The only use for an item only a small percentage can access is power. To destroy the power association you have to trivialize it. Put it in cereal packaging material to make sure it all stays fresh forever.
The only way to fight the power drive is to put technology into the right hands for harmless uses more than slip into the hands of "terrorists".
Perfect example is lipstick containers. Those things made good material for bullets when they were needed yet there was no slowly increasing arms race. Deal with war when you have it but make sure you don't instigate it int the first place over a stupid fear.
World Wars are a human problem. The proliferation and invention of missiles is a human problem. The fact people are INTIMIDATED (as in worship) by EPCOT Center instead of INSPIRED (as in building) by it is a human problem.
The fact that we want everything AUTOMATED is also a human problem. (Ironically, this flaw gives us UNix so I'm not too pissed). No one wants to create a thing from beginning to end. They just want everything EASY. Convenience fine, spoon feeding by demand no thanks.
The fact is we don't want to be involved in the world we live in. That's how nanomachines will be a problem. Our incessant need to postpone and procrastinate will cause us to ignore important details, the kind of details that blew up Challenger.
What's important is that a tool be researched on the whole. Put the knowledge into everyone's hands not just a few. Letr everyone be aware of technology.
As for the wars... Every development begins as a solution to a problem. If it does not become used by many people in many DIFFERENT ways, it never stops being a bargaining chip in a power play. The way to kill the danger is to give people reasons to use it for something other than power.
Once you control something only those seriously interested would care to get one.
How do you explain no one buys semi-automatic disassembled safety pin guns to kill people?
Re:Free unix tools avoid compatibility mess
on
Is The x86 Obsolete?
·
· Score: 1
Gcc is not compatible with anything. It use machine description files. The compatibility issue is thrown outside gcc itself. Not one of the machine description files hold back gcc's design. In fact gcc puts pressure on making md files compatible with it not the other way around.
That compatibility crap is what got us into this mess in the 1st place.
It takes one day on an Alpha to recompile the GIMP for Alpha if you use gcc. Heck probably not even that long You can't do that without some bullshit World Dominator's Edition of Visual Studio. So the whole compatibility issue becomes a complete non-issue.
And don't give me that crap about it being hard to compile. Three commands:./configure, make, make install.
Oh yeah and Linux already has a form of LVM. I forget the link.
Comes with 2.3.x 2.4 or its it in 2.2 back ported? Not sure.
The gist of my filesystem manager is: What if the fs was the registry? No risk of screwing your machine by removing the registry. I hate how redundant some concepts in the fs are. So I've come up w/ a framework.
Coming soon.
Re:But Mattel _asks_ if you want it!
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft, Doubleclick, Mattel, Metallica, RIAA, MPAA. They're just drops in a reservoir that's going to burst or be hijacked quietly.
So believe me Debian will get roasted the day they release a single kernel boot advertisment.
Course I'd hope by then the remedy brigade at linuxnewbies.org will be as available as freshmeat or the Linux Doc Project.
Legalize Civilian Consumer Reports type Activity
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
I'm really getting sick of this type of bull. Support geek business. Outcompete the assholes. Capitalism is its own cure.
Let's hott the messengers, let's just all keep new journalists on egg sheels that's good for democracy. What next CNN will sue all sites that use the NN trademark?
There's this idea that everything can turned into liquid assets. That there's no stratification just numbers in the same sort of logic that gets us adjectives like ungood and doublegood. Value is a derived from a product not the other way around.
You can make guesses about the future value of a product but beyond that you don't have value until you have the product. Kind of like how credit cards work.
it had to be explained. Pewople seem to ignore that there's more than profit to a business, there's also maintenance just alike any sort of physical or abstract machinery.
Post it to sourceforge, sourceexchange, get in contact w/ people. The web is always going to be the middle of nowhere, you've got to announce it. Pick a license you're happy with. If you don't care what happens to it BSD or MIT it. If you depend on it... GPL it. Any changes and features a competitor adds come back to you if you ask for them. Further you could charge a fee to give out a copy that a buyer can relicense as they wish. That way you establish a value for the license in that it keeps your business oiled and you want to make sure you can survive in the market in order to compete. Then advertise it to other companies such as yours to use it. It's kind of like early farmers meeting to discuss crop failures and experiences so that all could survive individually. Make sure your CEOs understand that this isn't giving things away. Unless you BSD it.
Okay... poor word choice (I'm not trying to drag this argument out, I just don't see MS's logic.)
How can they block distribution of something they let anyone download. I would think it just as strange of GNU to allow anyone copying and changing but not to copy the source CD and share it with others.
Well as I see it the sender can talk to himself faster than he send messages. Suppose the idea is to bounce this so called backwards wave. The only way this is doable is through a sort of token ring like system where information is always moving and there's just enough hints to setup a bounce.
Okay explain sonmething, how is it drones think it's MS's original work through and through?
That's my problem.
Second:
How can you read it without downloading?
See my problem is with cause and effect or lack of any connection between them on Ms's part.
If I had to pay for the document I could understand the question of posting. I just don't understand how they can assume distribution rights to something they let anyone download. Sorry you can't be both selective and not. I mean come on. Sure, here everyone download this but don't give it to anyone else. This is a document not a college exam. It's like saying that if I download a set of notes anyone can download, but have a friend who can't get to the net, I can't give that friend the notes. That's proposterous.
I've never heard anyone use the word Microsoft as a generic term for software. And I suspect you haven't either. The idea is absurd.
I have unfortunately had it with ppl calling everything from Wordperfect to Excel MIcrosoft. I even had one call Quickbooks Microsoft.
It's really unnerving to see people just fill in the blanks like that.
Re:Advertise god dammit, the revolution is out of
on
TurboLinux Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
They do in fact claim copyright of Kerberos. I'll agree I'm partly bothered by the fact that drones immediately assumed it was Microsoft's all along when the MS vs/. story broke.
Of the 11 posts they considered offensive, only 1 actually did any wrong. And that's assumning MS had made special effort to allow only a select people to have access to it in the first place. Turns out anyone could download it. Which also puts doubt on that 1.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to burst your modern conveniences bubble, but ppl do like to fiddle w/ shit.
Terminator series was a bit wiser than these apocalyptic morons.
The only use for an item only a small percentage can access is power. To destroy the power association you have to trivialize it. Put it in cereal packaging material to make sure it all stays fresh forever.
The only way to fight the power drive is to put technology into the right hands for harmless uses more than slip into the hands of "terrorists".
Perfect example is lipstick containers. Those things made good material for bullets when they were needed yet there was no slowly increasing arms race. Deal with war when you have it but make sure you don't instigate it int the first place over a stupid fear.
Technology rox.
World Wars are a human problem.
The proliferation and invention of missiles is a human problem.
The fact people are INTIMIDATED (as in worship) by EPCOT Center instead of INSPIRED (as in building) by it is a human problem.
The fact that we want everything AUTOMATED is also a human problem. (Ironically, this flaw gives us UNix so I'm not too pissed). No one wants to create a thing from beginning to end. They just want everything EASY. Convenience fine, spoon feeding by demand no thanks.
The fact is we don't want to be involved in the world we live in. That's how nanomachines will be a problem. Our incessant need to postpone and procrastinate will cause us to ignore important details, the kind of details that blew up Challenger.
What's important is that a tool be researched on the whole. Put the knowledge into everyone's hands not just a few. Letr everyone be aware of technology.
As for the wars...
Every development begins as a solution to a problem. If it does not become used by many people in many DIFFERENT ways, it never stops being a bargaining chip in a power play. The way to kill the danger is to give people reasons to use it for something other than power.
Once you control something only those seriously interested would care to get one.
How do you explain no one buys semi-automatic disassembled safety pin guns to kill people?
Gcc is not compatible with anything. It use machine description files. The compatibility issue is thrown outside gcc itself. Not one of the machine description files hold back gcc's design. In fact gcc puts pressure on making md files compatible with it not the other way around.
That compatibility crap is what got us into this mess in the 1st place.
./configure, make, make install.
It takes one day on an Alpha to recompile the GIMP for Alpha if you use gcc. Heck probably not even that long You can't do that without some bullshit World Dominator's Edition of Visual Studio. So the whole compatibility issue becomes a complete non-issue.
And don't give me that crap about it being hard to compile. Three commands:
That is the link. Tho it seems that by the time I typed my message a billion other people reported it. Let's see yahoo do that. Suckers.
Oh yeah and Linux already has a form of LVM. I forget the link.
Comes with 2.3.x 2.4 or its it in 2.2 back ported? Not sure.
The gist of my filesystem manager is: What if the fs was the registry? No risk of screwing your machine by removing the registry. I hate how redundant some concepts in the fs are. So I've come up w/ a framework.
Coming soon.
Microsoft, Doubleclick, Mattel, Metallica, RIAA, MPAA. They're just drops in a reservoir that's going to burst or be hijacked quietly.
So believe me Debian will get roasted the day they release a single kernel boot advertisment.
Course I'd hope by then the remedy brigade at linuxnewbies.org will be as available as freshmeat or the Linux Doc Project.
I'm really getting sick of this type of bull. Support geek business. Outcompete the assholes. Capitalism is its own cure.
n. Ask him on #slashdot on irc.openprojects.net
Personally I think he should have named them. But perhaps this is a much saner discussion since he didn't.
Let's hott the messengers, let's just all keep new journalists on egg sheels that's good for democracy. What next CNN will sue all sites that use the NN trademark?
Well see that's just it :)
There's this idea that everything can turned into liquid assets. That there's no stratification just numbers in the same sort of logic that gets us adjectives like ungood and doublegood. Value is a derived from a product not the other way around.
You can make guesses about the future value of a product but beyond that you don't have value until you have the product. Kind of like how credit cards work.
it had to be explained. Pewople seem to ignore that there's more than profit to a business, there's also maintenance just alike any sort of physical or abstract machinery.
Post it to sourceforge, sourceexchange, get in contact w/ people. The web is always going to be the middle of nowhere, you've got to announce it. Pick a license you're happy with. If you don't care what happens to it BSD or MIT it. If you depend on it... GPL it. Any changes and features a competitor adds come back to you if you ask for them. Further you could charge a fee to give out a copy that a buyer can relicense as they wish. That way you establish a value for the license in that it keeps your business oiled and you want to make sure you can survive in the market in order to compete. Then advertise it to other companies such as yours to use it. It's kind of like early farmers meeting to discuss crop failures and experiences so that all could survive individually. Make sure your CEOs understand that this isn't giving things away. Unless you BSD it.
distribution rights
Fair enough, I'm staying up too late.
Okay... poor word choice (I'm not trying to drag this argument out, I just don't see MS's logic.)
How can they block distribution of something they let anyone download. I would think it just as strange of GNU to allow anyone copying and changing but not to copy the source CD and share it with others.
Well as I see it the sender can talk to himself faster than he send messages. Suppose the idea is to bounce this so called backwards wave. The only way this is doable is through a sort of token ring like system where information is always moving and there's just enough hints to setup a bounce.
I'm doubly confused.
Okay explain sonmething, how is it drones think it's MS's original work through and through?
That's my problem.
Second:
How can you read it without downloading?
See my problem is with cause and effect or lack of any connection between them on Ms's part.
If I had to pay for the document I could understand the question of posting. I just don't understand how they can assume distribution rights to something they let anyone download. Sorry you can't be both selective and not. I mean come on. Sure, here everyone download this but don't give it to anyone else. This is a document not a college exam. It's like saying that if I download a set of notes anyone can download, but have a friend who can't get to the net, I can't give that friend the notes. That's proposterous.
Seriously explain it to me.
The previous comment said: "Why let Napster have it? You have no reason to share.."
Some bands have a very good reason to share.
I've never heard anyone use the word Microsoft as a generic term for software. And I suspect you haven't either. The idea is absurd.
I have unfortunately had it with ppl calling everything from Wordperfect to Excel MIcrosoft. I even had one call Quickbooks Microsoft.
It's really unnerving to see people just fill in the blanks like that.
They do in fact claim copyright of Kerberos. I'll agree I'm partly bothered by the fact that drones immediately assumed it was Microsoft's all along when the MS vs /. story broke.
Of the 11 posts they considered offensive, only 1 actually did any wrong. And that's assumning MS had made special effort to allow only a select people to have access to it in the first place. Turns out anyone could download it. Which also puts doubt on that 1.
How's that a troll?
You search, I search, media enforcer searches.
It's not a post tracking system. It's a search tracking system. It's no different than any other napster client.
just imagine: /dev/spy&; cat /dev/spy >RIAA &; cat /dev/spy > BMG; cat /dev/spy > CDnow.
distributed# mediaenforcer *.napserver.* > stats.doubleclick.net >
Sux.
It's every other week some guy faxes a radio station complaining that they don't support local bands.
Ask an artist what he/she thinks not a front stage media puppet.