OK, Ill argue about it:) I would say happy hardcore had a lot of influence from early 90s European trance, with a lot more piano sounds than hardcore techno. I also see very little house or hardhouse influence in happy hardcore. Just my take on it.
Im just curious, what exactly do you define as hardcore? I did not realise it was a genre by itself. Can you give me some examples? Are you referring to gabber? How does it differ from hardcore techno / hard house?
Nothing can beat the good old days of real trance and techno in the early to mid 90s, before it became the "cool" thing to listen to:)
Just goes to show how open source leads to insecure software and the commercial software model is better.
Oh wait..thats not right...
Take 2
this just goes to show that with so many eyes viewing the software that bugs will be found and corrected, and we do not know how many undetected bugs are in commercial software.
Example. You develop software, license under GPL. It is an excellent product that fills a niche in enterprise level applications. You go out to sell it and guess what, nobody even acknowledges your existence.
Forward a few months. IBM have noticed your GPL'ed application. They download the source, modify it and offer it as one of their enterprise solutions. They make millions off it, still nobody will acknowledge your existence.
And guess what, IBM do not have to pay you a cent. If you really believe that a large business would rather come to you for their support than going to IBM, you really need to get out into the real world more.
So parent was quite right. Unless you already have a high profile, your open source solutions (whether software or support) are really going to struggle up against the big boys. No this view is not popular on Slashdot, but just because it is unpopular, does not make it flamebait!
EULA's are covered by contract law. They are not some bizarre esoteric legal concept dreamt up by corporations. If you break the EULA it is no different to if you broke a contract you had signed and had filed away. You cannot agree to an EULA to use a product, but later on break the EULA because you do not like the terms. Read the thing first, if you do not like the terms, do not use the product. Simple.
The main point is avoided yet again. OK, to put it plainly. If you make an illegitimate copy of Windows and give it to somebody else you are breaking copyright law. No different to if you copied a paper book and gave it to someone. There is this rather bizarre notion on Slashdot that the GPL is to be revered, but it is quite OK to break copyright in regards to anything else.
If companies must observe the GPL, then end users must observe copyrights in regards to commercial / proprietary software.
Your Windows install must be broken! And wheres my Anna Kournikova screensaver??
I followed your instructions, but all I got was: "The name specified is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file."
I must say that Im impressed how you can fit an entire Windows install into 8 bytes!!! You wouldnt by any chance know that med student supermodel that I chatted to online last night who gave me a 300k pic of herself that I had to double click to view? That didnt seem to work either.
And perhaps he never got any, ever. In which case I do not blame him one bit.
We can perhaps all we want, if she left him because he was looking at porn, rather than discussing it through with him, I would think there is something else at play here rather than just that.
I have been flamed recently and been labelled a troll simply for getting ticked off about people "stealing" software. Apparently I am not allowed to call it theft, as nobody broke into Microsofts headquarters and stole the master backup tape, and it was not so kindly pointed out to me that once somebody purchases a copy, then it is their right to do what they please with it. The same flamers are usually the first to jump up and down if the GPL is broken.
I totally agree with you, and I wish there were more Slashdotters like yourself and less of the mouth frothing zealots that seem to have come by recently who will slam anything from Microsoft no matter how good and praise anything FOSS no matter how bad.
I do not believe all Linux users are pirates. Unfortunately there is a small but highly vocal group amongst Linux users that give a very bad name for the rest. I applaud anyone who uses Free software out of ideals (note free software, not open source) no matter what the inconvenience. We all should try to make the world a better place, and that is their way of doing it. Power to them.
There is a place for everything, even commercial software. Personally I am an OS X man. I do things elsewhere to help humanity, to pay the bills I use what I consider the best tool for the job.
Thanks once again for showing me not all Slashdotters are crazy loons!:)
Breaking evil copyright laws / EULA's is sometimes a bad thing!
But only when you break the copyright / EULA of a company that develops for Linux. If you break the copyright or licensing agreement of a commercial organisation that does not develop for Linux, then it is a good thing and you are helping society.
OK, to apply some/. logic that I have seen elsewhere and been flamed for opposing.
Did they break in and steal the Crossover backup CDs?
If not, then what did they do wrong? They legally obtained a copy of Crossover Office, so what they now do with their legally owned property is up to them.
What? That is breaking the license agreement?
So let us get this straight. It is perfectly OK to copy Windows CDs as you are not stealing it, you are doing what you please with your legally owned property. But the moment we talk about a Linux related product, it suddenly becomes illegal to copy or break license agreements?
Get your acts together and work out where you stand. Either it is OK or it is not. You cannot have a stance where it is perfectly OK to break license agreements for one piece of software, but it is not OK to break the GPL or license agreements with Linux related software.
Just because someone (ie. me) says something either in favour of MSFT or against FOSS does not mean they are trolling. So you are trying to say that anything on Slashdot that is not rabidly anti Microsoft should be modded -1 Troll are you?
Its OK to make comments that Microsoft has bad coding and major security flaws if left unpatched, but its not OK to point out that an unpatched Linux box can also be owned?
Yes I probably picked a bad example, but due to excessive frothing at the mouth you have missed the underlying point. The software was STOLEN from Microsoft. Microsoft never offered the software under the GPL / BSD / whatever license saying people could copy it for free. So why should they then support people who stole their software?
Ok, so unpatched pirated software can lead to excessive network traffic when a worm / virus / trojan hits. Then let the relevant authorities crack down on those running these ILLEGAL unpatched Windows boxes causing all the trouble. Im curious what the reaction on Slashdot would be if that happened. So Microsoft is considered bad if they remove these unpatched boxes from circulation, bad if they dont offer patches to software they never sold to begin with and can only be considered half decent if they offer patches for free and promise never ever to try to catch anyone who pirates their software.
Lets say you put a web app online for a client. A developer somewhere else then proceeds to copy every exact detail they can of your site for their client (basically stealing your site). Would you then give free support to the other developer's client if something went wrong with their site? It was a copy of your site, by the prevailing logic here you should have to. What if someone owns the box due to some security flaw and starts spamming and creating unnecessary traffic on the web. You wouldnt? Well, neither should Microsoft
So we have it folks. People on here pretty much saying its Microsofts (oops...sorry...M$) fault for people stealing their software, and somehow they should be made to pay for it. Look, this software is STOLEN. Microsoft owes these thieves nothing.
I have a better idea. Microsoft should set the updates to automatically remove the operating system from anyone who is not a legit user. Not touching the data, just the system files. That way these thieves will not be able to spew forth more worms onto the net. That way they reclaim their stolen property.
I bet you dont start bleating away when a flaw is found in Apache or sshd do you? Oh no...these products have been produced insecurely so they must be made to PAY, must they not? Why dont you bleat about Red Hat not providing support to those not on RHN? These people got a Red Hat product, they should be supported by Red Hat? No, of course not, different rules for FOSS isnt it?
Firstly, apologies for removing the linebreaks, but I would rather not sing my reply.
"because it sounds like something extremely advanced and "related to artificial intelligence"."
Neural nets ARE related to AI, whats your point?
"usually the neural network is just a very simple, possibly linear, adaptive filter which means that really contains no more than a few matrix multiplications..."
A good neural net is not linear. And the entire point is that it is simple. The trick to neural nets is not the complexity of the net, but rather how you determine what inputs to use, what transfer functions you use, how you seed the weightings, and what you want as an output. The simpler the inputs / outputs, the more accurate the net will be. Neural nets are very good at finding relationships between inputs that might not be obvious to begin with. This is especially useful when talking about hundreds of inputs over several thousand time series.
"but terms like "learning" are really misused"
You yourself said the network was adaptive. If a system can adapt to its inputs to keep producing accurate outputs in a changing environment, I would consider that learning. I am curious what your definition is.
This is slashdot. The closest most here have come to business is economics101 and participating in a Sourceforge project.
What people here dont get is that MS is a professionally run business. They dont hire FOSS programmers / marketers out of some ideological war, they hire them if they can see it will make them more money. End of story. Period.
Yes, MS did its recruitment at a golf course for an undergrad student while playing golf. yeah...right. If we were talking executive recruitment maybe, but for a junior!?!
Of course it must be true...after all M$ hates standards blah blah blah. Pull your head out.
I do know people who have been interviewed for MS positions. And its certainly no happy lunch at a golf course. After the phone interview, the candidates turn up for the in-person interview process. This consists of hours of interview after interview, with candidates getting weeded out after each round. The questions are very focussed, for instance for a marketing candidate he was asked things like "Explain to us where Apple went wrong".
Yes MS may have dubious business practices, but Ive certainly been noticing a very similar level of FUD coming out of the FOSS community lately.
At least with an open-source community, we will not have our socieities social structures dictated by large corporations.
Face it, using the internet as our primary means of communicating is inevitable. We should at least try to keep control of our communication rather than pass control over to some corporation who treats their bottom line as more important than society as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, Ill argue about it :) I would say happy hardcore had a lot of influence from early 90s European trance, with a lot more piano sounds than hardcore techno. I also see very little house or hardhouse influence in happy hardcore. Just my take on it.
:)
Im just curious, what exactly do you define as hardcore? I did not realise it was a genre by itself. Can you give me some examples? Are you referring to gabber? How does it differ from hardcore techno / hard house?
Nothing can beat the good old days of real trance and techno in the early to mid 90s, before it became the "cool" thing to listen to
"Seriously though, once Linux becomes a real choice for average desktop users we'll be seeing Linux exploits as well."
Great. So when Im old and grey and everyone else is taking advantage of me, Ill also have to start worrying about scr1p7 kiddies 0wning my b0x3n too.
The Death of Jar Jar
Just goes to show how open source leads to insecure software and the commercial software model is better.
Oh wait..thats not right...
Take 2
this just goes to show that with so many eyes viewing the software that bugs will be found and corrected, and we do not know how many undetected bugs are in commercial software.
Or the other way
Linux (on PPC) -> Mac on Linux -> OS X
OS X -> Virtual PC -> Win XP
Win XP -> VMWare -> Solaris x86
And bingo - Solaris on PPC
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
The kernel hackers
They work for free
I get the credit
More cash for me
it showed some promise
it ran quite well
but twas not enough
stole SCO's as well
1. Develop toy kernel
2. Steal somebody elses code
3. Ridicule company code was stolen from
4. Profit!
It is a very valid point.
Example. You develop software, license under GPL. It is an excellent product that fills a niche in enterprise level applications. You go out to sell it and guess what, nobody even acknowledges your existence.
Forward a few months. IBM have noticed your GPL'ed application. They download the source, modify it and offer it as one of their enterprise solutions. They make millions off it, still nobody will acknowledge your existence.
And guess what, IBM do not have to pay you a cent. If you really believe that a large business would rather come to you for their support than going to IBM, you really need to get out into the real world more.
So parent was quite right. Unless you already have a high profile, your open source solutions (whether software or support) are really going to struggle up against the big boys. No this view is not popular on Slashdot, but just because it is unpopular, does not make it flamebait!
"Are you twelve fucking years old or something?"
This is Slashdot, you have a good probability the answer is Yes.
At least we have girlfriends and dont live in our parents basement.
EULA's are covered by contract law. They are not some bizarre esoteric legal concept dreamt up by corporations. If you break the EULA it is no different to if you broke a contract you had signed and had filed away. You cannot agree to an EULA to use a product, but later on break the EULA because you do not like the terms. Read the thing first, if you do not like the terms, do not use the product. Simple.
The main point is avoided yet again. OK, to put it plainly. If you make an illegitimate copy of Windows and give it to somebody else you are breaking copyright law. No different to if you copied a paper book and gave it to someone. There is this rather bizarre notion on Slashdot that the GPL is to be revered, but it is quite OK to break copyright in regards to anything else.
If companies must observe the GPL, then end users must observe copyrights in regards to commercial / proprietary software.
But you do not understand!
The whole point is that you make money from the services that you provide!
Oh wait...ummm..errr...
Quick...look behind you!
*runs away*
Your Windows install must be broken! And wheres my Anna Kournikova screensaver??
I followed your instructions, but all I got was:
"The name specified is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file."
I must say that Im impressed how you can fit an entire Windows install into 8 bytes!!! You wouldnt by any chance know that med student supermodel that I chatted to online last night who gave me a 300k pic of herself that I had to double click to view? That didnt seem to work either.
And perhaps he never got any, ever. In which case I do not blame him one bit.
We can perhaps all we want, if she left him because he was looking at porn, rather than discussing it through with him, I would think there is something else at play here rather than just that.
chrome, thankyou for a reasoned response.
:)
I have been flamed recently and been labelled a troll simply for getting ticked off about people "stealing" software. Apparently I am not allowed to call it theft, as nobody broke into Microsofts headquarters and stole the master backup tape, and it was not so kindly pointed out to me that once somebody purchases a copy, then it is their right to do what they please with it. The same flamers are usually the first to jump up and down if the GPL is broken.
I totally agree with you, and I wish there were more Slashdotters like yourself and less of the mouth frothing zealots that seem to have come by recently who will slam anything from Microsoft no matter how good and praise anything FOSS no matter how bad.
I do not believe all Linux users are pirates. Unfortunately there is a small but highly vocal group amongst Linux users that give a very bad name for the rest. I applaud anyone who uses Free software out of ideals (note free software, not open source) no matter what the inconvenience. We all should try to make the world a better place, and that is their way of doing it. Power to them.
There is a place for everything, even commercial software. Personally I am an OS X man. I do things elsewhere to help humanity, to pay the bills I use what I consider the best tool for the job.
Thanks once again for showing me not all Slashdotters are crazy loons!
Breaking evil copyright laws / EULA's is sometimes a bad thing!
But only when you break the copyright / EULA of a company that develops for Linux. If you break the copyright or licensing agreement of a commercial organisation that does not develop for Linux, then it is a good thing and you are helping society.
Yes, it all makes sense now!
OK, to apply some /. logic that I have seen elsewhere and been flamed for opposing.
Did they break in and steal the Crossover backup CDs?
If not, then what did they do wrong? They legally obtained a copy of Crossover Office, so what they now do with their legally owned property is up to them.
What? That is breaking the license agreement?
So let us get this straight. It is perfectly OK to copy Windows CDs as you are not stealing it, you are doing what you please with your legally owned property. But the moment we talk about a Linux related product, it suddenly becomes illegal to copy or break license agreements?
Get your acts together and work out where you stand. Either it is OK or it is not. You cannot have a stance where it is perfectly OK to break license agreements for one piece of software, but it is not OK to break the GPL or license agreements with Linux related software.
Companies could run this alongside their Unix workstations to help in their migration to Windows.
Just a thought!
Parent was NOT trolling you idiot
Just because someone (ie. me) says something either in favour of MSFT or against FOSS does not mean they are trolling. So you are trying to say that anything on Slashdot that is not rabidly anti Microsoft should be modded -1 Troll are you?
Its OK to make comments that Microsoft has bad coding and major security flaws if left unpatched, but its not OK to point out that an unpatched Linux box can also be owned?
Yes I probably picked a bad example, but due to excessive frothing at the mouth you have missed the underlying point. The software was STOLEN from Microsoft. Microsoft never offered the software under the GPL / BSD / whatever license saying people could copy it for free. So why should they then support people who stole their software?
Ok, so unpatched pirated software can lead to excessive network traffic when a worm / virus / trojan hits. Then let the relevant authorities crack down on those running these ILLEGAL unpatched Windows boxes causing all the trouble. Im curious what the reaction on Slashdot would be if that happened. So Microsoft is considered bad if they remove these unpatched boxes from circulation, bad if they dont offer patches to software they never sold to begin with and can only be considered half decent if they offer patches for free and promise never ever to try to catch anyone who pirates their software.
Lets say you put a web app online for a client. A developer somewhere else then proceeds to copy every exact detail they can of your site for their client (basically stealing your site). Would you then give free support to the other developer's client if something went wrong with their site? It was a copy of your site, by the prevailing logic here you should have to. What if someone owns the box due to some security flaw and starts spamming and creating unnecessary traffic on the web. You wouldnt? Well, neither should Microsoft
So we have it folks. People on here pretty much saying its Microsofts (oops...sorry...M$) fault for people stealing their software, and somehow they should be made to pay for it. Look, this software is STOLEN. Microsoft owes these thieves nothing.
I have a better idea. Microsoft should set the updates to automatically remove the operating system from anyone who is not a legit user. Not touching the data, just the system files. That way these thieves will not be able to spew forth more worms onto the net. That way they reclaim their stolen property.
I bet you dont start bleating away when a flaw is found in Apache or sshd do you? Oh no...these products have been produced insecurely so they must be made to PAY, must they not? Why dont you bleat about Red Hat not providing support to those not on RHN? These people got a Red Hat product, they should be supported by Red Hat? No, of course not, different rules for FOSS isnt it?
Firstly, apologies for removing the linebreaks, but I would rather not sing my reply.
..."
"because it sounds like something extremely advanced and "related to artificial intelligence"."
Neural nets ARE related to AI, whats your point?
"usually the neural network is just a very simple, possibly linear, adaptive filter which means that really contains no more than a few matrix multiplications
A good neural net is not linear. And the entire point is that it is simple. The trick to neural nets is not the complexity of the net, but rather how you determine what inputs to use, what transfer functions you use, how you seed the weightings, and what you want as an output. The simpler the inputs / outputs, the more accurate the net will be. Neural nets are very good at finding relationships between inputs that might not be obvious to begin with. This is especially useful when talking about hundreds of inputs over several thousand time series.
"but terms like "learning" are really misused"
You yourself said the network was adaptive. If a system can adapt to its inputs to keep producing accurate outputs in a changing environment, I would consider that learning. I am curious what your definition is.
"You have no idea how business works do you?"
This is slashdot. The closest most here have come to business is economics101 and participating in a Sourceforge project.
What people here dont get is that MS is a professionally run business. They dont hire FOSS programmers / marketers out of some ideological war, they hire them if they can see it will make them more money. End of story. Period.
Yes, MS did its recruitment at a golf course for an undergrad student while playing golf. yeah...right. If we were talking executive recruitment maybe, but for a junior!?!
Of course it must be true...after all M$ hates standards blah blah blah. Pull your head out.
I do know people who have been interviewed for MS positions. And its certainly no happy lunch at a golf course. After the phone interview, the candidates turn up for the in-person interview process. This consists of hours of interview after interview, with candidates getting weeded out after each round. The questions are very focussed, for instance for a marketing candidate he was asked things like "Explain to us where Apple went wrong".
Yes MS may have dubious business practices, but Ive certainly been noticing a very similar level of FUD coming out of the FOSS community lately.
At least with an open-source community, we will not have our socieities social structures dictated by large corporations. Face it, using the internet as our primary means of communicating is inevitable. We should at least try to keep control of our communication rather than pass control over to some corporation who treats their bottom line as more important than society as a whole.