No, that's not how the tech works. "Video goggles" (at least, the types I've seen) don't actually project an image out in front of you. They use the glasses as a screen, and project a very tiny image on the glasses, which *looks* as big as a 60" TV, and is completely private. in a sense, they *are* "eyeplugs".
Depending on the implementation, the images have varying degrees of opacity, and with most of them, you could theoretically walk down the street while watching Futurama.
3 - can't run any of the good, and not-so-good software written on any OS for the last 30 years.
as to "can't run software" arguement, well, a similar argument can be made for Linux or even OS X.
4 - Re-implements design flaws that have been already been purged out of Unix or Windows (well, just Unix)
Example?
Personally, I wish they didn't waste their time reinventing the wheel. Other designers have already been there, and while there's a lot to say about the heavy legacy of various existing designs, they work and have billions of man/hours put into them.
Personally, I am glad to see that people are willing to continue exploring alternative UI designs, new FS's, etc. Reinventing the Wheel has a LOT of benefits -- faster algorithms, new programming technique, and so on. More ideas being tested is never a bad thing, no matter how many "man-hours" have been invested in the "old way".
Also, I'd like to point out that Apple, Google, and MS are "reinventing the wheel" in desktop search, since BeOS had this 10 years ago. BeOS also had true SMP back before MacOS even had multithreading. BeOS is *still* one of the most innovative OS designs around, and I'm thrilled to know that it's development is being continued.
on the other hand, I don't think Zeta can make a go of it -- unless they start distributing it for free. Alas, they don't seem to want to do this...
Yes, and the US doesn't want to give up control, becaue if ICANN fucks up, the internet-dependent US economy gets fucked -- proper fucked. At least, that is the US official position, and it does have a certain ring of truth.
I admit I have a weak grasp of how the "root servers" of the net work, but wouldn't it be possible to *distribute* root control? Could ICANN offer some sort of compromise, like: ICANN takes over primary root level Servers. the US + some handpicked others (perhaps the Security Counsel?) will provide technical oversight. The US also is given the task of maintaning a set of failsafe servers, so that if ICANN's servers fail, the internet reverts to the US's servers, and the internet keeps on running.
Would this be at all feasible?
OF course, it would probably be rejected by all (US: "no, we still want to control everything!" other countries: "no, we want to bitch more about the US!")
definition of compromise: the solution that everyone hates equally.
Depending on your level of experience, you may already know some of these things, but the OP made it clear that he doesn't. Telling him to ignore the work, advice and experience of the others who have gone before is irresponsible, not to mention likely to waste a lot of time that he probably doesn't have to spare.
whoa, calm down. I didn't tell him to ignore the advice and expereince of others, for crying out loud, reread my damn post! Where did I say *anything* like that?!
I merely said that books weren't necessarily the best place to get that information, and I stand by that.
A "the book says to do it *this* way" attitude can stifle *real world* best practices. Using the resources of other people in shoes like yours will help you find the *true* best solution for *you*, not the "generic best solution of the author".
I'm not saying that books are *bad*, but I find that, for me, using more dynamic resources (such as technical sites and forums), combined with a hands-on approach, leads to much quicker learning and far better results. But again... that's me, and YMMV.
Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
Because Intel/AMD/x86 are not anywhere nearly as entrenched there as they are here, as very few people (percentage-wise) in China *have* computers yet.
This is a (nearly) level playing field for other architectures in China.
Also, if other architectures gain ground in China, they might start cropping up outside of China as well, giving us relief from x86 hell -- and a big boost to IBM's processor division.
This is exactly what I am currently doing, so I can offer some advice.
I know the question is about books, but really, I doubt you need 'em. I personally didn't read any books about the subject. I've found that books are far, far inferior to just playing with the damn thing.
First, if you are totally lost about networking, just googling "windows networking" or "networking tutorials" brings up wealths of information. (I will assume you are using Windows...)
Microsoft does sell some books about SBS and windows 2k3 server, but AFAIK those entire books are just printouts of the material MS provides for free online... say what you like about MS (I despise windows, honestly), but they *do* provide a lot of well-organized information for their clients.
Third, join some good technical message boards. These are the lifeblood of self-taught network admins.:)
Don't be afraid to bug people on message boards... most boards are filled with helpful people who would love to point you in the right direction. Also, I find just going onine and saying, "WTF is this thing doing?" and having a helpful, custom reply is a lot more handy (and educational) than pouring through some clumsy and out-of-date book, not even knowing if the answer is in there.
All of this, of course, is my experience due to my personal behaviors and tastes, so of course YMMV.
If you check http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/robots.html, you'll note that there are no date range options to the robots.txt file. In other words, you can't specify that historical data is to be excluded.
Yes, the article is misleading. What the Internet Archive does is respect the user-agent diallow -- and if the crawler finds that it is disallowed, it will stop access to previously archived material. You can read about it here: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php
Ahem. Perhaps, if YOU had RTFA'd, you would have seen this little gem:
From TFA: The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Philadelphia, seeks unspecified damages for copyright infringement and violations of two federal laws: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (emphasis mine)
I'd also like to point out that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is about preventing copyright infringement.
maybe nvidia will buy them (thereby fixing up lingering IP issues) and be able to open-source their video drivers.
Or maybe ATI will buy them and screw nVidia over with IP issues. I mean, ATI has 650 million in cash, and it will only cost ~170m to buy a controlling interest in SGI. And SGI has more than enough oustanding shares.
If *I* were in charge of ATI, that's what I'd want to do -- then again, i'm excessively machiavellian.:)
... the loss of yet *another* innovative & powerful system architecture... yet another victim of the cheap-ass & now all-conquoring x86.
PowerPC in Apple, SPARC in Sun, and now MIPS in SGI... one wonders how long PowerPC/POWER will last in IBM's workstations & servers...
I love commodity hardware from a social perspective -- cheap, standardized, capable hardware means access to vast quantities of information is becoming practically free for a rapidly increasing percentage of the world's population. On the other hand, I can't help but feel a substantial pang of loss as these non-standard platforms are, despite innovative and arguably superior design, destroyed only by the economy of scale. Alas.
I thought that internet-over-power lines was pretty much a dead concept - not simply due to the fact that you had to largely redo your power infrastructure anyways so that it doesn't filter out your data, but because by the very nature of modulating a signal on a high power wire, you're building the world's largest radio transmitter network, and flooding everything with radio interference.
Why can't they can't just put a shield around the power wires, then ground the shield (a la coax)? shouldn't the Faraday Cage eliminate the radio waves?
Or is it that the cost of shielding powerlines is prohibative?
Okay, sorry if I am sounding like a jerk. I really just want to know how this can happen!
You somehow assume that you actually have to "click" a link and "save to disk" to download a file through IE. This is not so. Sites can use IE to install software on your computer, without your knowledge, even with all the preventative measures you mentioned. This is possible with what are known as "exploits" in the system. The insecurity of IE is not so much the default settings, as it is that changing the settings means practically nothing. That is why IE is flawed and broken beyond belief with critical security vunerabilities.
So if someone in the Army is walking in a street, its ok to shoot him because he/she is a valid military target?
That's a terribly vague and misleading question. The answer is, "Sometimes." Let me break down two examples:
"If someone in the Army is walking in a street, off duty, out of uniform, in his hometown, is he a valid military target?"
and
"If someone in the Army is walking down a street, on patrol in a foriegn, occupied city, is he a valid military target?"
The USS Cole was part of what AQ claims is an "occuping force" in Saudi Arabia. US military assets in that region had conducted a number of actions against AQ assets, and AQ responded in a similar manner (in this particular instance). A TLAM gives you about as much warning as a suicide attack.
As a side note, I'm not an any way supporting the validity of AQ, of AQ's agenda, methods, or actions. I despise them utterly, but the truth is, attacking military targets isn't in the same league... hell, it isn't even the same *game* as attacking civilians. If it is, then Nelson Mandela must be given the same treatment as bin Laden or the leaders of Hamas.
How about just outlawing something as arcane, ignorant, and hateful as religion? Religion's at the heart of almost all violence these days (note that George Bush is an Evangelical Born Again Christian, thus the slaughter in the Middle East).
Great idea. Restrict freedom of thought and expression in the name of "peace" and "security". Yeah, I can see that reducing the amount of war and conflict in society. I mean, the USSR outlawed religion, and look how peaceful and non-violent they were!
I would really think someone advertising "free porn" in his sig would have a bit more respect for freedom of speech.
Also, don't forget that the console market is not a zero-sum game. Many gamers will want multiple consoles -- so just because most people are buying XBox or Playstation doesn't mean they *won't* buy Revolution.
in fact, the delayed introduction might even be an advantage. After everyone buys their Playstation/Xbox, they save their money for a few months, play out the first big PS3/360 games... and then have the spare cash to buy a new Revolution.
At any rate, the Revolution looks like a very strong console, on the game front -- especially if it's true that it can play all of nintendo's old games. I can play the latest games, AND SuperMario, AND Starfox 64, AND Perfect Dark... all on the same box? Count me in.:)
Well, yes, in a way. VPN also renders the entire thing futile. But you say "it's trivial". Um, maybe for you. But how many typical Chinese users know how to do this, or even that this could be done, or even that they need to do this?
And, how do you correct the ignorance? I doubt the Chinese govt approves of websites that teach the citizens how to tunnel through the firewall, and will shut such a site down (if it is internal) or block it (if it is external).
You also have to have access to a proxy server outside of China, which many Chinese would find hard to find, since most chinese only speak chinese, and not many non-chinese sites are in chinese.
so, alas, despite its glaring (to us) flaws, the firewall is still a huge obstacle for most Chinese.
Right, but it is supposed to be a penalty on the *entity* and on those controlling the entity. a big loss like this looks bad to the shareholders, and they may more closely scrutinize the executives becaue of this.
But destroying a company -- any company -- just because of executive stratagy is very harmful to the "little people" who depend on the company for livelyhood. Should the middle-class workers really be punished just to make a point?
No, they don't block ports, they block hosts and IP addresses. So they'd keep you from SSHing to a forbidden server, but SSH in general is acceptable. It's just like using HTTP or any other protocol.
Before you start accusing someone of "being on drugs", maybe you should look at what he has to say.
ESR's claims are not that the GPL is bad -- in fact, he says that the GPL is a very good license that protects the user's freedoms, and defends the GPL in several ways. He is just claiming that it is no longer necessary for F/OSS to grow; he claims that the "Bazaar" model has proven itself to be successful, and has grown powerful enough to not need the protection of the GPL. Thus, because F/OSS doesn't need the benefits of the GPL, yet may suffer harm from the GPL (that is, companies are afraid of it), the GPL is no longer necessary.
I remain unconvinced, but it's worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand in a broad, sweeping generalization.
He then goes on to defend reverse-engineering of propriatary data formats for F/OSS -- and it is one of the best defenses of this that I have ever seen.
try giving the article some thought and consideration next time.
Hey you're great, you just killed the biggest catfish ever... how amazing, how proud you must be! Come on guys, let's see how many amazing creatures can we kill today.
Yeah, but I hear there's good eatin' on one of dem big suckers!
ok, so based on the second link to the previous slashdot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1 927212&tid=123),
doesn't that prove in Google's favor that Google *is* taking click fraud seriously? Thus, doesn't that conclusively demonstrate in Google's favor that "Click Defense Inc." is just wrong?
And their main product is to prevent, you guessed it, Click Fraud. Hmmmm, a few minutes ago I didn't know that such a product existed, but now that they've sued google, I do. double hmmmm hmmmm.
Some Executive somewhere: "Google is getting sued because they don't protect us from 'Click Fraud', whatever that is! that could cost us lots of money! What can I do to protect myself? Let me ask Google. Oh, look who is on the sponsored links, clickdefense.com. Oh, their product saves me! yay!"
I smell a large omnivorous rodent of the genus Rattus...
A group of computer science students and computer engineering students are riding on a train to the same conference. the engineering students all have tickets, but notice that the CS majors only have 1 ticket between them. suddenly, the CS student who is serving as a lookout yells, "conductor!" and all the CS studens pile into the bathroom. the conductor goes to the bathroom, knocks, and says, "Ticket please!" The students then slide their ticket under the door and the conductor leaves.
Impressed, the CE majors say, "that's a great idea!" On the return trip from the confrence, the CE majors have only one ticket, and notice, to their confusion, that now the CS majors have no ticket at all. The CS student lookout then yelled, "conductor!" and both set of students each piled into one of the bathrooms in the train. Before the conductor came on the train, one of the CS majors slipped from his bathroom, walked up to the door of the other bathroom, knocked, and said, "Ticket please!"
I used to use adblock. in fact, it was the "killer app" of Firefox that made me switch from Safari.
However, the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. After all, Free Content isn't free. Let's use Slashdot as an example. It's servers handle a *lot* of load -- what is it, 500,000 unique visitors a day? The content is Free, yes... but it costs to serve that. So slashdot has banner ads. only a few, but they bring revenue in and allow Slashdot to fund itself.
This is good.
however, by blocking these ads, we lower the value of the advertisement to Slashdot; if there are less views of the ad, there is less clickthrough, and thus less value to both Slashdot *and* the advertiser... this lower's Slashdot's revenue, and *if* this reaches a critical mass, slashdot would be unable to fund itself, and have to shut down...
This would be the same problem for Google, Yahoo, arstechnica, or any other great service we have come to love...
So I no longer use adblock, because even though I still hate banner ads, I realize their importance to Free Information, and that's something I wish to support.
Not really. Halliburton, Enron, Aldelphia, AOL Time Warner, Arthur Andersen... All these scandals were pulled off not by disgruntled underpaid employees, but by high-paid execs.
It's like the old quote, "how much money is enough? A little bit more." Basically, you can't *pay* someone to be honest. If someone is greedy, more money won't satisfy him.
also, I'd like to point out that the workers in idea *are* being paid fairly. A fair wage is based on cost-of-living for where you live. Thus, they make *great* salaries compared to most of their countrymen. Their standard of living is *high* for their region. Most of them are quite grateful for their comparatively high-paid jobs.
Is there nothing important to protect there, or do they think snipers play by boxing rules?
Nothing a sniper would shoot at. firing randomly into someone's crotch is a *stupid* sniper tactic. Snipers don't just shoot for the hell of it, they shoot to kill. Firing into the crotch area would only wound the enemy, even in a *best* case scenerio. It also alerts the enemy to the presence of the sniper, and thus the enemy can now take cover. This means the sniper just wasted his oppertunity to kill the target.
So protection for below the waist, while useful in general, is not really helpful for defense against snipers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's not how the tech works. "Video goggles" (at least, the types I've seen) don't actually project an image out in front of you. They use the glasses as a screen, and project a very tiny image on the glasses, which *looks* as big as a 60" TV, and is completely private. in a sense, they *are* "eyeplugs".
Depending on the implementation, the images have varying degrees of opacity, and with most of them, you could theoretically walk down the street while watching Futurama.
2 - does not take advantage of the huge existing base of developers who know the POSIX and Windows API inside and out the world over.
That's just.. wrong. BeOS *is* Posix compliant. Always was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS
3 - can't run any of the good, and not-so-good software written on any OS for the last 30 years.as to "can't run software" arguement, well, a similar argument can be made for Linux or even OS X.
4 - Re-implements design flaws that have been already been purged out of Unix or Windows (well, just Unix)Example?
Personally, I wish they didn't waste their time reinventing the wheel. Other designers have already been there, and while there's a lot to say about the heavy legacy of various existing designs, they work and have billions of man/hours put into them.Personally, I am glad to see that people are willing to continue exploring alternative UI designs, new FS's, etc. Reinventing the Wheel has a LOT of benefits -- faster algorithms, new programming technique, and so on. More ideas being tested is never a bad thing, no matter how many "man-hours" have been invested in the "old way".
Also, I'd like to point out that Apple, Google, and MS are "reinventing the wheel" in desktop search, since BeOS had this 10 years ago. BeOS also had true SMP back before MacOS even had multithreading. BeOS is *still* one of the most innovative OS designs around, and I'm thrilled to know that it's development is being continued.
on the other hand, I don't think Zeta can make a go of it -- unless they start distributing it for free. Alas, they don't seem to want to do this...
Yes, and the US doesn't want to give up control, becaue if ICANN fucks up, the internet-dependent US economy gets fucked -- proper fucked. At least, that is the US official position, and it does have a certain ring of truth.
I admit I have a weak grasp of how the "root servers" of the net work, but wouldn't it be possible to *distribute* root control? Could ICANN offer some sort of compromise, like: ICANN takes over primary root level Servers. the US + some handpicked others (perhaps the Security Counsel?) will provide technical oversight. The US also is given the task of maintaning a set of failsafe servers, so that if ICANN's servers fail, the internet reverts to the US's servers, and the internet keeps on running.
Would this be at all feasible?
OF course, it would probably be rejected by all (US: "no, we still want to control everything!" other countries: "no, we want to bitch more about the US!")
definition of compromise: the solution that everyone hates equally.
whoa, calm down. I didn't tell him to ignore the advice and expereince of others, for crying out loud, reread my damn post! Where did I say *anything* like that?!
I merely said that books weren't necessarily the best place to get that information, and I stand by that.
A "the book says to do it *this* way" attitude can stifle *real world* best practices. Using the resources of other people in shoes like yours will help you find the *true* best solution for *you*, not the "generic best solution of the author".
I'm not saying that books are *bad*, but I find that, for me, using more dynamic resources (such as technical sites and forums), combined with a hands-on approach, leads to much quicker learning and far better results. But again... that's me, and YMMV.
Because Intel/AMD/x86 are not anywhere nearly as entrenched there as they are here, as very few people (percentage-wise) in China *have* computers yet.
This is a (nearly) level playing field for other architectures in China.
Also, if other architectures gain ground in China, they might start cropping up outside of China as well, giving us relief from x86 hell -- and a big boost to IBM's processor division.
Go IBM.
This is exactly what I am currently doing, so I can offer some advice.
I know the question is about books, but really, I doubt you need 'em. I personally didn't read any books about the subject. I've found that books are far, far inferior to just playing with the damn thing.
First, if you are totally lost about networking, just googling "windows networking" or "networking tutorials" brings up wealths of information. (I will assume you are using Windows...)
Second, I suggest that you review Microsoft's website, and review their excellent documentation. I would suggest, for your needs, that you consider Microsoft SBS: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/tec hinfo/default.mspx
Microsoft does sell some books about SBS and windows 2k3 server, but AFAIK those entire books are just printouts of the material MS provides for free online... say what you like about MS (I despise windows, honestly), but they *do* provide a lot of well-organized information for their clients.
Third, join some good technical message boards. These are the lifeblood of self-taught network admins. :)
Don't be afraid to bug people on message boards... most boards are filled with helpful people who would love to point you in the right direction. Also, I find just going onine and saying, "WTF is this thing doing?" and having a helpful, custom reply is a lot more handy (and educational) than pouring through some clumsy and out-of-date book, not even knowing if the answer is in there.
All of this, of course, is my experience due to my personal behaviors and tastes, so of course YMMV.
oh, and don't forget to have fun with it! ;)
Yes, the article is misleading. What the Internet Archive does is respect the user-agent diallow -- and if the crawler finds that it is disallowed, it will stop access to previously archived material. You can read about it here: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php
Ahem. Perhaps, if YOU had RTFA'd, you would have seen this little gem:
From TFA:
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Philadelphia, seeks unspecified damages for copyright infringement and violations of two federal laws: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (emphasis mine)
I'd also like to point out that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is about preventing copyright infringement.
Read.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Or maybe ATI will buy them and screw nVidia over with IP issues. I mean, ATI has 650 million in cash, and it will only cost ~170m to buy a controlling interest in SGI. And SGI has more than enough oustanding shares.
If *I* were in charge of ATI, that's what I'd want to do -- then again, i'm excessively machiavellian. :)
... the loss of yet *another* innovative & powerful system architecture ... yet another victim of the cheap-ass & now all-conquoring x86.
PowerPC in Apple, SPARC in Sun, and now MIPS in SGI... one wonders how long PowerPC/POWER will last in IBM's workstations & servers...
I love commodity hardware from a social perspective -- cheap, standardized, capable hardware means access to vast quantities of information is becoming practically free for a rapidly increasing percentage of the world's population. On the other hand, I can't help but feel a substantial pang of loss as these non-standard platforms are, despite innovative and arguably superior design, destroyed only by the economy of scale. Alas.
RIP, SGI. You were damn cool while you lasted.
Why can't they can't just put a shield around the power wires, then ground the shield (a la coax)? shouldn't the Faraday Cage eliminate the radio waves?
Or is it that the cost of shielding powerlines is prohibative?
You somehow assume that you actually have to "click" a link and "save to disk" to download a file through IE. This is not so. Sites can use IE to install software on your computer, without your knowledge, even with all the preventative measures you mentioned. This is possible with what are known as "exploits" in the system. The insecurity of IE is not so much the default settings, as it is that changing the settings means practically nothing. That is why IE is flawed and broken beyond belief with critical security vunerabilities.
If you want to see how easily a PC is infected without you clicking, saving, or knowing ANYTHING, this series of articles will help: http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-07-23
That's a terribly vague and misleading question. The answer is, "Sometimes." Let me break down two examples:
"If someone in the Army is walking in a street, off duty, out of uniform, in his hometown, is he a valid military target?"
and
"If someone in the Army is walking down a street, on patrol in a foriegn, occupied city, is he a valid military target?"
The USS Cole was part of what AQ claims is an "occuping force" in Saudi Arabia. US military assets in that region had conducted a number of actions against AQ assets, and AQ responded in a similar manner (in this particular instance). A TLAM gives you about as much warning as a suicide attack.
As a side note, I'm not an any way supporting the validity of AQ, of AQ's agenda, methods, or actions. I despise them utterly, but the truth is, attacking military targets isn't in the same league... hell, it isn't even the same *game* as attacking civilians. If it is, then Nelson Mandela must be given the same treatment as bin Laden or the leaders of Hamas.
Great idea. Restrict freedom of thought and expression in the name of "peace" and "security". Yeah, I can see that reducing the amount of war and conflict in society. I mean, the USSR outlawed religion, and look how peaceful and non-violent they were!
I would really think someone advertising "free porn" in his sig would have a bit more respect for freedom of speech.
Also, don't forget that the console market is not a zero-sum game. Many gamers will want multiple consoles -- so just because most people are buying XBox or Playstation doesn't mean they *won't* buy Revolution.
in fact, the delayed introduction might even be an advantage. After everyone buys their Playstation/Xbox, they save their money for a few months, play out the first big PS3/360 games... and then have the spare cash to buy a new Revolution.
At any rate, the Revolution looks like a very strong console, on the game front -- especially if it's true that it can play all of nintendo's old games. I can play the latest games, AND SuperMario, AND Starfox 64, AND Perfect Dark... all on the same box? Count me in. :)
Well, yes, in a way. VPN also renders the entire thing futile. But you say "it's trivial". Um, maybe for you. But how many typical Chinese users know how to do this, or even that this could be done, or even that they need to do this?
And, how do you correct the ignorance? I doubt the Chinese govt approves of websites that teach the citizens how to tunnel through the firewall, and will shut such a site down (if it is internal) or block it (if it is external).
You also have to have access to a proxy server outside of China, which many Chinese would find hard to find, since most chinese only speak chinese, and not many non-chinese sites are in chinese.
so, alas, despite its glaring (to us) flaws, the firewall is still a huge obstacle for most Chinese.
Right, but it is supposed to be a penalty on the *entity* and on those controlling the entity. a big loss like this looks bad to the shareholders, and they may more closely scrutinize the executives becaue of this.
But destroying a company -- any company -- just because of executive stratagy is very harmful to the "little people" who depend on the company for livelyhood. Should the middle-class workers really be punished just to make a point?
No, they don't block ports, they block hosts and IP addresses. So they'd keep you from SSHing to a forbidden server, but SSH in general is acceptable. It's just like using HTTP or any other protocol.
Did you READ the fucking article?
Before you start accusing someone of "being on drugs", maybe you should look at what he has to say. ESR's claims are not that the GPL is bad -- in fact, he says that the GPL is a very good license that protects the user's freedoms, and defends the GPL in several ways. He is just claiming that it is no longer necessary for F/OSS to grow; he claims that the "Bazaar" model has proven itself to be successful, and has grown powerful enough to not need the protection of the GPL. Thus, because F/OSS doesn't need the benefits of the GPL, yet may suffer harm from the GPL (that is, companies are afraid of it), the GPL is no longer necessary.
I remain unconvinced, but it's worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand in a broad, sweeping generalization.
He then goes on to defend reverse-engineering of propriatary data formats for F/OSS -- and it is one of the best defenses of this that I have ever seen.
try giving the article some thought and consideration next time.
Yeah, but I hear there's good eatin' on one of dem big suckers!
ok, so based on the second link to the previous slashdot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1 927212&tid=123),
doesn't that prove in Google's favor that Google *is* taking click fraud seriously? Thus, doesn't that conclusively demonstrate in Google's favor that "Click Defense Inc." is just wrong?
And their main product is to prevent, you guessed it, Click Fraud. Hmmmm, a few minutes ago I didn't know that such a product existed, but now that they've sued google, I do. double hmmmm hmmmm.
Some Executive somewhere: "Google is getting sued because they don't protect us from 'Click Fraud', whatever that is! that could cost us lots of money! What can I do to protect myself? Let me ask Google. Oh, look who is on the sponsored links, clickdefense.com. Oh, their product saves me! yay!"
I smell a large omnivorous rodent of the genus Rattus...
A group of computer science students and computer engineering students are riding on a train to the same conference. the engineering students all have tickets, but notice that the CS majors only have 1 ticket between them. suddenly, the CS student who is serving as a lookout yells, "conductor!" and all the CS studens pile into the bathroom. the conductor goes to the bathroom, knocks, and says, "Ticket please!" The students then slide their ticket under the door and the conductor leaves.
Impressed, the CE majors say, "that's a great idea!" On the return trip from the confrence, the CE majors have only one ticket, and notice, to their confusion, that now the CS majors have no ticket at all. The CS student lookout then yelled, "conductor!" and both set of students each piled into one of the bathrooms in the train. Before the conductor came on the train, one of the CS majors slipped from his bathroom, walked up to the door of the other bathroom, knocked, and said, "Ticket please!"
I used to use adblock. in fact, it was the "killer app" of Firefox that made me switch from Safari.
However, the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. After all, Free Content isn't free. Let's use Slashdot as an example. It's servers handle a *lot* of load -- what is it, 500,000 unique visitors a day? The content is Free, yes... but it costs to serve that. So slashdot has banner ads. only a few, but they bring revenue in and allow Slashdot to fund itself.
This is good.
however, by blocking these ads, we lower the value of the advertisement to Slashdot; if there are less views of the ad, there is less clickthrough, and thus less value to both Slashdot *and* the advertiser... this lower's Slashdot's revenue, and *if* this reaches a critical mass, slashdot would be unable to fund itself, and have to shut down...
This would be the same problem for Google, Yahoo, arstechnica, or any other great service we have come to love...
So I no longer use adblock, because even though I still hate banner ads, I realize their importance to Free Information, and that's something I wish to support.
Not really. Halliburton, Enron, Aldelphia, AOL Time Warner, Arthur Andersen... All these scandals were pulled off not by disgruntled underpaid employees, but by high-paid execs.
It's like the old quote, "how much money is enough? A little bit more." Basically, you can't *pay* someone to be honest. If someone is greedy, more money won't satisfy him.
also, I'd like to point out that the workers in idea *are* being paid fairly. A fair wage is based on cost-of-living for where you live. Thus, they make *great* salaries compared to most of their countrymen. Their standard of living is *high* for their region. Most of them are quite grateful for their comparatively high-paid jobs.
Why, yes, I have: http://www.bulletproofme.com/PHOTO%20pages/Arm-Pro tectors.htm .
Is there nothing important to protect there, or do they think snipers play by boxing rules?Nothing a sniper would shoot at. firing randomly into someone's crotch is a *stupid* sniper tactic. Snipers don't just shoot for the hell of it, they shoot to kill. Firing into the crotch area would only wound the enemy, even in a *best* case scenerio. It also alerts the enemy to the presence of the sniper, and thus the enemy can now take cover. This means the sniper just wasted his oppertunity to kill the target.
So protection for below the waist, while useful in general, is not really helpful for defense against snipers.