I've never had any problems getting any NVidia GPU to work flawlessly under Linux.
Yeah, the closed-source aspect of NVidia's drivers may be annoying to some, but I don't mind closed-source drivers if they're high enough quality, and NVidia's drivers are one of the few examples of closed source software with high quality. (The associated closed-source games for Linux, specifically iD Software's products, comprise most of the other examples...)
Face it - due to patent issues out of the chipset manufacturers' control (classic example being S3 Texture Compression - S3TC was the beginning of ATI's transition from fully documented open source drivers to binary-only drivers with the open-source versions lacking critical features for 3D gaming), no chipset manufacturer can release open source drivers that support their card's full feature set, unless their card's feature set is massively crippled. (See Intel GMA-series integrated graphics as an example.)
Well, the "pulling teeth" comment might have been a tad excessive. Perhaps I should have worded it better, I grant you. I agree that Nvidia has been one of the better manufacturers in this regard.
However, I don't just run linux. I run a number of *nix-based operating systems such as Free/Open/NetBSD, Open Solaris, and others.
Even under FreeBSD, which is one of the better-supported non-linux, non-MS OSs in regards to GPU support and fuctionality, I still experience occasional bugs and glitches using binary driver modules. (Which requires running the driver module under a linux-compatibility layer.)
I understand the patent issues, but that is their problem, not mine. I can only react in the best way I can consistent with my financial abilities, my interests, and my convictions.
A console cycle lasts about four years. When a console comes out they look to be $400 these days. For that much money you can buy two mid range computer graphic cards. One at 0 years and one at the 2 year mark. Since you already have a computer that cost is already sunk. Complaining about DRM on computers and computers games is quite silly as well. Consoles are locked down with quite a bit more DRM. The reason the industry insists on newer cards is because all the game players want their current games to run better, so they buy better hardware to run it on.
The last console I bought (used, $20) was a PS2 a couple years ago. I wouldn't pay over $100 for a game console new. My computer I built myself about 5 years ago, and am quite happy with. I don't think it would even support some of the newer graphics cards.
I have some problems with DRM on consoles, but mainly from an aggravation standpoint, since I don't infinge copyrights. DRM on my computer, however, I have a big problem with.
I have and do far more on my computer than games, and there have been far too many security-related and function-crippling problems with DRM. I have no confidential or financial info, etc. on a console, nor do I do more than play non-multi-player games on it.
As to the industry insisting on newer cards because of gamers wanting their current games to run better, I don't believe that's even close to the main motivation.
The main motivation is to sell more hardware and games, and also to incorporate ever more restrictive DRM. As a side-benefit, the old games cease to run, which spurs game sales.
They can only succeed at this scheme as long as you keep shelling out the $$$. I draw a line and will not support things I oppose with my dollars, as that is the only way these trends will be stopped: when it's no longer profitable.
I'm still happily using my Geforce2 MX/MX400 64MB!
Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games, especially since it's like pulling teeth to get current higher-end GPUs supported under anything but MS operating systems?
It seems to be much more economical to simply play games on a console, especially since it seems that many media/game/other content providers insist on the newer cards simply for the DRM enforcement.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.
Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!).:D
Until then, consider contributing to these kinds of projects, as they soon may be the only things standing between you and governments being able to track and parse every communication you make.
Does anyone else find it ironic that some of the most "free" countries are some of the former Soviet Unions' 'client' states?
I think a vulnerability can be reported anonymously quite safely (for a good deal of people anyway). Try the following:
1) Get a laptop with wireless. 2) Boot with knoppix, change mac adress. 3) Walk around until you find unsecured AP. 4) Post said vuln everywhere (including/.)
Boot off the CD, which uses OpenBSD and TOR plus encryption. E-mail from a throw-away free webmail account created while using Anonym.OS. Rinse and repeat as necessary. No need to even leave home.
PC-BSD is startlingly easy to install and use. Nice GUI installer that doesn't require the user to answer questions that require any technical knowledge. Autodetection of hardware and automagic configuration rivals anything I've seen, and certainly appears to beat Windows in this regard, generally speaking.
A single-CD install, no DVD drive requirement, or multiple CDs to swap. Additional software is available as click-to-install.PBI packages, with a GUI installer and uninstaller. It will also run many programs written for linux. There is also autoupdating for both the OS and programs.
PC-BSD can also use the HUGE amount of software in the FreeBSD "Ports" tree, although this *does* require using the command-line. The lack of a GUI ports installer/uninstaller is one of the niggles I have with PC-BSD, although for most people that just want a functional home PC, the.PBI collection would suffice without requiring the user to *have* to use a command-line software install.
Being based upon FreeBSD, PC-BSD is very secure as opposed to Microsofts' offerings.
Personally, I see this "pay-as-you-go computing" as a way to rake in money, while at the same time, removing the ability of users to do things they can currently do with a conventional PC. This could also be a step in the direction of ending consumer ownership of general-purpose computers and the freedom that comes with them, as well as throwing a huge wrench into F/OSS software and operating systems if widely adopted or legislated as mandatory.
I see this as a situation where the governments in places like India let the people have a little freedom for a while to get the economy going, and then fall back into government control
This may be what is currently happening in the US as well. The gov't granted more freedom in the 60's and 70's (civil rights, women's rights, etc.) to keep America's economic dominance going in the post-WWII boom. Does the fact that the gov't is beginning to restrict freedoms again (PATRIOT ACT, SOX, NSA wiretapping) have a correlation with America's waning economic dominance (BRIC [wikipedia.org])?
Actually, it's at once simpler and more complex than that. As population densities increase, there is not a linear increase in policing abilities and resources available to keep order among an increasingly dense population.
Detection of crime or other socially unacceptable or harmful behavior increases almost exponentially in difficulty, as does finding individual wrongdoers in a dense population.
So, as population densities grow, governments find themselves increasingly outnumbered by their own citizens, as regarding the amount of resources and human beings required to maintain any sort of order and what is practical to apply without that in itself sucking away so much manpower and resources that the society becomes unsustainable.
In the past, these pressures had a "relief valve" of unsettled lands to which populations could spread, and thus avoid having these situations reaching levels threatening continued viability.
This "relief valve" is coming to an end as the planets' reasonably-sustainable areas have mostly all been claimed and/or settled by this point in our history.
We as a species are in increasingly dire need for new areas in which to expand. Let us hope that colonization of places off-planet becomes a reality in time, before a world police state becomes reality, or at least before we as a species kill ourselves off...either by conflict and war, or simply choke on our own waste.
..as I thought we were against the terrorists because they want to take away our freedom. Please remind me again of *which* freedom-takers were the bad guys, as I seem to be missing something here.
U.S./U.K.: Removing personal freedom for security and to secure "intellectual property" and the viability of outdated buisiness models.
Terrorists: Removing personal freedom to secure their view of religion.
From a regular citizens' viewpoint: Why should we buckle under to *either* group?
It seems to be an equally unacceptable outcome either way.
"BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc."
Don't give 'em any ideas! "You appear to be playing Stairway to Heaven. Please enter your Performance License Code or turn your amp below volume level '3.' Thank you."
LOL!!! Nice one!:D
That should really get a +1 funny. Or a +1 scary, heh.
Fortunately, my old Seymour Duncan 84-40 1-12" combo amp is so loud, I've never had it above a "3" volume setting at a performance, even at outdoor venues. (That amp is the loudest amp per-watt I've *ever* heard, and I've owned an original "Plexi" 100 watt Marshall full-stack.)
Uh-oh, I could be violating the DMCA by having a louder-than-normal amp if that were implemented!:P
I play guitar (lead in a very good little blues band) as well as being a bit of a *nix geek. (OK, maybe more than "a bit":P) I've had a number of people that know I'm a computer geek ask me to help them with various stupid music DRM issues, (most of which were just insoluble legally..nature of the beast and all that) and I've actually managed to convince a couple of the more frustrated among them to take up playing an instrument.
When I talked to them after some months had passed, they told me they enjoyed the ability to actually *make* music so much, that they spend most of their spare time/money that they had previously spent on "a limited license to listen to" music on lessons, music accessories, and just plain enjoying a whole new experience and ability to actually *create* something, even if they aren't gifted with any notable musical talent.
Sadly, I know most people wouldn't consider doing this as it requires an investment in time and work, as well as money. However, if one decides to go this route, you'll find it is *so* much more rewarding than simply spending some cash on someone elses' idea of good music.
BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc., so anything you create is *yours*, and limited only by the amount of practice and imagination you invest, plus any natural talent you may have.
As a side note, one of these people I talk about has actually started to play harmonica in a local band, and makes some side money from gigs. I know no way to legally make money from a DRM'ed music "purchase". He's quite happy, society is enriched, and the commercial music industry is that much poorer.
You really don't need to keep proving my point for me...everyone gets it, and I'm sure will regard your posts with the same weight of importance that I shall in future, especially given what I've read and I'm sure others have, of your previous posts of a political nature.
Your continued beating of this dead horse (which I'm sure you'll not be able to resist after this post) only further proves my point about blind fanaticism, and wins no one to your side, only further alienates anyone with an ounce of objectivity from taking you seriously, which I shall not make the mistake of again, nor further reply to this thread.
No, *you're* talking about Republicans, for which I have little love for, either.
We're not talking about Democrats,
I'm sure you'd prefer I didn't, but that's your problem. I critisize both parties, where your selective blindness prevents you from being honest.
Democrats' problems are at least sustainable, unlike Republicans...But everyone knows that. You know that.
No, sorry. I see both sides' positions as unsustainable. Your refusal to see that again points to political fanaticism. I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are power-hungry criminals.
Let's drop the pretentious "intellectual dishonesty" buzzwords
Oh, so being intellectually honest and consistent in ones' views in relation to facts is just a "buzzword"? Republicans are bad, so don't look behind that Democratic curtain, nothing to see there? Thanks for that clarification.
For one talking of others' "smokescreens', methinks you are the one in need of fog-remover. Waving of hands and declaring anything that disagrees with your brand of fanaticism as "outside this discussion" does not change anything, nor support your position in the least.
If anything, an objective reader of this thread will conclude that you've just proven my points for me. Thankyou!:)
Why would anyone who can think past the immediate stunt of a refund check vote for these obvious, undeniable criminals?
Umm, which set of criminals, exactly? The ones that wear the donkey hats or the ones that wear the elephant hats? Ranting about one sets' particular flavor of pandering while ignoring the other is intellectually dishonest and speaks to having a personal political agenda in which you are as equally willing to turn a blind eye as those which you accuse of the same.
Pot, meet kettle.
Both sides are equally evil. They just have minor differences in how best to attain more power and subjugate the public to their will.
History has shown repeatedly that political fanaticism only results in a government of, by, and for fanatics. The particular flavor of fanaticism is irrelevant.
I was only asking out of curiosity. I didn't assume you meant anything of the kind, I was just trying to broaden the discussion. In fact, I tend to agree with your assessment of future population pressures and the need to address them at some point.
Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I *did* find your post interesting and insightful, and hoped to expand on some of your points. No harm, no foul I hope?
Agreed, there needs be better definitions of what passes legally for security, and a bar set for what is considered to be legally minimally adequate notification of an off-limits, authorised-only access network or computer.
I wonder if any search-engine webcrawler bots accessed this same network? If so, is Google (or whatever search engine you lke) now open to charges along the same lines as this sap? If I click on some random Google link that happens to be another unsecured.mil site, am I liable? Are both I and Google liable? If only I am charged, why should the search engines' bots get a pass?
I think you've pretty nuch nailed the major problem with this whole deal, trying to apply physical-world tresspassing laws to computer networks. As you point out, the two environments do not work within the same operational boundaries, and shoving that square peg into this round hole results in ridiculous scenarios.
As you say, this sap probably should face some penalties if it can be shown that a reasonable person would have known that he was accessing unauthorised data or networks, but the incompetence of not adequately securing that data or network should be a large mitigating factor in his favor. Say, time served and a $1000 fine and probation for a year or two.
I think the U.S.government in this case is more upset that its' incompetence has been publicly exposed, as opposed to any damage to national security or loss of data. Leaving the definitions so vague makes it easier for government incompetence to be swept under the table by jailing or threatening legal action against those that would dare expose it.
I agree with what dal20402 said, but I'd also like to point out that considering the world's current population and the rate of its growth, people who have large families are especially costly to the environment.
So, do you then support regulations or laws governing family size, either through punitive taxes or more Chinese-style childbearing laws? Forced sterilizations? I think in any such case, there would be a huge protest and revolt by the US citizenry.
Any U>S. politician even hinting at any such thing would be committing political suicide, IMHO.
There are currently 4 bsd projects that i'm aware of. They include FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD. In addition to these projects which each develop their own kernel and userland, there are linux style distros PC-BSD and DesktopBSD which do not develop their own kernel or low level userland. (they add gui shit) These two track freebsd progress as well as other projects like frenzy that do live cds.
Just to add to what you've listed, there are some lesser-known but quite interesting *BSD projects out there.
AnonymOS, an OpenBSD 3.8-based LiveCD with strong encryption and a preconfigured TOR proxy service for net anonymoity.
FreeeSBIE, a FreeBSD-based LiveCD (includes install script) which includes Fluxbox and XFCE4 desktop environments. The FreeSBIE toolkit to produce custom LiveCDs is even included in FreeBSDs' ports tree. (There is a Romanian-created flavor called RoFreeSBIE, links at Softpedia http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/RoFreeSBIE -Live-CD-Download-9067.html).
There may be other projects, but those are the ones I'm familiar with. They are all very nice, and worth a try.
As to PC-BSD, I'm more knowledgeable than the average PC user, but I found PC-BSD to be quite impressive and usable, without being too terribly dumbed-down.My G/F (Yes, I have one, but I'm 48 and also play lead guitar in a gigging and recording blues band.:-P) actually prefers it over XP or Mandriva.
The.PBI software packages aren't too numerous as yet, but there has been steady development with new.PBIs appearing at a fast enough pace that I'm sure the number will be respectable before too long.
Bravo, laffer! I wish you luck with MidnightBSD, and I'll keep checking that URL. I look forward to any new ideas being applied to FreeBSD, as it seems a very solid base, and IMHO has not been taken anywhere near its' capabilities yet as a desktop.
This could be a very powerful tool in anyones' kit that needed internet privacy. It includes advanced cryptography, and also, maybe even more importantly in the case of China, a pre-configured ready-to-go, on-by-default TOR http://tor.eff.org/ anonymous encrypted onion-routed proxy system.
Plus, being an OpenBSD 3.8-based LiveCD, it can be used from an internet cafe or whatever net-connected PC one might have or get access to, even if only temporarily.
Of course, Chinese censors could blackhole the TOR gateway servers, but these change randomly as I understand it. I am not that knowledgeable regarding the TOR network details. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can chime in on this.
I live in the US, but my VoIP provider is based in Canada. (So is the phone number.) Silly... no matter what, there's always a way around this for anyone that's the least bit determined.
What's to stop them from passing legislation to prevent those in the US from using a non-US based VOIP provider and/or using encryption? I can't see them allowing such common-sense work-arounds.
..will be routed around. At least for the rest of the world that doesn't cripple itself. It could really suck for US internet customers and businesses for a long time unfortunately, if the major copper and fiber owners manage to roll this out.
This may very well mean those content providers and other businesses will move operations outside the USA. Hopefully, this might (not sure on this) make it difficult for US-based major telecoms and ISPs to discriminate against foreign traffic because of international treaties and agreements.
Combined with restrictive IP laws and high taxes, this could add significantly to pressure forcing innovative technologies and the corporations behind them to base themselves outside US control.
As Princess Leia said about a possible future powergrab..
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Once more, it seems (relatively) short-term profits win out over longer-term strategies that would benefit everyone in many ways, including even themselves, and to a much greater degree over time than this self-defeating quick cash grab.
Seems they never learned the old adage about not crapping in ones' own nest.
Except all the ones *you* don't think are good. These things may all be happening, humanity could very well be affecting the climate, but it could very well be from something man is doing that hasn't been thought of yet. We don't know with any certainty either way whether it's even happening, let alone what is causing it or how to correct it.
Even scarier, we may inadvertantly worsen things with some misguided attempt at climate manipulation in an effort to "fix" things. For all anyone knows, the earth may be moving naturally into either a warmer climate or a new ice age, and our pollution may be acting to soften the changes.
Nobody has enough data or the knowledge to make predictions based on any such data we do have or could get at this point in mankinds' scientific development. Anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda.
and others like it (I recall reading somewhere that, globally, volcanic eruptions during a more active year can expel more pollutants than the human race has since we discovered fire..can't find the quote/report dangit) along with a realisation of what an enormously large system we're talking about, and the enormous amount of "inertia" to be overcome making any significant change to such a system, I have a feeling we may be giving ourselves too much credit, that we may not be able to significantly change climate patterns even if we tried.
Slashdot Mirror
Pulling teeth?
I've never had any problems getting any NVidia GPU to work flawlessly under Linux.
Yeah, the closed-source aspect of NVidia's drivers may be annoying to some, but I don't mind closed-source drivers if they're high enough quality, and NVidia's drivers are one of the few examples of closed source software with high quality. (The associated closed-source games for Linux, specifically iD Software's products, comprise most of the other examples...)
Face it - due to patent issues out of the chipset manufacturers' control (classic example being S3 Texture Compression - S3TC was the beginning of ATI's transition from fully documented open source drivers to binary-only drivers with the open-source versions lacking critical features for 3D gaming), no chipset manufacturer can release open source drivers that support their card's full feature set, unless their card's feature set is massively crippled. (See Intel GMA-series integrated graphics as an example.)
Well, the "pulling teeth" comment might have been a tad excessive. Perhaps I should have worded it better, I grant you. I agree that Nvidia has been one of the better manufacturers in this regard.
However, I don't just run linux. I run a number of *nix-based operating systems such as Free/Open/NetBSD, Open Solaris, and others.
Even under FreeBSD, which is one of the better-supported non-linux, non-MS OSs in regards to GPU support and fuctionality, I still experience occasional bugs and glitches using binary driver modules. (Which requires running the driver module under a linux-compatibility layer.)
I understand the patent issues, but that is their problem, not mine. I can only react in the best way I can consistent with my financial abilities, my interests, and my convictions.
Cheers!
Strat
A console cycle lasts about four years. When a console comes out they look to be $400 these days. For that much money you can buy two mid range computer graphic cards. One at 0 years and one at the 2 year mark. Since you already have a computer that cost is already sunk. Complaining about DRM on computers and computers games is quite silly as well. Consoles are locked down with quite a bit more DRM. The reason the industry insists on newer cards is because all the game players want their current games to run better, so they buy better hardware to run it on.
The last console I bought (used, $20) was a PS2 a couple years ago. I wouldn't pay over $100 for a game console new. My computer I built myself about 5 years ago, and am quite happy with. I don't think it would even support some of the newer graphics cards.
I have some problems with DRM on consoles, but mainly from an aggravation standpoint, since I don't infinge copyrights. DRM on my computer, however, I have a big problem with.
I have and do far more on my computer than games, and there have been far too many security-related and function-crippling problems with DRM. I have no confidential or financial info, etc. on a console, nor do I do more than play non-multi-player games on it.
As to the industry insisting on newer cards because of gamers wanting their current games to run better, I don't believe that's even close to the main motivation.
The main motivation is to sell more hardware and games, and also to incorporate ever more restrictive DRM. As a side-benefit, the old games cease to run, which spurs game sales.
They can only succeed at this scheme as long as you keep shelling out the $$$. I draw a line and will not support things I oppose with my dollars, as that is the only way these trends will be stopped: when it's no longer profitable.
Cheers!
Strat
I'm still happily using my Geforce2 MX/MX400 64MB!
:D
Why should I go spending ridiculous amounts of money (more than my PC cost) just for some silly games, especially since it's like pulling teeth to get current higher-end GPUs supported under anything but MS operating systems?
It seems to be much more economical to simply play games on a console, especially since it seems that many media/game/other content providers insist on the newer cards simply for the DRM enforcement.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer gaming on a PC compared to a game console, but not anywhere near enough to sink that much cash into a GPU, nor add all the DRM that seems increasingly to be required to play current generation games on a PC.
Guess I'll stick to my old games and GPU that still work very well, thankyou. For the money saved alone, I could buy a nice guitar (or 2!).
Cheers!
Strat
..Anonym.OS http://kaos.to/cms/content/view/14/32/
Until then, consider contributing to these kinds of projects, as they soon may be the only things standing between you and governments being able to track and parse every communication you make.
Does anyone else find it ironic that some of the most "free" countries are some of the former Soviet Unions' 'client' states?
Cheers!
Strat
If you can get all the ducks in a row why not try to kill two of them with one stone?
KFG
~break~
Gimme another and I'll juggle 'em.
And need I really point out that ducks are birds? I didn't mix metaphors, segued them.
Do you know how much a segues if you took all the geophysicts and laid them in a row?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
KFG
Kudos, brilliant sir!
I wish I had mod points..I shall be chuckling at random moments all day whenever this thread comes to mind.
Cheers!
Strat
I think a vulnerability can be reported anonymously quite safely (for a good deal of people anyway). Try the following:
/.)
.iso of Anonym.OS http://kaos.to/cms/content/view/14/32/
1) Get a laptop with wireless.
2) Boot with knoppix, change mac adress.
3) Walk around until you find unsecured AP.
4) Post said vuln everywhere (including
Easier than that, just download and burn the
Boot off the CD, which uses OpenBSD and TOR plus encryption. E-mail from a throw-away free webmail account created while using Anonym.OS. Rinse and repeat as necessary. No need to even leave home.
Cheers!
Strat
You might want to check out PC-BSD http://www.pcbsd.org/.
.PBI packages, with a GUI installer and uninstaller. It will also run many programs written for linux. There is also autoupdating for both the OS and programs.
.PBI collection would suffice without requiring the user to *have* to use a command-line software install.
i ew.html.
PC-BSD is startlingly easy to install and use. Nice GUI installer that doesn't require the user to answer questions that require any technical knowledge. Autodetection of hardware and automagic configuration rivals anything I've seen, and certainly appears to beat Windows in this regard, generally speaking.
A single-CD install, no DVD drive requirement, or multiple CDs to swap. Additional software is available as click-to-install
PC-BSD can also use the HUGE amount of software in the FreeBSD "Ports" tree, although this *does* require using the command-line. The lack of a GUI ports installer/uninstaller is one of the niggles I have with PC-BSD, although for most people that just want a functional home PC, the
Being based upon FreeBSD, PC-BSD is very secure as opposed to Microsofts' offerings.
There are a couple of reviews of PC-BSD online, one of which by Clement Lefebvre at linuxforums.org is available here: http://www.linuxforums.org/reviews/pc-bsd_1.0_rev
Personally, I see this "pay-as-you-go computing" as a way to rake in money, while at the same time, removing the ability of users to do things they can currently do with a conventional PC. This could also be a step in the direction of ending consumer ownership of general-purpose computers and the freedom that comes with them, as well as throwing a huge wrench into F/OSS software and operating systems if widely adopted or legislated as mandatory.
Cheers!
Strat
I see this as a situation where the governments in places like India let the people have a little freedom for a while to get the economy going, and then fall back into government control
This may be what is currently happening in the US as well. The gov't granted more freedom in the 60's and 70's (civil rights, women's rights, etc.) to keep America's economic dominance going in the post-WWII boom. Does the fact that the gov't is beginning to restrict freedoms again (PATRIOT ACT, SOX, NSA wiretapping) have a correlation with America's waning economic dominance (BRIC [wikipedia.org])?
Actually, it's at once simpler and more complex than that. As population densities increase, there is not a linear increase in policing abilities and resources available to keep order among an increasingly dense population.
Detection of crime or other socially unacceptable or harmful behavior increases almost exponentially in difficulty, as does finding individual wrongdoers in a dense population.
So, as population densities grow, governments find themselves increasingly outnumbered by their own citizens, as regarding the amount of resources and human beings required to maintain any sort of order and what is practical to apply without that in itself sucking away so much manpower and resources that the society becomes unsustainable.
In the past, these pressures had a "relief valve" of unsettled lands to which populations could spread, and thus avoid having these situations reaching levels threatening continued viability.
This "relief valve" is coming to an end as the planets' reasonably-sustainable areas have mostly all been claimed and/or settled by this point in our history.
We as a species are in increasingly dire need for new areas in which to expand. Let us hope that colonization of places off-planet becomes a reality in time, before a world police state becomes reality, or at least before we as a species kill ourselves off...either by conflict and war, or simply choke on our own waste.
Cheers!
Strat
..as I thought we were against the terrorists because they want to take away our freedom. Please remind me again of *which* freedom-takers were the bad guys, as I seem to be missing something here.
U.S./U.K.: Removing personal freedom for security and to secure "intellectual property" and the viability of outdated buisiness models.
Terrorists: Removing personal freedom to secure their view of religion.
From a regular citizens' viewpoint: Why should we buckle under to *either* group?
It seems to be an equally unacceptable outcome either way.
Cheers!
Strat
"BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc."
:D
:P
Don't give 'em any ideas! "You appear to be playing Stairway to Heaven. Please enter your Performance License Code or turn your amp below volume level '3.' Thank you."
LOL!!! Nice one!
That should really get a +1 funny. Or a +1 scary, heh.
Fortunately, my old Seymour Duncan 84-40 1-12" combo amp is so loud, I've never had it above a "3" volume setting at a performance, even at outdoor venues. (That amp is the loudest amp per-watt I've *ever* heard, and I've owned an original "Plexi" 100 watt Marshall full-stack.)
Uh-oh, I could be violating the DMCA by having a louder-than-normal amp if that were implemented!
Cheers!
Strat
Amen, Brother, sing it loud!
:P) I've had a number of people that know I'm a computer geek ask me to help them with various stupid music DRM issues, (most of which were just insoluble legally..nature of the beast and all that) and I've actually managed to convince a couple of the more frustrated among them to take up playing an instrument.
I play guitar (lead in a very good little blues band) as well as being a bit of a *nix geek. (OK, maybe more than "a bit"
When I talked to them after some months had passed, they told me they enjoyed the ability to actually *make* music so much, that they spend most of their spare time/money that they had previously spent on "a limited license to listen to" music on lessons, music accessories, and just plain enjoying a whole new experience and ability to actually *create* something, even if they aren't gifted with any notable musical talent.
Sadly, I know most people wouldn't consider doing this as it requires an investment in time and work, as well as money. However, if one decides to go this route, you'll find it is *so* much more rewarding than simply spending some cash on someone elses' idea of good music.
BTW, I know of no DRM'ed guitars, drums, basses, horns, etc., so anything you create is *yours*, and limited only by the amount of practice and imagination you invest, plus any natural talent you may have.
As a side note, one of these people I talk about has actually started to play harmonica in a local band, and makes some side money from gigs. I know no way to legally make money from a DRM'ed music "purchase". He's quite happy, society is enriched, and the commercial music industry is that much poorer.
Cheers!
Strat
That's IT!!
I'm creating my OWN library system!!
With blackjack!!
And hookers!!
With apologies to Futurama, and Bender.
Cheers!
Strat
You really don't need to keep proving my point for me...everyone gets it, and I'm sure will regard your posts with the same weight of importance that I shall in future, especially given what I've read and I'm sure others have, of your previous posts of a political nature.
Your continued beating of this dead horse (which I'm sure you'll not be able to resist after this post) only further proves my point about blind fanaticism, and wins no one to your side, only further alienates anyone with an ounce of objectivity from taking you seriously, which I shall not make the mistake of again, nor further reply to this thread.
Go ahead, reply and make my point.
Cheers!
Strat
We're talking about Republicans.
:)
No, *you're* talking about Republicans, for which I have little love for, either.
We're not talking about Democrats,
I'm sure you'd prefer I didn't, but that's your problem. I critisize both parties, where your selective blindness prevents you from being honest.
Democrats' problems are at least sustainable, unlike Republicans...But everyone knows that. You know that.
No, sorry. I see both sides' positions as unsustainable. Your refusal to see that again points to political fanaticism. I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are power-hungry criminals.
Let's drop the pretentious "intellectual dishonesty" buzzwords
Oh, so being intellectually honest and consistent in ones' views in relation to facts is just a "buzzword"? Republicans are bad, so don't look behind that Democratic curtain, nothing to see there? Thanks for that clarification.
For one talking of others' "smokescreens', methinks you are the one in need of fog-remover. Waving of hands and declaring anything that disagrees with your brand of fanaticism as "outside this discussion" does not change anything, nor support your position in the least.
If anything, an objective reader of this thread will conclude that you've just proven my points for me. Thankyou!
Cheers!
Strat
Why would anyone who can think past the immediate stunt of a refund check vote for these obvious, undeniable criminals?
Umm, which set of criminals, exactly? The ones that wear the donkey hats or the ones that wear the elephant hats? Ranting about one sets' particular flavor of pandering while ignoring the other is intellectually dishonest and speaks to having a personal political agenda in which you are as equally willing to turn a blind eye as those which you accuse of the same.
Pot, meet kettle.
Both sides are equally evil. They just have minor differences in how best to attain more power and subjugate the public to their will.
History has shown repeatedly that political fanaticism only results in a government of, by, and for fanatics. The particular flavor of fanaticism is irrelevant.
Cheers!
Strat
I was only asking out of curiosity. I didn't assume you meant anything of the kind, I was just trying to broaden the discussion. In fact, I tend to agree with your assessment of future population pressures and the need to address them at some point.
Sorry if I came across the wrong way. I *did* find your post interesting and insightful, and hoped to expand on some of your points. No harm, no foul I hope?
Cheers!
Strat
Agreed, there needs be better definitions of what passes legally for security, and a bar set for what is considered to be legally minimally adequate notification of an off-limits, authorised-only access network or computer.
.mil site, am I liable? Are both I and Google liable? If only I am charged, why should the search engines' bots get a pass?
I wonder if any search-engine webcrawler bots accessed this same network? If so, is Google (or whatever search engine you lke) now open to charges along the same lines as this sap? If I click on some random Google link that happens to be another unsecured
I think you've pretty nuch nailed the major problem with this whole deal, trying to apply physical-world tresspassing laws to computer networks. As you point out, the two environments do not work within the same operational boundaries, and shoving that square peg into this round hole results in ridiculous scenarios.
As you say, this sap probably should face some penalties if it can be shown that a reasonable person would have known that he was accessing unauthorised data or networks, but the incompetence of not adequately securing that data or network should be a large mitigating factor in his favor. Say, time served and a $1000 fine and probation for a year or two.
I think the U.S.government in this case is more upset that its' incompetence has been publicly exposed, as opposed to any damage to national security or loss of data. Leaving the definitions so vague makes it easier for government incompetence to be swept under the table by jailing or threatening legal action against those that would dare expose it.
Cheers!
Strat
I agree with what dal20402 said, but I'd also like to point out that considering the world's current population and the rate of its growth, people who have large families are especially costly to the environment.
So, do you then support regulations or laws governing family size, either through punitive taxes or more Chinese-style childbearing laws? Forced sterilizations? I think in any such case, there would be a huge protest and revolt by the US citizenry.
Any U>S. politician even hinting at any such thing would be committing political suicide, IMHO.
Cheers!
Strat
Additionally, there's OliveBSD, which is based on OpenBSD 3.8. From the website:
OliveBSD is a LiveCD based on OpenBSD 3.8 with graphical environment and various softwares like Firefox, Thunderbird, Gimp, Gaim, Xmms, etc.
Ahh, another one to try out! Thanks!
Strat
There are currently 4 bsd projects that i'm aware of. They include FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD. In addition to these projects which each develop their own kernel and userland, there are linux style distros PC-BSD and DesktopBSD which do not develop their own kernel or low level userland. (they add gui shit) These two track freebsd progress as well as other projects like frenzy that do live cds.
E -Live-CD-Download-9067.html).
:-P) actually prefers it over XP or Mandriva.
.PBI software packages aren't too numerous as yet, but there has been steady development with new .PBIs appearing at a fast enough pace that I'm sure the number will be respectable before too long.
Just to add to what you've listed, there are some lesser-known but quite interesting *BSD projects out there.
AnonymOS, an OpenBSD 3.8-based LiveCD with strong encryption and a preconfigured TOR proxy service for net anonymoity.
http://kaos.to/cms/content/view/14/32/
NeWBIE, a NetBSD-based LiveCD aimed at being a desktop LiveCD that includes the Fluxbox desktop environment.
http://arudius.sourceforge.net/
FreeeSBIE, a FreeBSD-based LiveCD (includes install script) which includes Fluxbox and XFCE4 desktop environments. The FreeSBIE toolkit to produce custom LiveCDs is even included in FreeBSDs' ports tree. (There is a Romanian-created flavor called RoFreeSBIE, links at Softpedia http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/RoFreeSBI
http://www.freesbie.org/
There may be other projects, but those are the ones I'm familiar with. They are all very nice, and worth a try.
As to PC-BSD, I'm more knowledgeable than the average PC user, but I found PC-BSD to be quite impressive and usable, without being too terribly dumbed-down.My G/F (Yes, I have one, but I'm 48 and also play lead guitar in a gigging and recording blues band.
The
Bravo, laffer! I wish you luck with MidnightBSD, and I'll keep checking that URL. I look forward to any new ideas being applied to FreeBSD, as it seems a very solid base, and IMHO has not been taken anywhere near its' capabilities yet as a desktop.
Cheers!
Strat
AnonymOS! http://kaos.to/cms/content/view/14/32/
This could be a very powerful tool in anyones' kit that needed internet privacy.
It includes advanced cryptography, and also, maybe even more importantly in the case of China, a pre-configured ready-to-go, on-by-default TOR http://tor.eff.org/ anonymous encrypted onion-routed proxy system.
Plus, being an OpenBSD 3.8-based LiveCD, it can be used from an internet cafe or whatever net-connected PC one might have or get access to, even if only temporarily.
Of course, Chinese censors could blackhole the TOR gateway servers, but these change randomly as I understand it. I am not that knowledgeable regarding the TOR network details. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can chime in on this.
Cheers!
Strat
I live in the US, but my VoIP provider is based in Canada. (So is the phone number.) Silly... no matter what, there's always a way around this for anyone that's the least bit determined.
What's to stop them from passing legislation to prevent those in the US from using a non-US based VOIP provider and/or using encryption? I can't see them allowing such common-sense work-arounds.
Cheers!
Strat
..will be routed around. At least for the rest of the world that doesn't cripple itself. It could really suck for US internet customers and businesses for a long time unfortunately, if the major copper and fiber owners manage to roll this out.
This may very well mean those content providers and other businesses will move operations outside the USA. Hopefully, this might (not sure on this) make it difficult for US-based major telecoms and ISPs to discriminate against foreign traffic because of international treaties and agreements.
Combined with restrictive IP laws and high taxes, this could add significantly to pressure forcing innovative technologies and the corporations behind them to base themselves outside US control.
As Princess Leia said about a possible future powergrab..
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Once more, it seems (relatively) short-term profits win out over longer-term strategies that would benefit everyone in many ways, including even themselves, and to a much greater degree over time than this self-defeating quick cash grab.
Seems they never learned the old adage about not crapping in ones' own nest.
Cheers!
Strat
And there are NO other good explanations.
Except all the ones *you* don't think are good. These things may all be happening, humanity could very well be affecting the climate, but it could very well be from something man is doing that hasn't been thought of yet. We don't know with any certainty either way whether it's even happening, let alone what is causing it or how to correct it.
Even scarier, we may inadvertantly worsen things with some misguided attempt at climate manipulation in an effort to "fix" things. For all anyone knows, the earth may be moving naturally into either a warmer climate or a new ice age, and our pollution may be acting to soften the changes.
Nobody has enough data or the knowledge to make predictions based on any such data we do have or could get at this point in mankinds' scientific development. Anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda.
Strat
But I -do- think that humans are certainly affecting global temperatures to some degree, and the end results could be, ah, problematic.
2 000e.htm
I'm not sure humans are yet capable of producing the quantities of pollutants necessary to create significant changes in the earths' climate.
With reports like this http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/greenhouse_
and others like it (I recall reading somewhere that, globally, volcanic eruptions during a more active year can expel more pollutants than the human race has since we discovered fire..can't find the quote/report dangit) along with a realisation of what an enormously large system we're talking about, and the enormous amount of "inertia" to be overcome making any significant change to such a system, I have a feeling we may be giving ourselves too much credit, that we may not be able to significantly change climate patterns even if we tried.
Cheers!
Strat