than Israel is, thanks to its veto power in European Parlament and corrupted government (from the lowest levels up to prime minister). Or is it just US being grateful because Poland has blindly followed Bush in his Iraq invasion? Obviously nobody can be sure about it, but certainly I can't wait to see how it will end.
Does it mean it will rain constantly with blue lightnings of death crashing every second?
Certainly.
Well... No.
No, it doesn't, I just like to build servers which don't work... *sigh* Of course it does!
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
I mean the literal sense. No pun intended.
Unfortunately it does more often than not.
Why bother when you can have fun with Google instead... *sigh* This is how we get so many sick perverts in our society. Besides, sex with 15 year old child is illegal not without a reason. Children are not ready for sex and no amount of pornography can change it.
What about our freedom then? We're not even allowed to use the very instruction set mentioned above, much less to break anything. I wouldn't expect something like that from Linus Torvalds who may encourage boycotting the FSF but still has done a lot for free software per se (I mean the technical rather then political aspects of his work).
In the world of free software there is little need for binary compatibility, as long as there's source compatibility. What they should do is to provide appropriate gcc backends for their architectures and everyone would have the best of both worlds. I hope they are reading this.
Of course I'm paying the (inappropriate in my opinion) fees. Do you think I'm stupid? I was sued by a coworker for allowing other pervert watching pornography on our equipment, do you think I'd like to be sued by Google now? The answer is: no, I most certainly would not.
Yes. Right. Stop asking. Are you Google's lawyer or what?
"But your honor, I was only providing information on anatomy, gynecology and safe-sex advice to those kids in the park!"
Yeah, right... I call bs.
Wow, how intelligent way to start an argument... I am really impressed.
Oh, great... Just blame the victim! For the love of god! Are you insane?
Have you ever stopped to think about menthal health issues? Of course it didn't damage her eyes! That's the most stupid question I've ever heard!
Actually, there was a very physical evidence all over the place, since she puked. I was hoping I wouldn't be forced to talk about it, but here you go. Are you satisfied? Physical enough for you?
Those "nudy pictures" as all of you perverts keep calling illegal pornography was no bullshit in the eyes of a judge. As I've already said, she won the case.
My example of frivolous litigation? I'm sorry, but I was the one who was sued, god damn it! For me it wasn't a "frivolous litigation" (quote and quote) as you call it! I was terrified.
Please... It's all ones and zeroes to me. I don't care if I pay someone to work and he wastes this time on consuming pornography in the form of pictures, sound, text or a freaking holograms! Pornography is pornography.
He was masturbating for god's sake! How much more "dirty" you can possibly get? I just can't believe how much sympathy you have for this fucking pervert! I for one am glad he's in jail now.
Ministry of Thought?! Thought control??? Are you nuts?! Heve you even read my comment?
I am not trying to "decide what the rest of [you] think and know" for crying out loud! It was my arse which was sued because I was the one who let a menthally unstable young mother see a fucking sick perverted bastard jerking off watching child pornography on the fucking hardware which I personally installed and configured!!! I'm sorry I reminded you about your god damned orwellian phobias! Sue me!!! You make me sick.
I remember when back in the good old days I circumvented our local carrier and reduced monthly service fees from $38,000 to a mere $25 by using a then revolutionary blue-boxing technology. Needless to say, I quickly faced prosecution. Now, when circumvention itself became illegal thanks to DMCA act, I wonder how long before people start being prosecuted for using VoIP. Is this madness ever going to stop?
This is great but wouldn't it mean Mozilla (and by extention Linux) could recieve wide reconition in mainstream (read: stupid people) culture, of the inferior alternative to proprietary software? I hope I'm wrong here but we all have to be really careful before we jump to premature conclusions. Never underestimate the power of proprietary marketing.
Wouldn't it be faster if we programmers could target the real instruction set of Transmeta CPUs instead of writing the legacy x86 only to have it "morphed" into the real deal? Wouldn't it make more sense to work with gcc staff telling them about all of this software emulation voodoo magic and give us the option of turning it off, so we could use the internal beautiful RISC architecture and have even faster and more efficeont arch? Could someone please explain it to me? I haven't got any answers from Transmeta core team about those very issues.
As someone responsible for network administration in a "government regulated entity" (quote and quote) I am just sick of employees caught on watching pornography saying "Oh, come on! It wasn't that offensive! Someone just sent me a joke and I absolutely had to see it in my work time!" I'm sorry but I cannot tolerate it. Two years ago we were sued by a woman employee who saw pornography on the screen of one of our workers and she won. We will not make this mistake again. Actually I was the one who opted for not only filtering, but also modifying the content of packets travelling through our routers. I used snort(8) and ngrep(8) together with netsed(1) and a custom libcap app to change pornographic pictures into our special picture (it changes the img html tags src attribute) with text saying usually something like "We are watching you! We have 328 resumes of people willing to take your place, you sick pervert! One more time and you're out!" and I have to admit, it works like a charm. We had to fire few sick bastards to show that we're serious, but those new kids are working much harder than them, so it was actually good to our organization. How do I say a picture is pornographic you might ask? Simple. If it's not on images.google.com with strict filtering on. Of course people are still willing to cheat using "covert channels" but we made it clear that those are in violation of our internal policy and we can sue them for it. It's much better to work here now, but of course I still have to monitor all of the traffic. You wouldn't belive how innovative those sick perverts can be. Unfortunately we cannot fire all of them.