As a long time linux user, I'm pretty much fed up with Ubuntu. Every twat who uses it thinks they invented linux, and it gets more coverage than Princess Di. It's only a distro, not a religion. All mouth and no trousers...
Aah but does it support multi-touch ? Apple have gone from 1 button is cool, who needs two, to why have you got 1 button, all in 6 years. And so the world turns...
How ? It does nothing more than allow every fucker with some money to buy them all up AGAIN ! Why don't we expand the TLD space again, (when they need some more money). Fucking consumer !
I'm sorry but those (max)4 characters are not enough to make me want to ditch the current working system. All this is, is dilution of the namespace, in order to make more money (as a registrar). the prices won't go down but there will be more work for DNS, which you may note is already under strain.
That sentence alone makes me worry. Have you considered that by allowing these flaws to come to light, we are being "guided" towards "trusted computing" ? I'd rather bugs and hackers than MS domination.
Is there an attack for linux >? Why do people, focus on Microsoft ? Is this going to hurt me in the next 24 hours, or don't you care ? I use Gnomes PDF viewer or Gnomes xPdf. (why does Firefoxs spellchecker complain about linux ?)
Are windows users in charge of the internet too ?
Yes, I know you blue, are doing the right thing, but the thread was drifting dangerously into cronyism. Surely we're all in this together ?
despite comments further down, I agree. Windows is not the only OS on the planet,and as such (bearing in mind almost every attack has been windows based in the past) it would be nice if the MEDIA could recognise us as part of the fucking blogosphere ! (excuse me while I wash my mouth out.) Windows & Fedora
Take any one of their aims regarding small government and private responsibility, for instance ask about melamine in milk, they'll say, "oh but of course we'll allow regulation of that", so you say what about lead in petrol or paint, and they'll say "oh but of course we'll allow regulation of that", then take any other subject where the government should be involved because private industry is out to screw the public, and they'll say "oh but of course we'll allow regulation of that".
What you end up with, and what libertarians fail or refuse to recognise, is what we already have ! Big government with lots of regulation.
the only way out is to: a) Force people to be more responsible (ain't gonna happen) b) Force corporations to be more responsible (ain't gonna happen) c) Force politicians to assume less power and take less kickbacks (ain't gonna happen)
Besides which if you have to force anybody, it isn't really libertarian is it ? Libertarianism is about as workable as communism, ie. it's an immature pipe dream.
I would say the stimulus should be supplied in the form of requiring open source in all government activities, but principally in the area of education. Teach the kids how to use and interact with computers, not train them to work with a closed source monopolistic entity, which thereby entrenches said monopoly. The advantages would be many-fold, not least that there would be less ID10Ts running nodes on botnets, less time wasted waiting for said closed source monopoly to fix their damn product, and more opportunity for innovation without massive financial investment.
I'm not calling for all schools to move to linux, but I am calling for more education in the area of what a computer actually does, right down to the bare metal. Even now I am amazed at the number of people I meet who think that stuff just "floats around" on the internet. They have no idea that the computer they are using at home is pretty much equivalent to the one that's serving the content. They have no idea that when they are sold an ADSL connection at "up to 8Mbit" speeds, the "up to 8Mbit" only refers to their connection to the ISP, NOT the connection to the server providing the content. All this leads to FUD by the media and unnecessary hand wringing and legislation, which could be completely avoided by explaining the facts much earlier in the persons life, ie. at school.
I tend to think of computers and more specifically programming, in terms of written language. In past ages very few people knew how to write (or read), so that if you wanted to communicate something without being face to face, you had to employ somebody else to do it for you. As soon as reading and writing became something that everybody learned, technology accelerated at an exponential rate, and our standards of living followed.
Equating reading and writing to being able to personally control a computer, however simply you do it - scripting for instance, you can see that by allowing proprietary concerns to control information, we are taking a step backwards in general access to information. This does not mean that proprietary concerns should be banned, just that there should be other options obviously available. By force feeding our kids MS software and environments, we are conditioning them against anything outside that.
I am working on training people to use other options, so that they don't have to pay just to add another product to their website, or to make a photo the right size for display on a page. It is possible to do most things your average home user needs without relying on a centrally controlled proprietary commercial organisation. I am not by any means a Libertarian, but surely access to alternatives is part of a Libertarian outlook. Forcing the next generation to learn only how to operate commercial software is verging on brainwashing.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm talking about teaching everybody to program computers. I'm interested in showing them what programming is, and how it relates to the machine. Even if they never go on to program in their whole life, they will still have that background knowledge available so that when they get fed bullshit, they can detect it. I am not a professional historian, but having been taught basic historical facts at school, I can see when someone else is making stuff up.
Foster intelligence, not familiarity with products.
If you disagree with my opinion, ask yourself - who does it benefit to train school kids on only Microsoft products ? a) The people b) Microsoft
The last point I have to make is that because the publics knowledge of the internet and computing is so limited, when governments create massive databases on their citizens, restrict access to information, ban or limit certain protocols etc. etc. the general publics reaction is Meh ! They don't know what they're losing because they never experienced it. That cannot be right. It becomes difficult to argue politically for the "right thing to do" when the electorate have no idea what you're talking about. If they were informed on the subject, then they have the right to disagree, but to make decisions from a position of ignorance benefits nobody.
If it takes the air from the surrounding atmosphere, compresses it and cools it so that it becomes virtually equivalent to liquid oxygen, how is it different from a rocket ?
All they are doing is acquiring some of the LOX as they fly rather than storing it all in a tank before take-off. Stored oxidiser or non stored oxidiser play no part in the actual rocket engine. Is a rocket engine on the launch pad NOT a rocket engine because the LOX tank hasn't been filled yet ? This spaceplane essentially provides its own oxidiser as it flys (in air). The engine functions in almost exactly the same way.
If you had a car with it's own ethanol production plant in the back, would it no longer use an ICE , just because all the petrol wasn't in the tank to start with ? Think about what you're saying.
From takeoff up to Mach 5, the Skylon's Sabres operate by burning liquid hydrogen fuel with air from their intakes. They aren't ram or scram jets, however: the incoming air is compressed and almost instantly chilled to the point where it is about to liquefy, using a turbocompressor and tremendously powerful freezer kit running on a closed liquid-helium loop. Then the air is fed into the combustion chamber and burned. The heat arising from the super air chilling process is dumped into the liquid hydrogen fuel prior to burning it.
As the Skylon accelerates through Mach 5.5, it will have climbed to such heights that the air is no longer worth scooping. The intakes are shut off and liquid oxygen from the ship's tanks used instead, as the Sabres become relatively normal liquid fuelled rocket engines.
When was the last time you used your microwave to make hot air? The hot air around a hot cup of tea doesn't count... that's heat from steam.
... and steam is composed of what ?
That's right, water vapour ! And what are those white fluffy things in the sky ? Ding ding ding ! Clouds made of water vapour. So heating the clouds produces a change in the local weather patterns, and as we all know, local weather is part of global weather.
In the end (or even the beginning) the only reasonable thing to do is to keep an eye on the current scientific situation yourself. I have the NASA Earth Observatory in my RSS feeds and if you take the time to read what's going on, you find that they occasionally do find inconsistencies and report them openly. Relying on the mass media for accurate conclusions is stupid at the best of times.
There are many issues at work with climate change, and for any one group to suggest hard conclusions based on the data we already have is disingenuous. Most any sane person accepts climate change. When you take into account historical records, geological records, fossil records, the precession of the equinoxes, the solar cycle, biological fluctuations and many many other factors, to simply state that we are causing global warming is way too simplistic an approach.
Before you get all huffy and call me a denier, of course what mankind does has an effect on the climate. But so does what plankton does. Of course being an intelligent species, we can recognise our part and try to minimise our impact. But that alone will not stop global warming. Why should we assume that because we think we can stop it, we should do so ? Because too many of us live near coastal areas ? That seems a little self important to me. And to risk a flame, that attitude is directly derived from the "earth is ours to do with as we will" notion which religion has ingrained in society. Do we believe everything else that religion demands ?
My suspicions about the climate change lobby were somewhat vindicated a little while ago when the BBC reported on some work by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which takes as read, that we must stabilise average temperatures. I can't find the original document now, but the European Commission has stated that "The commission aims to limit the world's temperature increase to 2C." This is no longer about limiting CO2, it has become all out climate control. And we certainly do not know enough to experiment with that. Even if we could do it safely, do we really want to live in a world where commercial interests control whether your region gets rain today, this month, this year ? Fuck me, it's bad enough dealing with the MAFIAA !
In short, yes reduce our impact on the planet, but that's it - at least until we have a LOT more data. We can not hope to go back in time. And this has been my position all along, as any/. subscribers can easily check. What are we aiming for, the average 1940's temperatures, earlier, later ?
Just remember that the diversity on this planet has arisen BECAUSE of climate change, not despite.
Copyright was originally instituted to prevent *commercial* reproduction of anothers work. This made sense in an era when written text was the only "media". For one thing, private copying was a very laborious task, and also - and I think this is key - the media WAS the content. By that I mean, to read someones work you bought the book, and that's all you had to buy. The content came with its own reader.
This went along fine for centuries, until sometime in the 1930's we started to get recording agents springing up. They took the original work and placed it on a medium that required a completely separate device in order to access the content. That was the beginning of the end for recorded works.
Fast forward to the modern day, and we find that because you need a separate device to access the content, you can copy said content easily to another medium. This cannot be sensibly protected using copyright because you HAVE to copy it to access it at all !
The solution to this is obvious to all except those who are striving to wring the last drops of blood from an ancient concept.
Don't distribute the content unless it it comes with, and is intrinsically part of its own reader. Then there is no need for any copying to take place to access the content. But that is too hard/expensive for the recording moguls to accept, so they are requiring the (antiquated) law to protect them instead. The future holds two possibilities if the media moguls wish to stay in business. 1)Stop releasing recordings on media that requires copying in order to function. 2)Criminalise general purpose computers.
I fully support the piratebay, but I understand that what they are (unintentionally) doing is hastening the end of easily accessed commercial recorded media. There will come a time when there are no CDs or DVDs or memory sticks with prerecorded content, simply because you can not prevent copying. So you will either get a biodegradable OLED screen with a hard coded movie embedded in it for promotional purposes, available at the movie theatre after you've paid to see the film or there will be no private copies available at all. Music will be live or not at all. Entertainers will have to entertain, not spend years on end sat on their asses reaping the rewards of a few days "work".
And the recording giants will disappear like the dinosaurs they really are.
And yes I fully realise that in that sense the piratebay is killing the music / movie industry. But the industry has become unsustainable anyway, mostly because it has become all about controlling distribution and not creating content. They are asking the law to require the equivalent of a man with a red flag walking in front of your car. Wise up suckers. If you don't want it on piratebay, don't release it on DVD/CD/BD. Charge $100 in the theatre or stadium instead. Oh, but recording distributors don't figure there do they.
Anybody bleating about the poor artists is being quite selective in their view. The artist does not have to sign with a distribution company. The distribution company does not create anything, it exists only to restrict access. Art and artists will still exist after the distribution companies have faded from memory. If the artists are any good, they will make a good living, and if they choose to save their earnings, sure they can pass it on to their kids. But please don't ask me to pay their kids from my pocket through force of law, after the artist has been dead 20 years !
Slashdot Mirror
You ought to read your own sig.
Is Norway part of Europe ? I haven't seen anything about this until an American site pointed it out.
As a long time linux user, I'm pretty much fed up with Ubuntu. Every twat who uses it thinks they invented linux, and it gets more coverage than Princess Di. It's only a distro, not a religion. All mouth and no trousers...
Aah but does it support multi-touch ? Apple have gone from 1 button is cool, who needs two, to why have you got 1 button, all in 6 years. And so the world turns ...
Nice.
SPB Mobile shell FTW anyway, at least on WM5.
How ?
It does nothing more than allow every fucker with some money to buy them all up AGAIN ! Why don't we expand the TLD space again, (when they need some more money). Fucking consumer !
I'm sorry but those (max)4 characters are not enough to make me want to ditch the current working system. All this is, is dilution of the namespace, in order to make more money (as a registrar). the prices won't go down but there will be more work for DNS, which you may note is already under strain.
So the proprietary front end is UNIX is it ?
That's not a stamp of approval, it's a perversion of the truth.
Don't say "a PDF reader" say "adobe acrobat" or are you a shill ?
Fuck off.
Is there an attack for linux >?
Why do people, focus on Microsoft ? Is this going to hurt me in the next 24 hours, or don't you care ? I use Gnomes PDF viewer or Gnomes xPdf. (why does Firefoxs spellchecker complain about linux ?)
Are windows users in charge of the internet too ?
Yes, I know you blue, are doing the right thing, but the thread was drifting dangerously into cronyism. Surely we're all in this together ?
despite comments further down, I agree. Windows is not the only OS on the planet,and as such (bearing in mind almost every attack has been windows based in the past) it would be nice if the MEDIA could recognise us as part of the fucking blogosphere ! (excuse me while I wash my mouth out.) Windows & Fedora
No worse really than tantalum caps, which go into sinters for roughly 12 hours.
This is why libertarians look stupid.
:
Take any one of their aims regarding small government and private responsibility, for instance ask about melamine in milk, they'll say, "oh but of course we'll allow regulation of that", so you say what about lead in petrol or paint, and they'll say "oh but of course we'll allow regulation of that", then take any other subject where the government should be involved because private industry is out to screw the public, and they'll say "oh but of course we'll allow regulation of that".
What you end up with, and what libertarians fail or refuse to recognise, is what we already have !
Big government with lots of regulation.
the only way out is to
a) Force people to be more responsible (ain't gonna happen)
b) Force corporations to be more responsible (ain't gonna happen)
c) Force politicians to assume less power and take less kickbacks (ain't gonna happen)
Besides which if you have to force anybody, it isn't really libertarian is it ?
Libertarianism is about as workable as communism, ie. it's an immature pipe dream.
I would say the stimulus should be supplied in the form of requiring open source in all government activities, but principally in the area of education.
Teach the kids how to use and interact with computers, not train them to work with a closed source monopolistic entity, which thereby entrenches said monopoly. The advantages would be many-fold, not least that there would be less ID10Ts running nodes on botnets, less time wasted waiting for said closed source monopoly to fix their damn product, and more opportunity for innovation without massive financial investment.
I'm not calling for all schools to move to linux, but I am calling for more education in the area of what a computer actually does, right down to the bare metal. Even now I am amazed at the number of people I meet who think that stuff just "floats around" on the internet. They have no idea that the computer they are using at home is pretty much equivalent to the one that's serving the content. They have no idea that when they are sold an ADSL connection at "up to 8Mbit" speeds, the "up to 8Mbit" only refers to their connection to the ISP, NOT the connection to the server providing the content. All this leads to FUD by the media and unnecessary hand wringing and legislation, which could be completely avoided by explaining the facts much earlier in the persons life, ie. at school.
I tend to think of computers and more specifically programming, in terms of written language. In past ages very few people knew how to write (or read), so that if you wanted to communicate something without being face to face, you had to employ somebody else to do it for you. As soon as reading and writing became something that everybody learned, technology accelerated at an exponential rate, and our standards of living followed.
Equating reading and writing to being able to personally control a computer, however simply you do it - scripting for instance, you can see that by allowing proprietary concerns to control information, we are taking a step backwards in general access to information. This does not mean that proprietary concerns should be banned, just that there should be other options obviously available. By force feeding our kids MS software and environments, we are conditioning them against anything outside that.
I am working on training people to use other options, so that they don't have to pay just to add another product to their website, or to make a photo the right size for display on a page. It is possible to do most things your average home user needs without relying on a centrally controlled proprietary commercial organisation. I am not by any means a Libertarian, but surely access to alternatives is part of a Libertarian outlook. Forcing the next generation to learn only how to operate commercial software is verging on brainwashing.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm talking about teaching everybody to program computers. I'm interested in showing them what programming is, and how it relates to the machine. Even if they never go on to program in their whole life, they will still have that background knowledge available so that when they get fed bullshit, they can detect it. I am not a professional historian, but having been taught basic historical facts at school, I can see when someone else is making stuff up.
Foster intelligence, not familiarity with products.
If you disagree with my opinion, ask yourself - who does it benefit to train school kids on only Microsoft products ?
a) The people
b) Microsoft
The last point I have to make is that because the publics knowledge of the internet and computing is so limited, when governments create massive databases on their citizens, restrict access to information, ban or limit certain protocols etc. etc. the general publics reaction is Meh ! They don't know what they're losing because they never experienced it. That cannot be right. It becomes difficult to argue politically for the "right thing to do" when the electorate have no idea what you're talking about.
If they were informed on the subject, then they have the right to disagree, but to make decisions from a position of ignorance benefits nobody.
Remove software patents ?
All they are doing is acquiring some of the LOX as they fly rather than storing it all in a tank before take-off. Stored oxidiser or non stored oxidiser play no part in the actual rocket engine. Is a rocket engine on the launch pad NOT a rocket engine because the LOX tank hasn't been filled yet ? This spaceplane essentially provides its own oxidiser as it flys (in air). The engine functions in almost exactly the same way.
If you had a car with it's own ethanol production plant in the back, would it no longer use an ICE , just because all the petrol wasn't in the tank to start with ?
Think about what you're saying.
... and steam is composed of what ?
That's right, water vapour ! And what are those white fluffy things in the sky ? Ding ding ding ! Clouds made of water vapour. So heating the clouds produces a change in the local weather patterns, and as we all know, local weather is part of global weather.
This seems like a great way to start a hurricane.
Doh !
s/Fink/Frink
Please read above in voice of Professor Fink.
In the end (or even the beginning) the only reasonable thing to do is to keep an eye on the current scientific situation yourself. I have the NASA Earth Observatory in my RSS feeds and if you take the time to read what's going on, you find that they occasionally do find inconsistencies and report them openly. Relying on the mass media for accurate conclusions is stupid at the best of times.
/. subscribers can easily check. What are we aiming for, the average 1940's temperatures, earlier, later ?
There are many issues at work with climate change, and for any one group to suggest hard conclusions based on the data we already have is disingenuous. Most any sane person accepts climate change. When you take into account historical records, geological records, fossil records, the precession of the equinoxes, the solar cycle, biological fluctuations and many many other factors, to simply state that we are causing global warming is way too simplistic an approach.
Before you get all huffy and call me a denier, of course what mankind does has an effect on the climate. But so does what plankton does. Of course being an intelligent species, we can recognise our part and try to minimise our impact. But that alone will not stop global warming. Why should we assume that because we think we can stop it, we should do so ? Because too many of us live near coastal areas ? That seems a little self important to me. And to risk a flame, that attitude is directly derived from the "earth is ours to do with as we will" notion which religion has ingrained in society. Do we believe everything else that religion demands ?
My suspicions about the climate change lobby were somewhat vindicated a little while ago when the BBC reported on some work by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers which takes as read, that we must stabilise average temperatures. I can't find the original document now, but the European Commission has stated that "The commission aims to limit the world's temperature increase to 2C." This is no longer about limiting CO2, it has become all out climate control. And we certainly do not know enough to experiment with that. Even if we could do it safely, do we really want to live in a world where commercial interests control whether your region gets rain today, this month, this year ? Fuck me, it's bad enough dealing with the MAFIAA !
In short, yes reduce our impact on the planet, but that's it - at least until we have a LOT more data. We can not hope to go back in time. And this has been my position all along, as any
Just remember that the diversity on this planet has arisen BECAUSE of climate change, not despite.
Take a look at this image and tell me the problem is really that much worse.
Rubbish.
Copyright was originally instituted to prevent *commercial* reproduction of anothers work. This made sense in an era when written text was the only "media". For one thing, private copying was a very laborious task, and also - and I think this is key - the media WAS the content. By that I mean, to read someones work you bought the book, and that's all you had to buy. The content came with its own reader.
This went along fine for centuries, until sometime in the 1930's we started to get recording agents springing up. They took the original work and placed it on a medium that required a completely separate device in order to access the content. That was the beginning of the end for recorded works.
Fast forward to the modern day, and we find that because you need a separate device to access the content, you can copy said content easily to another medium. This cannot be sensibly protected using copyright because you HAVE to copy it to access it at all !
The solution to this is obvious to all except those who are striving to wring the last drops of blood from an ancient concept.
Don't distribute the content unless it it comes with, and is intrinsically part of its own reader. Then there is no need for any copying to take place to access the content. But that is too hard/expensive for the recording moguls to accept, so they are requiring the (antiquated) law to protect them instead.
The future holds two possibilities if the media moguls wish to stay in business.
1)Stop releasing recordings on media that requires copying in order to function.
2)Criminalise general purpose computers.
I fully support the piratebay, but I understand that what they are (unintentionally) doing is hastening the end of easily accessed commercial recorded media. There will come a time when there are no CDs or DVDs or memory sticks with prerecorded content, simply because you can not prevent copying. So you will either get a biodegradable OLED screen with a hard coded movie embedded in it for promotional purposes, available at the movie theatre after you've paid to see the film or there will be no private copies available at all. Music will be live or not at all. Entertainers will have to entertain, not spend years on end sat on their asses reaping the rewards of a few days "work".
And the recording giants will disappear like the dinosaurs they really are.
And yes I fully realise that in that sense the piratebay is killing the music / movie industry. But the industry has become unsustainable anyway, mostly because it has become all about controlling distribution and not creating content. They are asking the law to require the equivalent of a man with a red flag walking in front of your car. Wise up suckers. If you don't want it on piratebay, don't release it on DVD/CD/BD. Charge $100 in the theatre or stadium instead. Oh, but recording distributors don't figure there do they.
Anybody bleating about the poor artists is being quite selective in their view. The artist does not have to sign with a distribution company. The distribution company does not create anything, it exists only to restrict access. Art and artists will still exist after the distribution companies have faded from memory. If the artists are any good, they will make a good living, and if they choose to save their earnings, sure they can pass it on to their kids. But please don't ask me to pay their kids from my pocket through force of law, after the artist has been dead 20 years !