Are all American companies, therefore, run by stupid or evil people? Just wondering about the unspoken implications of your statement.
I downloaded SimLego, the 3D Lego modeler for my wife back when we were still in the Windows world; it'd be lovely to have a Linux version of this fun little app. AFAIK, the author has never been hassled by the company.
(The best companies PR machines know how to make any publicity good publicity, and how to create publicity out of even the smallest reference to their product or service. Every time they find a reference to it, they put out a press release reminding everyone how loved and widespread it obviously must be. The anti-rumor mill "spin doctors" trolling the net for negative/false information about their companies should remember it cuts both ways; treat your fans/loyal users with the respect they deserve, and you'll make new ones; alienate them, and you're dead in the water 'til the sharks come.)
Compaq hasn't proven themselves to be abysmally stupid in the past, but there's always a first time. As always, I'd prefer to see the specifics of the complaint rather than relying on clueless journos...but lawyers generally are the last refuge of the incompetent.
Well, it certainly is nice to see people aren't abusing their moderator privileges and downmarking things based solely on content and whether they disagree with it. Anything anti-union (or explicitly pro individual and anti collectivist) being labeled "Troll" and "flamebait"?
Christ, I'm a furking anarchocapitalist, and I don't hide it. But I do my damndest to use those moderator points wisely when I get them, and mark things up appropriately, and concentrate on upgrading rather than down. And that doesn't mean slapping Troll and Flamebait labels on posts just because I don't agree with the philosophy or politics of the poster.
I really hope you're enjoying yourself, because I doubt anyone else here is.
My kneejerk reaction with law generally being the same as HTML: "'Force' does not work on the World Wide Web," and my generally contrary nature would lead me, if I were an NSI head honcho, to say, "What will you do to me if I don't?" But more importantly, it seems most of the people involved are forgetting that real people will be affected by these policies:
"This was built under government contract and the data does not belong to Network Solutions," said Rich Forman, president of New York Based register.com.
No, you goober, it belongs to the owner. You remember, the person who registered the domain? Of course, other than the not-for-all-individuals Individual Domain Name Owners, there isn't much collective effort to protect individual rights. Which of course makes perfect sense; nobody else will have the motivation to protect your interests that you do.
I'm frankly amazed...K6-233, 64Mb RAM, stock Voodoo1... q3test1 lags in large areas and with many players, but the smaller areas run at a quite playable speed. And tried q3test2 in a one on one deathmatch against the roomie on his super spiffy Windows box, and except when he was up really close to me, again quite playable. I forget what the "suggested requirements" are, but I'm really impressed. With all the money I've saved using free software, I can probably afford a new video card for Christmas!
Other related "alternative" DNS and related resources which I have seen mentioned here on/. or elsewhere: Not the European Union: eu.org (free domain names), The Internet Namespace Cooperative (provides alternative to mainstream root servers), The.us domain (an often overlooked alternative for those in the united states), Granite Canyon (free primary/secondary DNS). eu.org recently got very efficient and cleared a backlog of domains; Granite Canyon has had a lot of complaints about spotty service.
Kudos to the author for tying cryptographic concepts in with practical, real-world ones. Wouldn't take too much to summarize and explain this to my non-techie relatives. Thank you, Mr. Priestley.
Here's an excellent article on fighting for the camera versus fighting for real. In some ways, making a fight look good on camera can be more difficult than being an effective fighter in real life! The best action stars, IMO, are the Chinese opera stars such as Jackie, Samo, etc., who have well-rounded backgrounds which include real martial arts techniques.
I wouldn't say anarchy is a belief that somehow we can all just get along; looking at the root origins, I find:
AN -- without
ARCHOS -- Leader, chief
So anarchy does not mean "no rules"; it means "no rulers".
David Friedman, the son of economist Milton Friedman, is probably the most widely known and published "anarchocapitalist", although he tends to argue just as much on utilitarian grounds as moral ones, if not more so. The 19th century lawyer and abolitonist Lysander Spooner can be read as a mixed bag of capitalist and socialist individualism. James Donald has a decent collection of writings on the subject, including Spooner, Frederic Bastiat and more.
Nah, I favor violent overthrow of government also...but only if there's no other alternative. Technological solutions combined with civil disobedience (both overt and covert) are preferred, at least until martial law is declared.
Technological solutions are favored over the political because technology is potentially more available to everyone. Politics offers very few moral choices, whereas the choices technology offers can break out of the false dichotomy offered by statists. "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
M'gosh, I just realized how to fix Jar Jar
on
Episode II Rumours
·
· Score: 1
He should have been MUTE from the start! Yes! Change nothing about him except take away all vocal capability! Lucas still would have caught flak for the rest of the Gungans, but the character could have still pleased the kiddies and been MUCH less annoying. Anyone to second? It'd be a lot easier to achieve than completely digitally editing the character out...
Call it more of the dreaded "click here" syndrome...pseudo-HTML and gibberish instead of good solid design that degrades gracefully and offers something for everyone. Control and condescension both play an equal part, I think; "they" (the infamous "man") want to control your experience both because they're happier that way, and they can't imagine that you might be happier without it.
Like you, I think streaming has its time and place...but the old ways are still the best ways a lot of the time. (Unix, Ethernet and "just plain hyperlinks" all fit this category.)
AFAICS, Eric's own belief system precludes his being "against freedom" in any moral sense; in these writings, I think he's attempting to show that the moral arguments aren't necessary to make a case for free software, that a case can be made purely on practical, utilitarian grounds. This may be a counterreaction to the long-time vocal majority of "zealots" (as perceived by most of the rest of the world) who espouse Stallmanesque philosophies.
That said, I still think it's a poor decision that he doesn't even briefly allude to any principled stance of his own, even in passing. I'm sure he's not "anti-freedom" -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary -- but it would go a long way toward quieting some of the more invective flaming.
BTW, does anyone else think Microsoft's recent "Darwinian strategy" of throwing their competing products (WinSE/2000) at each other is the same mistake Apple made when Jobs pitted the Apple II, Lisa and Mac camps against each other?
Oh, you just had to throw in a StarWars reference. AIee!
Each situation and person are different, so we each look at our circumstances (and sometimes our principles) to make a decision. Sometimes it's best to be as public as possible, go along with the system except where it would egregiously violate other rights you have in the courtroom, and "work within the system". One can always make a case for a given situation that the utility and/or morality of remaining free to continuously "break the law" is greater than that which might be served by fighting a public battle against both the guns of the government and the tides of public opinion, depending on the offense in question and how one's chosen physical community views the "crime" -- witness the end of the movie _Homegrown_ -- the pot growers lose their stash before selling it, but the actions of the crowd of bystanders save them from being apprehended as they are "absorbed into" the crowd. Very nice, effectively shot scene; on the other hand, the average geek who doesn't talk much to his neighbors would have few friends to help him out if he's accused of pirating/warez/viruses/etc. Also, some people may not care about how their freedom affects the rest of the world in any positive way -- all they want is the negative, to be left alone and return the courtesy -- but the impulses of charity and cooperation are just as strong, and actually burn brighter when not forced upon us.
I do think that public resistance is more often than not both more effective and more appropriate, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else to choose differently as long as they were harming none through their actions. "Juris precepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique." (These are the precepts of Law: To live honorably, to hurt no one, to render everyone their due.) It also helps that if done properly, legal battle can have a very effective cost-benefit ratio; the downside is that generally it only makes a difference for the specific individual in that case, since most really juicy cases get thrown out one way or another before advancing high enough to set any real precedent of substance for the populace at large.
But then again, there really isn't one person in a hundred that really wants to be free. Anarchy and chaos without "the right laws"? Poppycock. Just more respect for law, and more lawful behavior... all it takes is reversing the trends of the "law enforcement growth industry" (more laws, more laws, until everyone's a criminal).
When relatively trivial behavior is declared a crime, everyone and their brother with a lick of good sense and principles -- as well as those who have nothing better to do, and those for whom rebellion is a trivial hobby rather than a thoughtful lifestyle -- will jump at the opportunity to safely show their Resistance to The Man. When the CDA originally passed, hundreds of Usenetters added "ObObscenities" to their signatures.
But how many have the guts to smoke a joint or shoot heroin on the courthouse steps? Or give out free needles/food/bibles/whatever without a "permit"? Or help human beings escape from tyranny to potential freedom? Or stand in front of the tanks even when they know their chances are Slim to None?
Victimless crime laws encourage general disrespect for law, and deservedly so. The more petty and harmless the "crime", the more the public is treated like a child, the more it will start acting like one; and the greater the crackdown, the greater the numbers and extent of the backlash. But when it comes to the big issues, it takes an explicit gun in the face for some people to Just Say No...and all too many meekly, willingly cooperate in their own enslavement and destruction. As James Donald said on Cypherpunks, if just one "tax serf" out of every hundred said No to the IRS and backed it up when pushed to the wall, the house of cards would collapse.
This reminds me of Jamie McCarthy's take on modern-day "civil disobedience" in (Computer Underground Digest? Politech? Can't find the article offhand). Instead of taking the risks of getting hammered with firehoses and tear gas, today's rebels try to overload web servers and scribble/urinate on the pages contained therein. How long before "civil disobedience" becomes a banned search term somewhere? What about places where people WISH that was all they had to worry about?
Having said all that, as someone else (Will Rodgers?) said, "Profanity is the crutch of the ignorant, but every once in a while you've got to talk to one of those ignorant motherfuckers."
Indeed, that's the biggest reason I'd like to see the Windows source made public despite my wish that the gubmint would laissez frigging faire already... I want to see all those juicy comments! As a non programmer I made a hobby out of collecting fun comments and error messages... Lost my collection of comments, still have the other. Another public archive should be started of these, perhaps.
My preference would be to have an install option that provides either the original unexpurgated source, or a bowdlerized-to-your-preference version (fsck, mess, etc as others have suggested). Bring this out in the open, make it really explicit and obvious, part of the main install routine. Shine the light of open inquiry full on it, encourage debate, smile when the censors whine and say, "Yes, and your point is?"
In addition to the revenue streams these people see themselves as "losing" by "allowing" people to run their own services, there's also the "control freak" issue and the "paranoid lawyer" mindset. Either or both are all too common, and stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of issues such as security, identity, reputations, anonymity/pseudonity, and trust. The bandwidth issue is nonexistent; as others have noted, it's the gross bytes that matter, not which direction they're flowing.
The control freaks seem the most common, with a healthy dash of good old fashioned nosiness rearing its ugly head...the Mrs. Grundys of the world, who make everything their business to the point of having no interests or life of their own. The psychological issues may be interesting to some, but I think a much more practical approach would be for various freedom advocacy groups to compile and exchange lists of "white/black" ISP's, bandwidth providers and the like which compare policies in detail, translate BS-jargon, cut through red tape and show whose policies are clear, well-thought out and sensible, and which are not.
Every public education "computer literacy" course I've seen (I've seen several) is based around sitting a bunch of kids in front of a computer, having them type a little bit, and usually just play around. By the time they're done, they can click a mean mouse and type grammatically poor letters to their friends. Most everything they learn could have been learned by simply reading a manual, while costing essentially nothing and taking considerably less time. They don't learn how the Internet works -- they learn how to type URL's into a browser. They don't learn any commands to type at a prompt, they learn how to point and click. They don't learn netiquette, they get the stereotypical education of your average AOL or WebTV user. Maybe they'll even learn how to use something like Frontpage or Composer to produce broken, platform-specific pseudo-HTML.
Giving these kids subsidized net access is BAD. First, many can't read or write, let alone construct a thought or express an idea. Second, they're being dumped onto the net without the faintest idea of how things work. Third, not only is every last tax-serf forced to pay for their education that isn't educating, we're forced to pay for their net access (boy, I wish *I* could afford a T1!), AND we are forced to pay for bullshit "censorware" like NetNanny or Cybersitter, AND pay a bunch of librarians to sit around and read students' email. (If a student received or sent encrypted mail, they'd likely be banned from the computers, possibly viewed as a bomb threat in the post-Littleton climate.) But the worst part is that when they're done, they've learned nothing despite all the money that was thrown at them.
In one school, so I was told, no students were allowed to use the net for fear they might access evil information. They bought the connections and computers, but were too cheap to buy forty feet of cable to hook it up. And of course, the idiots bought multi-kilobuck PowerMacs, as if you needed that kind of power for web browsing. In the meantime, just about every place is running Windows, and any student who actually exhibits a clue is labeled a "hacker" and sent to the principal's office. Their "security" consists of having a network password that is the name of the school's mascot, and disabling the "Run" command on the Start menu. ACTUALLY KNOWING HOW THINGS WORK IS DISCOURAGED. We covered all this in the Littleton discussions, remember? Heaven forbid if a student telnets into a legitimate shell account not controlled by the school, or knows how to program in something other than BASIC.
The end effect of subsidizing free net access in the government slave camps known as "schools" will be to do an end run around any freedoms people still enjoy. The politicians who cry for a chicken in every pot and a T1 in every home would just love to have everyone in America given free net access, because then they could claim the net is a "public resource" and therefore needs to be regulated.
We are already paying too damn much, in money and tears, to lock children up and brainwash them. But of course, the Enlightened will lead the crowd with cries for MO' MONEY, MO' MONEY, MO' MONEY. Get rid of the compulsory attendance laws and give people a true CHOICE, and watch a thousand flowers bloom. Continue, and enjoy the spectacle of a boot smashing into a human face forever. Brother, you asked for it!
LinuxToday.com just yesterday had a piece on OS/2 version 5, due out mid-May. Journaling filesystem and all, OS/2 is far from dead. I use it all the time, along with DOS, Linux and assorted versions of Winblows. Heterogenous computing environments rock. Cyberdiversity forever!
Slashdot Mirror
I downloaded SimLego, the 3D Lego modeler for my wife back when we were still in the Windows world; it'd be lovely to have a Linux version of this fun little app. AFAIK, the author has never been hassled by the company.
(The best companies PR machines know how to make any publicity good publicity, and how to create publicity out of even the smallest reference to their product or service. Every time they find a reference to it, they put out a press release reminding everyone how loved and widespread it obviously must be. The anti-rumor mill "spin doctors" trolling the net for negative/false information about their companies should remember it cuts both ways; treat your fans/loyal users with the respect they deserve, and you'll make new ones; alienate them, and you're dead in the water 'til the sharks come.)
(For those in other threads who were saying a Bar Association might be a good group to form for the high tech industry, see What License? or, Why you can sue your doctor but not your lawyer.)
Christ, I'm a furking anarchocapitalist, and I don't hide it. But I do my damndest to use those moderator points wisely when I get them, and mark things up appropriately, and concentrate on upgrading rather than down. And that doesn't mean slapping Troll and Flamebait labels on posts just because I don't agree with the philosophy or politics of the poster.
My kneejerk reaction with law generally being the same as HTML: "'Force' does not work on the World Wide Web," and my generally contrary nature would lead me, if I were an NSI head honcho, to say, "What will you do to me if I don't?" But more importantly, it seems most of the people involved are forgetting that real people will be affected by these policies:
"This was built under government contract and the data does not belong to Network Solutions," said Rich Forman, president of New York Based register.com.
No, you goober, it belongs to the owner. You remember, the person who registered the domain? Of course, other than the not-for-all-individuals Individual Domain Name Owners, there isn't much collective effort to protect individual rights. Which of course makes perfect sense; nobody else will have the motivation to protect your interests that you do.
I'm frankly amazed...K6-233, 64Mb RAM, stock Voodoo1... q3test1 lags in large areas and with many players, but the smaller areas run at a quite playable speed. And tried q3test2 in a one on one deathmatch against the roomie on his super spiffy Windows box, and except when he was up really close to me, again quite playable. I forget what the "suggested requirements" are, but I'm really impressed. With all the money I've saved using free software, I can probably afford a new video card for Christmas!
NSI Closes Top Level Domain Servers
NSI challenged over "obscene" domains
NSI Modifies "whois" agreement
Other related "alternative" DNS and related resources which I have seen mentioned here on /. or elsewhere: Not the European Union: eu.org (free domain names), The Internet Namespace Cooperative (provides alternative to mainstream root servers), The .us domain (an often overlooked alternative for those in the united states), Granite Canyon (free primary/secondary DNS). eu.org recently got very efficient and cleared a backlog of domains; Granite Canyon has had a lot of complaints about spotty service.
Suggested other readings: In whose domain, Exclusion and Coordination in Cyberspace, for the advanced user; Ask Mr. DNS and the FAQ for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains.
"Best" for whom? In terms of sheer numbers?
Kudos to the author for tying cryptographic concepts in with practical, real-world ones. Wouldn't take too much to summarize and explain this to my non-techie relatives. Thank you, Mr. Priestley.
To unconditionally agree to all of the above conditions, press any key.
AN -- without
ARCHOS -- Leader, chief
So anarchy does not mean "no rules"; it means "no rulers".
David Friedman, the son of economist Milton Friedman, is probably the most widely known and published "anarchocapitalist", although he tends to argue just as much on utilitarian grounds as moral ones, if not more so. The 19th century lawyer and abolitonist Lysander Spooner can be read as a mixed bag of capitalist and socialist individualism. James Donald has a decent collection of writings on the subject, including Spooner, Frederic Bastiat and more.
He should have been MUTE from the start! Yes! Change nothing about him except take away all vocal capability! Lucas still would have caught flak for the rest of the Gungans, but the character could have still pleased the kiddies and been MUCH less annoying. Anyone to second? It'd be a lot easier to achieve than completely digitally editing the character out...
Like you, I think streaming has its time and place...but the old ways are still the best ways a lot of the time. (Unix, Ethernet and "just plain hyperlinks" all fit this category.)
Don't be. Microsoft should keep on writing whatever code they want to, no matter what the gubmint says. So should the rest of us.
That said, I still think it's a poor decision that he doesn't even briefly allude to any principled stance of his own, even in passing. I'm sure he's not "anti-freedom" -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary -- but it would go a long way toward quieting some of the more invective flaming.
BTW, does anyone else think Microsoft's recent "Darwinian strategy" of throwing their competing products (WinSE/2000) at each other is the same mistake Apple made when Jobs pitted the Apple II, Lisa and Mac camps against each other?
(The article also mentions the various PalmPilot hacks like opening electronic car door locks.)
Gimme a unixish CLI with a MUD/Zorklike shell, and a GUI in a Quake3/Thieflike environment... Drool.
Each situation and person are different, so we each look at our circumstances (and sometimes our principles) to make a decision. Sometimes it's best to be as public as possible, go along with the system except where it would egregiously violate other rights you have in the courtroom, and "work within the system". One can always make a case for a given situation that the utility and/or morality of remaining free to continuously "break the law" is greater than that which might be served by fighting a public battle against both the guns of the government and the tides of public opinion, depending on the offense in question and how one's chosen physical community views the "crime" -- witness the end of the movie _Homegrown_ -- the pot growers lose their stash before selling it, but the actions of the crowd of bystanders save them from being apprehended as they are "absorbed into" the crowd. Very nice, effectively shot scene; on the other hand, the average geek who doesn't talk much to his neighbors would have few friends to help him out if he's accused of pirating/warez/viruses/etc. Also, some people may not care about how their freedom affects the rest of the world in any positive way -- all they want is the negative, to be left alone and return the courtesy -- but the impulses of charity and cooperation are just as strong, and actually burn brighter when not forced upon us.
I do think that public resistance is more often than not both more effective and more appropriate, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else to choose differently as long as they were harming none through their actions. "Juris precepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique." (These are the precepts of Law: To live honorably, to hurt no one, to render everyone their due.) It also helps that if done properly, legal battle can have a very effective cost-benefit ratio; the downside is that generally it only makes a difference for the specific individual in that case, since most really juicy cases get thrown out one way or another before advancing high enough to set any real precedent of substance for the populace at large.
But then again, there really isn't one person in a hundred that really wants to be free. Anarchy and chaos without "the right laws"? Poppycock. Just more respect for law, and more lawful behavior... all it takes is reversing the trends of the "law enforcement growth industry" (more laws, more laws, until everyone's a criminal).
But how many have the guts to smoke a joint or shoot heroin on the courthouse steps? Or give out free needles/food/bibles/whatever without a "permit"? Or help human beings escape from tyranny to potential freedom? Or stand in front of the tanks even when they know their chances are Slim to None?
Victimless crime laws encourage general disrespect for law, and deservedly so. The more petty and harmless the "crime", the more the public is treated like a child, the more it will start acting like one; and the greater the crackdown, the greater the numbers and extent of the backlash. But when it comes to the big issues, it takes an explicit gun in the face for some people to Just Say No...and all too many meekly, willingly cooperate in their own enslavement and destruction. As James Donald said on Cypherpunks, if just one "tax serf" out of every hundred said No to the IRS and backed it up when pushed to the wall, the house of cards would collapse.
This reminds me of Jamie McCarthy's take on modern-day "civil disobedience" in (Computer Underground Digest? Politech? Can't find the article offhand). Instead of taking the risks of getting hammered with firehoses and tear gas, today's rebels try to overload web servers and scribble/urinate on the pages contained therein. How long before "civil disobedience" becomes a banned search term somewhere? What about places where people WISH that was all they had to worry about?
Having said all that, as someone else (Will Rodgers?) said, "Profanity is the crutch of the ignorant, but every once in a while you've got to talk to one of those ignorant motherfuckers."
Indeed, that's the biggest reason I'd like to see the Windows source made public despite my wish that the gubmint would laissez frigging faire already... I want to see all those juicy comments! As a non programmer I made a hobby out of collecting fun comments and error messages... Lost my collection of comments, still have the other. Another public archive should be started of these, perhaps.
My preference would be to have an install option that provides either the original unexpurgated source, or a bowdlerized-to-your-preference version (fsck, mess, etc as others have suggested). Bring this out in the open, make it really explicit and obvious, part of the main install routine. Shine the light of open inquiry full on it, encourage debate, smile when the censors whine and say, "Yes, and your point is?"
The control freaks seem the most common, with a healthy dash of good old fashioned nosiness rearing its ugly head...the Mrs. Grundys of the world, who make everything their business to the point of having no interests or life of their own. The psychological issues may be interesting to some, but I think a much more practical approach would be for various freedom advocacy groups to compile and exchange lists of "white/black" ISP's, bandwidth providers and the like which compare policies in detail, translate BS-jargon, cut through red tape and show whose policies are clear, well-thought out and sensible, and which are not.
Giving these kids subsidized net access is BAD. First, many can't read or write, let alone construct a thought or express an idea. Second, they're being dumped onto the net without the faintest idea of how things work. Third, not only is every last tax-serf forced to pay for their education that isn't educating, we're forced to pay for their net access (boy, I wish *I* could afford a T1!), AND we are forced to pay for bullshit "censorware" like NetNanny or Cybersitter, AND pay a bunch of librarians to sit around and read students' email. (If a student received or sent encrypted mail, they'd likely be banned from the computers, possibly viewed as a bomb threat in the post-Littleton climate.) But the worst part is that when they're done, they've learned nothing despite all the money that was thrown at them.
In one school, so I was told, no students were allowed to use the net for fear they might access evil information. They bought the connections and computers, but were too cheap to buy forty feet of cable to hook it up. And of course, the idiots bought multi-kilobuck PowerMacs, as if you needed that kind of power for web browsing. In the meantime, just about every place is running Windows, and any student who actually exhibits a clue is labeled a "hacker" and sent to the principal's office. Their "security" consists of having a network password that is the name of the school's mascot, and disabling the "Run" command on the Start menu. ACTUALLY KNOWING HOW THINGS WORK IS DISCOURAGED. We covered all this in the Littleton discussions, remember? Heaven forbid if a student telnets into a legitimate shell account not controlled by the school, or knows how to program in something other than BASIC.
The end effect of subsidizing free net access in the government slave camps known as "schools" will be to do an end run around any freedoms people still enjoy. The politicians who cry for a chicken in every pot and a T1 in every home would just love to have everyone in America given free net access, because then they could claim the net is a "public resource" and therefore needs to be regulated.
We are already paying too damn much, in money and tears, to lock children up and brainwash them. But of course, the Enlightened will lead the crowd with cries for MO' MONEY, MO' MONEY, MO' MONEY. Get rid of the compulsory attendance laws and give people a true CHOICE, and watch a thousand flowers bloom. Continue, and enjoy the spectacle of a boot smashing into a human face forever. Brother, you asked for it!
LinuxToday.com just yesterday had a piece on OS/2 version 5, due out mid-May. Journaling filesystem and all, OS/2 is far from dead. I use it all the time, along with DOS, Linux and assorted versions of Winblows. Heterogenous computing environments rock. Cyberdiversity forever!