OK just for the sake of the argument (so, I'm bored to death debugging someone else's C++ source)
...and Ive got IRIX 6.5.7 to install on 40 machines. Not exciting....
What do you do when a law reduces your freedom to increase someone else's. In real life, I happily give up the freedom to knock people down, so that I may enjoy the freedom of not *being* knocked down.
Its a question of trade-offs. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing armaments for speed-limited cars and pedestrians, purely as an enticement to encourage good driving, but its too difficult to prevent abuse of the system. To respond though, I'd say that wanting to knock someone down (other than in a transitory 'I hate my boss' kinda way) is rarer than wanting to not be knocked down. Hence that's a plus sort of situation. Unless you want to knock someone down, and can find a willing 'victim' in which case that specific instance becomes a separate issue...
How can I make that decision if I want an *absolute* freedom? Think of it as absolute freedom in the Crowleyan sense, with the usual Wiccan proviso, to wit, Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law, An' It Harm No-one. ie You can -allow- people freedoms that might impinge upon your own freedom, but you cannot demand to impinge upon theirs. Not can they damnd to impinge on yours without consent.
The problem is that the word "freedom" is so soaked in various agendas, that it has almost lost all real meaning. Absolutely.
Not that maximizing your personal definition of it is a bad philosophy though. That's what happens when you let thirteen year-old kids read Robert Anton Wilson:)
Yawn. Learn a little more about the UK's governmental system, dolt. The Queen's token position in British legislation is to automatically rubber-stamp whatever Acts are passed by Parliament.
Maybe you could support your position on how free you are by quoting Nixon, or Hoover, or one of those other good ol' boys mandate your position in the 'free world'.
If its so goddamn free, why do you need a Fifth Amendment? Or a right to bear arms? Oh yeah, you're so sure you live in a free society, you have to bitch about keeping guns to protect you from your wonderful government. Aye right, my arse, as we say in Glasgow.
I'll qualify that; as far as I am concerned, the only absolute standard for 'rating' a political stance, attitude, or decision, is the amount of freedom it negates, restricts, adds, or enhances. In respect of that I count the freedom of any party to restrict my freedom, or that of third parties, so be a reduction of freedom.
Its a (probably) odd, but very personal viewpoint, and probably, my reference to it was misleading in the context of my original post.
Whether or not dmg's post wasa troll, it raised important issues. John Q Public does tend to turn around and say "If its only the bad guys at risk, then this is a good thing".
If you want to fight legislation like this, you have to be able to respond to this kind of naive, ill-educated response. The fact that dmg's post was sonaive, so ill-educated and so stupid is actually irrelevant in this case.
If somone doesn't understand why this legislation is dangerous, thinks Clause 28 is a good idea because it 'protects kids from dangerous paedophile teachers', then that someone needs just a bit more information than they have.
So in a way, dmg's dumb post is a 'good thing' (tm) because it lets us address the 'dumb' point of view.
Please think before going into a standard rant about how our freedoms are being eroded.
Mine are. I'm a UK citizen.
It is obvious to anyone even from a cursory glance at the proposed legislation, that this will affect only those who are attempting to hide some nefarious activities. Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
Nonsense, and it looks like you didn't even take a 'cursory glance'. It threatens anyone who might be suspected of having anyencrypted material on their computer, whether or not they are aware of it.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is), I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
As a UK citizen, I can tell you that, although you may not be trolling, your point of view is severely naive.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights, and it was for this reason, that our ancestors decided to leave that little island off the coast of Europe, in order to enjoy "true freedom" in the USA.
So nobody in the UK reads Slashdot? Dont be so damned US-centric, sunshine.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures. (After all the USA is not the center of the universe, even though we sometimes act like it is):-)
No YOU demonstrate your ignorance. This encroaches my freedom. Stop behaving like the only audience for Slashdot is American.
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world. The more advanced Socialist societies like Europe, and the United Kingdom, recognise that some freedoms are not absolute, and must be curbed for the greater good of the majority, or to protect the weaker members of society.
Sorry to correct you, but the UK is not Socialist, since New Labour avoids Socialism as much as it possible can. And I disagree that 'curbing freedoms' is necessarily a good ideal; freedom is the only political absolute.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Deranged drivel. We have never had the right to own hadguns, nor has their been any vote on the subject. Where do you get this bizarre idea from?
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
More drivel. There was no agreement at all. This has happened without any public consent. Stop talking crap.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental. More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Your First Amendment is under attack daily, so dont make me laugh. And just for the record, the ideas of 'consensus' and 'equality' are probably no more important over here than they are in the USA. Stop talking naive nonsense, please.
For this reason, we Americans should not jump up and down and shriek like stuck pigs with self-righteous indignation every time a foriegn culture comes up with an idea that we do not like. Instead we should take time out and consider, if these ideas have any relavence closer to home ?
Oh we're back to Slashdot as a USA-only forum are we? Sorry, sunshine, but if there's anyone Stateside or int he rest of the world interested in helping us out with this one, then they are welcome to comment.
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals, I suspect this legislation could be put to good use by our own crimebusters in the FBI and CIA, to increase their effectiveness. Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you ?
Oh yeah, the FBI and CIA dont have agendas, and neither do the UK security services. No-one innocent ever goes to jail. Policemen don't do bad things, and just because a law says they can lock you up, without trial, and there is an impossible burden of proof of innocence on the individual, then that OK. Sunshine, fuck right off. You have a lot of learning to do.
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear. It would make a change from the current circus parade of criminals, adulterors ex-movie stars and nonentities we currently have to endure, and which make us the laughing stock of the very countries and cultures we are criticizing.
Erm, get some facts will you? His name is Tony Blair, and he's our Prime Minister. We don't have a President. And Margaret Thatcher, Mussolini and Hitler all had conviction in their beliefs. That aint an automatic win.
Personally, I trust Blair about as far as I could spit a camel. And I live in the UK so I reckon Im a bit better a judge than you, who knows so bloody much about our country.
Fact is this is a serious issue. It puts innocent people at risk of arrest, and incarceration, and the onus on them to prove innocence. For the benefit of the intelligence-impaired, like dmg above, thats a VERY BAD thing.
<ASSUMPTION>The 'word description' is going to be capable of describing a page adequately, and uniquely, per page, like an MD5 digest, rather than a simple text descriptor. The latter would just be silly.</ASSUMPTION>
I can see some value to this if the page is static and likely to be relocated, rather than rewritten, or deleted, but how is this going to work if the page is, dynamically generated from a database, and the whole site is prone to reorganisation (like what Microsoft's seems to be).
It might help more if there was a way to uniquely identify snippets of content within a page, and provide a universal look-up scheme based on unique fingerprints of these 'snippets'. Although I'm sure that pouts it straight into XPointers territory, isnt it...?
And an 'opt-out' system is necessary. There are lots of reasons one might want particular content to be transient.
Not true, as far as I know. You can install directly into the UDMA/66 controller, even without the kernel patches (explained in the HPT66 Mini-HOWTO, sorry, don't have the link here right now).
Sorry, it wouldnt work on my system, either with RH6.0, RH6.1 , or the last version of Mandrake (6.5?).
Mandrake 7, however was a different matter. It detected the UDMA66 controllers on the BP6, offered to make a custom bootdisk for them , and restarted the install from that. Nice idea, but Im not sure that the SMP kernel it installed has the UDMA66 support compiled in as well. Anyone know?
Personally, I think Abit's move is a good idea, at least until 2.4 comes out...
The book isn't bad, although not as good as I'd heard, but from what I know of the film, a lot of the 'plausibility' of the other character's reponses / reactions to / impressions of the main character are stripped away by Leonardo's insistence on rewriting things so he 'gets the girl'. The protagonist is an outsider, even in paradise, and that's crucial to the plot.
The end of the book was a disappointment, IMHO. It got too far-fetched, too 'over-the-top'. Good atmosphere until then tho.
Sparse review, though, Mr Katz. Bit humdrum, bit bland.
I dont get this. I dont see a major problem. I read Slashdot for the debate and the followup on the chosen news articles. Slashdot doesnt cover all the news Im interested in, and it certainly covers news I'm not. But Im interested in its 'dipstick' effect, ie the way it reflects a slice of opinion within a particular group. I also get more from pro/con arguments on a topic than just a rehashed press release.
If the Slashdot crew say they'll maintain their own biases, rather than VA's I'll believe them. I think that the fuckwits around here spending half their time slagging off Rob etc should go build their own friggin' sites instead of bleating about Slashdot, Moderation, the source code, or whatever other facile little gripe they have.
Who cares if a Linux company owns the company which owns Slashdot. Slashdot isnt a Linux site. Its a news site. People bitch pointlessly about RedHat news anyway; now they'll bitch pointlessly about VA news instead. They bitch pointlessly about KDE vs GNOME, now some of them will bitch pointlessly about VA. They already bitch, constantly, about Slashdot, and Andover. SFW.
Slashdot is biased. It has to be, it always was. If you're 100% the bias will change, such that VA/Andover control Slashdot's news, then fuck off, start your own competitor. You bleated about the code, now take it, and go prove you can do something real with it. Just bleat there, not here.
Given that the Internet, and hence Slashdot, is a global community, why do your articles only seem to be concerned with American issues? Why are even the slightest international parallels or implications of the topics you cover just completely ignored?
This sounds pretty much like the 'server end' of printing... which is all very well for business use, but I'd like to see an attempt to address the 'desktop end'.
What I want to see is 1440 dpi support for Epson Stylus printers, including the six-colour models. Once we have drivers for the photorealistic printers, we remove another significant 'but Linux cant do X' argument from the Windows crowd. After all, even if the GIMP is made to support CMYK, we get a quality Illustrator/Freehand clone, and a decent DTP package (hmm, will that wish list be resolved Real Soon Now?), we still can't get the best possible printing out of our shiny new colour printers...
Re:From what planet am I?
on
Geeks in Suits
·
· Score: 1
Being a commited non-suit wearer, I had to respond. Okay I got the humour in the post, and this reply is maybe a bit pedantic, but I got sick a long time ago of hearing that I'd need to get a suit for interviews, to get a decent job, or whatever.
Ive never worn a suit (I'm 33), and Im never going to. Full stop. I get married this summer, and I'm dressing the way I want to for that as well. Ive never wanted to work anywhere that meant I'd need to wear a suit, and I wont compromise on that. I can dress smartly but Ive never had to wear a suit to do it.
Why do so many geeks/nerds/hackers/etc. dislike wearing suits?Or is there just a conspiracy among the media to make that seem so?;-) (And yes, I've read the jargon files, among others.)
Its probably real. But suits are nothing more than uniforms, and I'd guess that most hackers/geeks/nerds are pretty much non-conformists
It seems like suits would be much sought after for a few reasons:
1) Quality: Your OS is custom tailored, why aren't your clothes?
They are custom-tailored; to my preference for comfortable, durable clothes
2) Slickness: Your GUI is fashionable, why aren't you?
Suits have been the 'business uniform' for decades. My clothes are might not be fashionable (although I'd dispute that suits actually are..) but they do refelect my own personal style
3) Reuse: Your processes rarely raise a stink after running for days/weeks/months/years on end, but after 24hrs. those jeans and t-shirts are another story.
Actually suits tend to get worn all week, dont they? And Ive known more than one person ware the shirt under it for days on end. Meanwhile, Im grown-up enough to remember to change my shirt every day, what makes you think that hackers/nerds/geeks aren't?
4) Modularity: 2+ piece suits can load or unload modules as needed. Processor too hot? rmmod coat. Packets lost in the stream? rmmod necktie. Change in environment? insmod coat. Expecting PHB attack on port *:brainbox insmod necktie.
Too hot? (Tis in this bloody room, the Origin server acts like a massive bloody radiator) Just wear a T-shirt...
5) Efficiency: Since suits/shirts/accessories are interchangeable, there's no need to make your apparel statically linked. (Leave that space on/dev/closet for important things like hardwear^H^H^Hare)
Everything goes with black... Black boots, black combat pants, black shirt. Viola...
6) Emulation: Fool your boss, get a raise.
But I want him to love me for my mind. Plus, he rarely wears a suit anyways.
To me suits are a way of making staff into drones; interchangable lookalike units that fit into the company mechanisms. I value my independence and individuality too much to want to be part of that kind of machine. Whatever hacker/geek/nerd gene there is, in me its tied to the one that makes me want to behave, dress, think, work, believe in my terms, not somebody else's...
Quick overview of the answer, no major detail supplied...
On 2.2, you need to use the kernel patches provided by a Mr Hedrick... Find a convenient site with a mirror of the kernel, and look for a subdirectory in their called people. In that there should be a directory called Hedrick. Within that, there will be patchfiles called summat like ide.2.2.14.blah Apply the appropriate patch to a kernel source tree and build and install that kernel...
On 2.3 (and thus 2.4 when it ships) the patches are already integrated...
Looks like there's a new edition of this title due soon. Amazon have an edition listed for pubication in 'December 1999' at 30 bucks, as well as the older 1996 edition at 19.95.
The publisher Butterworth-Heinemann and the ISBN is 0139277730
Newer kernel than RH 6.1, newer drivers than RH6.1, newer utility builds than RH6.1, newer X-Server than RH6.1... et.c. Plus their use their own installer et.c.
Just because the distro is -based- around RH doesnt mean its the same, nor that it should follow the same versioning...
Strictly speaking, there are several innacuracies in the above two posts...
GCHQ was not formed until 1946. The Government Code and Cipher School (GC&CS) preceded it in 1919. In 1939, it was GC&CS staff who moved to Bletchley Park.
The machine used to help with the daily task of decrypting Enigma-coded information was called bombe, and Alan Turing (as in Turing Machine) was one of the main architects of this system. If I remember correctly Enigma was decryptable 'by hand' but it took too long to be useful until this system was invented. Bombe was an electro-mechanical system to decrease the encryption time drastically. Alan Turin later committed suicide because of intolerance towards his homosexuality.
Colossus was not built or designed at Bletchley (actually at the Post Office Research Laboratories at Dollis Hill in North London), and appears to have been designed for a different cipher system ( Lorenz SZ42). Strangely, Ive seen several dates listed for the building of Colossus, including 1939, 1941 and 1945. Im not sure which is correct, although the information at this page is, I think, most accurate.
>Open source and payed developer doesn't work. The only true open source is VOLUNTEERSOURCE.
This is such utter nonsense that its probably not worth responding to, but I feel compelled to, anyway...
Can you just remind me, dear Coward, whether or not Mr Stallman draws his unemplyment checks and codes on the side? Or is he on a salary from FSF? (or rather was he, since I seem to recall him saying he had no time to write code anymore) I could be wrong, but I guess I have to say I think its the latter. Doesnt Alan Cox work for Red Hat? Dont VA Research pay salaries for Rasterman and Mandrake? Wasn't Larry Wall working for JPL when patch, Perl et.c were first written?
You see, Mr Coward, it doesnt actually matter where the money comes from (unless its arms sales, which I personally disapprove of, but is generally minimal as a source of Open Source development funding.)
What matters is the work; what matters is the code, and the license. What matters is what they gave. Mr C., I'd put my money on both these gentlemen ('Shaver and jwz') having contributed more to Open Source last week than you've done in your life.
So what if they got stock options. You think only rock stars and film stars are allowed to make money? Gee, imagine someone having a comfortable life because they did good things for the world at large.
Someone's probably already pointed this out (although I didnt find a reference myself), but there already is a third-party 128-bit encryption add-in for Netscape Navigator and Communicator. I guess its pretty old news, but might be useful for those who hadn't heard of it... It can be found at http://www.fortify.net
My main gripe, as it were, with domain names, is the fact that, even now, American companies, institutions et.c. automatically go for.com,.org, et.c., and this causes a large part of the domain name congestion that seems to be occurring. If there had been a better way of enforcing things, it might have been better for these generic TLD suffixes (ie.com,.org)to be restricted only to international and internet-only organisations, and use.com.usa or.co.usa etc for companies whose sole 'empire' is likely to be 'local'.
It seems to me that if things had operated more logically, then I'd have been 'educated' into looking for ford.co.usa for American cars, and ford.co.uk for British, instead of immediately starting off at the generic ford.com
I'd also like to know what the difficulty seems to be with generic TLD's. I know there were seven new ones coming 'real soon now', but what happened to that? Why isn't adding even more than that a simple process? Why dont we have.news,.music,.linux or whatever?
But isn't this the case in most branches of science, engineering et.c. A small number of people develop the really radical ideas and new concepts, and everybody else works on details, enhancements, improvements, optimisation, or special cases...
From X-Ray Crystallography to building bridges to micro-surgery, the 'paradigm changes' (ugh) occur rarely, so most actual progress is made in-between those fundamental changes by the people who take the existing ideas, and adapt and modify and improve them.
There haven't been that many fundamental changes in computing anyway. Batch-jobs, multi-user systems, GUI's, the Internet. There's been a lot of futzing out the borderlines into real progress, though.
If there was one real thing I'd point at though, in terms of open-source derived innovation, its the ideas contained in Jon Udell's book 'Practical Internet Groupware' This is, even from a quick browse, a really worthwhile book that's going to have a lot of impact.
Slashdot Mirror
OK just for the sake of the argument (so, I'm bored to death debugging someone else's C++ source)
...and Ive got IRIX 6.5.7 to install on 40 machines. Not exciting....
What do you do when a law reduces your freedom to increase someone else's. In real life, I happily give up the freedom to knock people down, so that I may enjoy the freedom of not *being* knocked down.
Its a question of trade-offs. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing armaments for speed-limited cars and pedestrians, purely as an enticement to encourage good driving, but its too difficult to prevent abuse of the system. To respond though, I'd say that wanting to knock someone down (other than in a transitory 'I hate my boss' kinda way) is rarer than wanting to not be knocked down. Hence that's a plus sort of situation. Unless you want to knock someone down, and can find a willing 'victim' in which case that specific instance becomes a separate issue...
How can I make that decision if I want an *absolute* freedom? Think of it as absolute freedom in the Crowleyan sense, with the usual Wiccan proviso, to wit, Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law, An' It Harm No-one. ie You can -allow- people freedoms that might impinge upon your own freedom, but you cannot demand to impinge upon theirs. Not can they damnd to impinge on yours without consent.
The problem is that the word "freedom" is so soaked in various agendas, that it has almost lost all real meaning. Absolutely.
Not that maximizing your personal definition of it is a bad philosophy though. That's what happens when you let thirteen year-old kids read Robert Anton Wilson :)
Yawn. Learn a little more about the UK's governmental system, dolt. The Queen's token position in British legislation is to automatically rubber-stamp whatever Acts are passed by Parliament.
Maybe you could support your position on how free you are by quoting Nixon, or Hoover, or one of those other good ol' boys mandate your position in the 'free world'.
If its so goddamn free, why do you need a Fifth Amendment? Or a right to bear arms? Oh yeah, you're so sure you live in a free society, you have to bitch about keeping guns to protect you from your wonderful government. Aye right, my arse, as we say in Glasgow.
Its a (probably) odd, but very personal viewpoint, and probably, my reference to it was misleading in the context of my original post.
Whether or not dmg's post wasa troll, it raised important issues. John Q Public does tend to turn around and say "If its only the bad guys at risk, then this is a good thing".
If you want to fight legislation like this, you have to be able to respond to this kind of naive, ill-educated response. The fact that dmg's post was sonaive, so ill-educated and so stupid is actually irrelevant in this case.
If somone doesn't understand why this legislation is dangerous, thinks Clause 28 is a good idea because it 'protects kids from dangerous paedophile teachers', then that someone needs just a bit more information than they have.
So in a way, dmg's dumb post is a 'good thing' (tm) because it lets us address the 'dumb' point of view.
Please think before going into a standard rant about how our freedoms are being eroded.
Mine are. I'm a UK citizen.
It is obvious to anyone even from a cursory glance at the proposed legislation, that this will affect only those who are attempting to hide some nefarious activities. Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom.
Nonsense, and it looks like you didn't even take a 'cursory glance'. It threatens anyone who might be suspected of having anyencrypted material on their computer, whether or not they are aware of it.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is), I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
As a UK citizen, I can tell you that, although you may not be trolling, your point of view is severely naive.
Also let us not forget that although freedom of expression and democracy are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the British subject enjoys no such rights, and it was for this reason, that our ancestors decided to leave that little island off the coast of Europe, in order to enjoy "true freedom" in the USA.
So nobody in the UK reads Slashdot? Dont be so damned US-centric, sunshine.
The point is, that by criticising this law, you are demonstrating your ignorance of other cultures. (After all the USA is not the center of the universe, even though we sometimes act like it is) :-)
No YOU demonstrate your ignorance. This encroaches my freedom. Stop behaving like the only audience for Slashdot is American.
Freedom of speech and democracy are not the "accepted norm" in every country in the world. The more advanced Socialist societies like Europe, and the United Kingdom, recognise that some freedoms are not absolute, and must be curbed for the greater good of the majority, or to protect the weaker members of society.
Sorry to correct you, but the UK is not Socialist, since New Labour avoids Socialism as much as it possible can. And I disagree that 'curbing freedoms' is necessarily a good ideal; freedom is the only political absolute.
For example, recently the subjects of Her Majesty democratically decided to give up their rights to own handguns, since they recognised that that freedom was not worth having, since it would inevitably lead to crazed gunmen running amok.
Deranged drivel. We have never had the right to own hadguns, nor has their been any vote on the subject. Where do you get this bizarre idea from?
Her Majesty's subjects have also agreed to being monitored by thousands of public video cameras whenever they are in a public space. Again the aim is not to erode their freedoms, but rather to protect them from antisocial elements.
More drivel. There was no agreement at all. This has happened without any public consent. Stop talking crap.
Freedom of expression is all very well, in a culture (like the US) which has had over 200 years to adapt to it, but for ancient cultures like the British, and Europeans, such ideas are not fundamental. More important is the idea of a consensus, and even more important, of equality
Your First Amendment is under attack daily, so dont make me laugh. And just for the record, the ideas of 'consensus' and 'equality' are probably no more important over here than they are in the USA. Stop talking naive nonsense, please.
For this reason, we Americans should not jump up and down and shriek like stuck pigs with self-righteous indignation every time a foriegn culture comes up with an idea that we do not like. Instead we should take time out and consider, if these ideas have any relavence closer to home ?
Oh we're back to Slashdot as a USA-only forum are we? Sorry, sunshine, but if there's anyone Stateside or int he rest of the world interested in helping us out with this one, then they are welcome to comment.
Given that this new law seems to give the authorities the power they need to better hunt down and prosecute net criminals, I suspect this legislation could be put to good use by our own crimebusters in the FBI and CIA, to increase their effectiveness. Just think, if you have nothing to hide, why would this legislation worry you ?
Oh yeah, the FBI and CIA dont have agendas, and neither do the UK security services. No-one innocent ever goes to jail. Policemen don't do bad things, and just because a law says they can lock you up, without trial, and there is an impossible burden of proof of innocence on the individual, then that OK. Sunshine, fuck right off. You have a lot of learning to do.
The USA could use a politician with true conviction of his beliefs, like the Presdent of the UK, Tony Blear. It would make a change from the current circus parade of criminals, adulterors ex-movie stars and nonentities we currently have to endure, and which make us the laughing stock of the very countries and cultures we are criticizing.
Erm, get some facts will you? His name is Tony Blair, and he's our Prime Minister. We don't have a President. And Margaret Thatcher, Mussolini and Hitler all had conviction in their beliefs. That aint an automatic win.
Personally, I trust Blair about as far as I could spit a camel. And I live in the UK so I reckon Im a bit better a judge than you, who knows so bloody much about our country.
Fact is this is a serious issue. It puts innocent people at risk of arrest, and incarceration, and the onus on them to prove innocence. For the benefit of the intelligence-impaired, like dmg above, thats a VERY BAD thing.
<ASSUMPTION>The 'word description' is going to be capable of describing a page adequately, and uniquely, per page, like an MD5 digest, rather than a simple text descriptor. The latter would just be silly.</ASSUMPTION>
I can see some value to this if the page is static and likely to be relocated, rather than rewritten, or deleted, but how is this going to work if the page is, dynamically generated from a database, and the whole site is prone to reorganisation (like what Microsoft's seems to be).
It might help more if there was a way to uniquely identify snippets of content within a page, and provide a universal look-up scheme based on unique fingerprints of these 'snippets'. Although I'm sure that pouts it straight into XPointers territory, isnt it...?
And an 'opt-out' system is necessary. There are lots of reasons one might want particular content to be transient.
Sorry, it wouldnt work on my system, either with RH6.0, RH6.1 , or the last version of Mandrake (6.5?).
Mandrake 7, however was a different matter. It detected the UDMA66 controllers on the BP6, offered to make a custom bootdisk for them , and restarted the install from that. Nice idea, but Im not sure that the SMP kernel it installed has the UDMA66 support compiled in as well. Anyone know?
Personally, I think Abit's move is a good idea, at least until 2.4 comes out...
The book isn't bad, although not as good as I'd heard, but from what I know of the film, a lot of the 'plausibility' of the other character's reponses / reactions to / impressions of the main character are stripped away by Leonardo's insistence on rewriting things so he 'gets the girl'. The protagonist is an outsider, even in paradise, and that's crucial to the plot.
The end of the book was a disappointment, IMHO. It got too far-fetched, too 'over-the-top'. Good atmosphere until then tho.
Sparse review, though, Mr Katz. Bit humdrum, bit bland.
This is the 'foundation' level package, and is a free download. Also available for Windows and Solaris.
Thought it said 'Nano Lego'. Now -that- would be cool :)
I dont get this. I dont see a major problem. I read Slashdot for the debate and the followup on the chosen news articles. Slashdot doesnt cover all the news Im interested in, and it certainly covers news I'm not. But Im interested in its 'dipstick' effect, ie the way it reflects a slice of opinion within a particular group. I also get more from pro/con arguments on a topic than just a rehashed press release.
If the Slashdot crew say they'll maintain their own biases, rather than VA's I'll believe them. I think that the fuckwits around here spending half their time slagging off Rob etc should go build their own friggin' sites instead of bleating about Slashdot, Moderation, the source code, or whatever other facile little gripe they have.
Who cares if a Linux company owns the company which owns Slashdot. Slashdot isnt a Linux site. Its a news site. People bitch pointlessly about RedHat news anyway; now they'll bitch pointlessly about VA news instead. They bitch pointlessly about KDE vs GNOME, now some of them will bitch pointlessly about VA. They already bitch, constantly, about Slashdot, and Andover. SFW.
Slashdot is biased. It has to be, it always was. If you're 100% the bias will change, such that VA/Andover control Slashdot's news, then fuck off, start your own competitor. You bleated about the code, now take it, and go prove you can do something real with it. Just bleat there, not here.
Given that the Internet, and hence Slashdot, is a global community, why do your articles only seem to be concerned with American issues? Why are even the slightest international parallels or implications of the topics you cover just completely ignored?
This sounds pretty much like the 'server end' of printing... which is all very well for business use, but I'd like to see an attempt to address the 'desktop end'.
What I want to see is 1440 dpi support for Epson Stylus printers, including the six-colour models. Once we have drivers for the photorealistic printers, we remove another significant 'but Linux cant do X' argument from the Windows crowd. After all, even if the GIMP is made to support CMYK, we get a quality Illustrator/Freehand clone, and a decent DTP package (hmm, will that wish list be resolved Real Soon Now?), we still can't get the best possible printing out of our shiny new colour printers...
Being a commited non-suit wearer, I had to respond. Okay I got the humour in the post, and this reply is maybe a bit pedantic, but I got sick a long time ago of hearing that I'd need to get a suit for interviews, to get a decent job, or whatever.
Ive never worn a suit (I'm 33), and Im never going to. Full stop. I get married this summer, and I'm dressing the way I want to for that as well. Ive never wanted to work anywhere that meant I'd need to wear a suit, and I wont compromise on that. I can dress smartly but Ive never had to wear a suit to do it.
Why do so many geeks/nerds/hackers/etc. dislike wearing suits?Or is there just a conspiracy among the media to make that seem so? ;-) (And yes, I've read the jargon files, among others.)
Its probably real. But suits are nothing more than uniforms, and I'd guess that most hackers/geeks/nerds are pretty much non-conformists
It seems like suits would be much sought after for a few reasons:
1) Quality: Your OS is custom tailored, why aren't your clothes?
They are custom-tailored; to my preference for comfortable, durable clothes
2) Slickness: Your GUI is fashionable, why aren't you?
Suits have been the 'business uniform' for decades. My clothes are might not be fashionable (although I'd dispute that suits actually are..) but they do refelect my own personal style
3) Reuse: Your processes rarely raise a stink after running for days/weeks/months/years on end, but after 24hrs. those jeans and t-shirts are another story.
Actually suits tend to get worn all week, dont they? And Ive known more than one person ware the shirt under it for days on end. Meanwhile, Im grown-up enough to remember to change my shirt every day, what makes you think that hackers/nerds/geeks aren't?
4) Modularity: 2+ piece suits can load or unload modules as needed. Processor too hot? rmmod coat. Packets lost in the stream? rmmod necktie. Change in environment? insmod coat. Expecting PHB attack on port *:brainbox insmod necktie.
Too hot? (Tis in this bloody room, the Origin server acts like a massive bloody radiator) Just wear a T-shirt...
5) Efficiency: Since suits/shirts/accessories are interchangeable, there's no need to make your apparel statically linked. (Leave that space on /dev/closet for important things like hardwear^H^H^Hare)
Everything goes with black... Black boots, black combat pants, black shirt. Viola...
6) Emulation: Fool your boss, get a raise.
But I want him to love me for my mind. Plus, he rarely wears a suit anyways.
To me suits are a way of making staff into drones; interchangable lookalike units that fit into the company mechanisms. I value my independence and individuality too much to want to be part of that kind of machine. Whatever hacker/geek/nerd gene there is, in me its tied to the one that makes me want to behave, dress, think, work, believe in my terms, not somebody else's...
Quick overview of the answer, no major detail supplied...
On 2.2, you need to use the kernel patches provided by a Mr Hedrick... Find a convenient site with a mirror of the kernel, and look for a subdirectory in their called people. In that there should be a directory called Hedrick. Within that, there will be patchfiles called summat like ide.2.2.14.blah Apply the appropriate patch to a kernel source tree and build and install that kernel...
On 2.3 (and thus 2.4 when it ships) the patches are already integrated...
Looks like there's a new edition of this title due soon. Amazon have an edition listed for pubication in 'December 1999' at 30 bucks, as well as the older 1996 edition at 19.95.
The publisher Butterworth-Heinemann and the ISBN is 0139277730
Newer kernel than RH 6.1, newer drivers than RH6.1, newer utility builds than RH6.1, newer X-Server than RH6.1... et.c. Plus their use their own installer et.c.
Just because the distro is -based- around RH doesnt mean its the same, nor that it should follow the same versioning...
Methinks KS will be tied up with Clerks, the Animated Series, and then Clerks 2 for some time to come...
For more Kevin Smith info try here
Strictly speaking, there are several innacuracies in the above two posts...
GCHQ was not formed until 1946. The Government Code and Cipher School (GC&CS) preceded it in 1919. In 1939, it was GC&CS staff who moved to Bletchley Park.
The machine used to help with the daily task of decrypting Enigma-coded information was called bombe, and Alan Turing (as in Turing Machine) was one of the main architects of this system. If I remember correctly Enigma was decryptable 'by hand' but it took too long to be useful until this system was invented. Bombe was an electro-mechanical system to decrease the encryption time drastically. Alan Turin later committed suicide because of intolerance towards his homosexuality.
Colossus was not built or designed at Bletchley (actually at the Post Office Research Laboratories at Dollis Hill in North London), and appears to have been designed for a different cipher system ( Lorenz SZ42). Strangely, Ive seen several dates listed for the building of Colossus, including 1939, 1941 and 1945. Im not sure which is correct, although the information at this page is, I think, most accurate.
There's also some "more info on Bletchley Park.
>Open source and payed developer doesn't work. The only true open source is VOLUNTEERSOURCE.
This is such utter nonsense that its probably not worth responding to, but I feel compelled to, anyway...
Can you just remind me, dear Coward, whether or not Mr Stallman draws his unemplyment checks and codes on the side? Or is he on a salary from FSF? (or rather was he, since I seem to recall him saying he had no time to write code anymore) I could be wrong, but I guess I have to say I think its the latter. Doesnt Alan Cox work for Red Hat? Dont VA Research pay salaries for Rasterman and Mandrake? Wasn't Larry Wall working for JPL when patch, Perl et.c were first written?
You see, Mr Coward, it doesnt actually matter where the money comes from (unless its arms sales, which I personally disapprove of, but is generally minimal as a source of Open Source development funding.)
What matters is the work; what matters is the code, and the license. What matters is what they gave. Mr C., I'd put my money on both these gentlemen ('Shaver and jwz') having contributed more to Open Source last week than you've done in your life.
So what if they got stock options. You think only rock stars and film stars are allowed to make money? Gee, imagine someone having a comfortable life because they did good things for the world at large.
Someone's probably already pointed this out (although I didnt find a reference myself), but there already is a third-party 128-bit encryption add-in for Netscape Navigator and Communicator. I guess its pretty old news, but might be useful for those who hadn't heard of it... It can be found at http://www.fortify.net
My main gripe, as it were, with domain names, is the fact that, even now, American companies, institutions et.c. automatically go for .com, .org, et.c., and this causes a large part of the domain name congestion that seems to be occurring. If there had been a better way of enforcing things, it might have been better for these generic TLD suffixes (ie .com, .org)to be restricted only to international and internet-only organisations, and use .com.usa or .co.usa etc for companies whose sole 'empire' is likely to be 'local'.
It seems to me that if things had operated more logically, then I'd have been 'educated' into looking for ford.co.usa for American cars, and ford.co.uk for British, instead of immediately starting off at the generic ford.com
I'd also like to know what the difficulty seems to be with generic TLD's. I know there were seven new ones coming 'real soon now', but what happened to that? Why isn't adding even more than that a simple process? Why dont we have .news, .music, .linux or whatever?
White Rabbit
Just means they need more funding from that nice Mr Clinton person.
Or are they just letting us know that they're not as scary as we think they are so it's all right, we can just forget about them?
White Rabbit
But isn't this the case in most branches of science, engineering et.c. A small number of people develop the really radical ideas and new concepts, and everybody else works on details, enhancements, improvements, optimisation, or special cases...
From X-Ray Crystallography to building bridges to micro-surgery, the 'paradigm changes' (ugh) occur rarely, so most actual progress is made in-between those fundamental changes by the people who take the existing ideas, and adapt and modify and improve them.
There haven't been that many fundamental changes in computing anyway. Batch-jobs, multi-user systems, GUI's, the Internet. There's been a lot of futzing out the borderlines into real progress, though.
If there was one real thing I'd point at though, in terms of open-source derived innovation, its the ideas contained in Jon Udell's book 'Practical Internet Groupware' This is, even from a quick browse, a really worthwhile book that's going to have a lot of impact.
White Rabbit
Ooooh the irony.
Grammar errors by this AC:
Leading capitals missed on all sentences.
"moderator's" used instead of plural form "moderator"
Third sentence is not correctly formed.