Legally speaking, Slashdot has every right to edit, copy, repost, etc any post on this forum. There is no dispute about this (as far as I can tell), rather it is the problem of credit.
Linus allows anyone to manipulate his source freely and advocates it. Though, he would like to be remembered for his achievements and efforts. He is not doing it for royalty values or anything of that sort, rather just giving credit where credit is due. If this isn't true, then why is there, as another example, a list of frequent contributors to the GNU Project at gnu.org?
I believe this applies to publically stated ideals. Sure, share them, preach them, or even ridicule them. Just try to remember where you gained them...
Re:Is it just me.. or is this incredibly silly?
on
Pay Lars
·
· Score: 1
Its a joke, a farce, a mockery, a parody, a satire, a sham.
from the site: "Until I can pay for my groceries with a pirated MP3 file, I think that Q Prime's position is nothing but hype, and does nothing to endear Metallica or its associates with their fans."
The results are pretty incongrous considering the first poster was merely mocking the (ever so annoying) commercial advertisements.
In the commercials, some person is asking a man dressed up as a butler question after question in the format, "Jeeves, how do I tie my shoes?", "Jeeves, what is a pencil?", "Jeeves, what is 1+1?", etc.
So it would be expected that entering a question using the same format would yeild some expected results.
On the contrary, every result pertained to "What is Ask Jeeves?" or "How do I use Ask Jeeves?"
That way you just got alot of copying and translating instead of coding.
That's like saying templates are more work than overloading a function for every possible data type.
As stated in an earlier post, if the page updates are as frequent as every hour, that will quickly become an intense amount of overhaul.
I believe the most efficient approach would be to code a single application that took a native language as input and generated the alternate language pages automatically. I would assume such an application already exists. Perhaps open source?
A search on both OU's and OSU's name databases yeilded an OSU result:
Ferrari, Mauro
Unique name at OSU = Ferrari.5 Email addresses: Email forwarded to = ferrari@chopin.bme.ohio-state.edu Published address = Ferrari.5@osu.edu Current status = Currently employed Department (College) = Biomedical Engineering (College Of Engineering)
FUD/fuhd/ An acronym invented by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software.
but when you hear it on/. it is almost always in reference to microsoft and the evil leader bill gates.
you are going way out of your way to prevent netscape from overwriting your preference file. If you close it first, then edit, netscape will read from your newly edited pref file.
It's easy. Just choose "Yes" when they ask you if you have ever purchased anything online, and answer "Within 3 months" for most of the "Are you planning to buy Product X?" Oh, and specify a high income.:)
Does this not defeat the whole purpose of giving away anything? I have not been to the freePC sight nor have I looked into the cause, but isn't free distribution done with a humanitarian goal? If you can't afford a PC, we will give you one. The fact they are using advertising seems to be an hopeless way to compensate, in that if you can in fact afford a PC, but sought out a free one regardless of how obsolete it is, what makes the distributor think you have any interest whatsoever in buying anything considering you just took a hand out. If, on the other hand, you cannot afford one: again, what makes the distributor think you will be able to spend money? This appears to be a lost cause for the distributor.
Free PC's are a good thing in my mind for those who are unable to purchase one themselves, but to benefit both ends of the deal, I think a new method of compensation needs to be considered. Perhaps one not as annoying, and as hopeless, as banners.
It is more accurate to report that it is "the most distant object yet discovered".
Even then, it is a bit misleading to the average person. Although it is clear to me what your meaning is, the fact that even some of the elite slashdot readers (hehe) were confused proves that the unintelligable person would too most likely be confused (hows that for blatant stereotyping). We have "discovered" that the universe is much larger than the radial distance of this newly found quasar (if you still believe we are the center of the universe) through mathematics, but we have visually seen the quasar which is the furthest object we have seen (seeing apparently is believing). So, the phrase of choice in the article is valid in that "known" is again due to "seeing is believing." If clarity is what you are going for, then "is the most distanst object we have seen with our eyes" would pretty much suffice for any literate person.
The idea of categorizing CD's is ridiculous if you asked me. Noone did, but thats the beauty of boards like this.
When I enter a CD distributor, I am almost always in search of a particular CD. I have to make a random guess as to how they categorized that particular CD. I then have to walk up and down the isles to find the appropriate letter. If I fail to guess correctly, I have to rinse and repeat (multiple times depending on how large the place is) This could have been avoided had they categorized EVERY CD in stock alphabetically. No trial-error. Go to 'p' for 'phish' and vuala.
The arbitrary categorization should be left to the computers, places like Best Buy have, where you can search by genre, artist, etc. This saves the distributor, and the consumer lots of time as the consumer doesn't have to run up and down 20 isles looking for a CD, and the distributor doesn't have to physically move 10,000 CD's in hopes of recategorization. Simply a copy/paste (cuz we all know major corporations have given in to m$). Furthermore, they have a better opurtunity to push sales by introducing such things as "Purchasers of Phish: Rift also purchased Medeski Martin and Wood and Bela Fleck and the Flecktones
Back on topic, Katz is, in the same way, making an arbitrary claim in regards to categories, or 'continents' of the internet. This is ok because it allows him to push sale... err, because the internet is already categorized in alphab... There is no correlation.:)
Allow each Tom to exist in society individually (preferably not interacting) for X amount of years and then bring them all together to be tested. This would give us a greater concept of environment as stimuli.
And I bet all the Toms would have one hell of a conversation.
My intention of metioning a successful mouse transport was that only AFTER a successful mouse tranport (hell, even a successful elephant transport to make up for the physical complexity of a human compared to a mouse) can we theorize my above statements.
Sure it made sense in the fictional world, but until the day we actually build a transport that can disassemble and reassemble anything flawlessly larger than a proton will we know (well, "have any inkling" to be safe) whether a "soul" (I'd prefer to call it an "alternate substance permitting conciousness" as "soul" has too many biases connected to it) exists or not. If we create said transport and attempt our first test on a human (I won't even go into the moot controversy of whether it is safe to compare a successful result of a mouse transport to a human transport as many of you humans think we are a superior beings beyond our mental capabilities) and the test subject dematerializes at point A, and rematerializes at point B only to drop dead can we theorize that the link between our brain substance and the concious substance has been broken halting the life function of the subject. If on the other hand a human transport is successful, we can also then theorize that there is no alternate substance leading us to believe that humans are['t] anything more than the sum of their parts.
When we reach a point where computing power defeats that of the human brain (according to the article, by 2050 a $1000 computer of today's standards will have the combined processing power of all humans on earth) and when our study of this theory advances to the point where we have mastered all aspects of this theory, a virtual microcosm of society will eventually begin to be constructed. The article begins with a probable interaction in given virtual world. During the alpha stages, multiple human brains will most likely already be 'uploaded' and functional in cpu's by then and therefore test subjects will experience the first interactions in the newly created virtual world.
This will plausibly only lead to one thing - the human body becoming obsolete. Therefore the idea of the matrix applied to this will need to altered.
Assuming society is being run in the same manner at this period in time, the government will without doubt take into their hands sole control of it. The effects of this are trivial.
One possible effect is as follows:
Humans become so accustomed to this, per se, matrix that come the birth of a new child, parents will be presented with an obvious option:
1. Allow child to live naturally in the substance world or
2. Freeze child, and scan/upload them into the matrix
Yeilding endless theoretical questions.
Who would maintain this matrix? Would the human race become extinct in the substance world and live therein digitally? If this matrix becomes required, would there exist only those existing eternals with no further births as the body has become obsolete? How would the microcosm be controlled internally?
My views are obviously wild with no way of giving them any credibility.
Wild as they may seem, they are undoubtfully valid
disclaimer: I just now read the article and my thoughts are running pretty wild so they are not organized or even well thought out:) This is simply my reaction.
Mr. Cracker X cracks the encryption of Corporate Product Y and hacks an app to exploit it. Cracker X then compiles a web site dedicated to the source code but does not present it as a crack utility.
In actuality, he states that he has written a story in the c language about foo and his adventures in bar, and posts the source on the same page.
This next part is trivial, but say he then adds as a later note that someone who enjoyed the adventures of foo attempted to compile it and realized that a.out can be applied to crack the encryption of Corporate Product Y.
Where does freedom of speech come into play here? All Cracker X claimed to do was put sequences of characters on a web page to be read as a story (this may sound rediculous, but I'm sure many of you have read the parody written in c posted here on slashdot, IIRC)
I have had no experience with the app of topic and I am not even sure if this is relevent. But if he had presented the source as text rather than as a binary, would he still be liable?
I apologize if this has already been debated on/. before as I haven't the time to sift through the archives. Please redirect me if so.
Apparently you failed to notice the point about the thousand(s) of unsatisfied customers on AOL's own messages boards.
Your machine MAY have survived this attack. I say MAY simply becuase its effects possibly haven't shown themselves blatantly YET (such as you haven't executed the precise protocol to yeild such unsatisfactory results).
This does _not_ mean that multiple others are suffering from AOL's v5.0's installation tactics.
I would assume your machine is running the appropriate OS to handle the file overwrites that 5.0 does simply by a click of a mouse.
Take into account those running an OS which won't comply with such hidden installations.
Furthermore, this is AOL. If one is the regisered owner of the upgrade, you must acknowlegde the stereotype of the basic AOL user. (This disregards AOL users who happen to be AOL users by default, such as those home from college with parents naive enough to seek such control from AOL).
You say that they have the OPTION. Allow me to describe ONLY those AOL users who I have come into personal contact with. The average computer illiterate user who have surcomed(sp?) to the monopolized adverts of AOL. Those who trust the higher power simply becuase they are the dominant figure in the world of ISP.
When such user see's would [you] like to use AOL 5.0 for all email, news, www, ftp, they put sole trust in this dominant figure simply because they have no prior knowledge of the acronym "ftp."
Therefore, by clicking "yes," they have trusted AOL to manipulate their files in a respectable manner as to not corrupt any prior decisions on their part.
Unless they RTFM (which, according to my personal experience with the average AOL user, of course) they are oblivious to the blatant atack that AOL is undoing to their machine. Even IF they take it upon themselves to RTFM, they will not completely (or at all) understand the complexity of the explanation given to them in techno-babble.
So if you truly believe that the average AOL user has any clue whatsoever what is happening to their machine, then more power to you. Otherwise, thank you for being objective.
Let us not forget that AOL's own message board is apparently filled with complaints with people who even know what a fricken "message board" is!
Due to their prior installations of AOL upgrades, they are simply basing their judgement of clicking "yes" on what has happened in the past.
This is without a doubt a shock to all AOL users (despite those naive enough to have no idea why their machines are crashing constantly enough to the point where they give up on computers all together - which has no beneficial aspect on our society whatsoever, unless of course you are that bastard on IRC who answers well thought out respectable questions with RTFM, no matter how simple the answer is.)
Slashdot Mirror
edit, copy, repost, etc any post on this forum.
There is no dispute about this (as far as I can
tell), rather it is the problem of credit.
Linus allows anyone to manipulate his source
freely and advocates it. Though, he would like to
be remembered for his achievements and efforts. He
is not doing it for royalty values or anything of
that sort, rather just giving credit where credit
is due. If this isn't true, then why is there, as
another example, a list of frequent contributors
to the GNU Project at gnu.org?
I believe this applies to publically stated
ideals. Sure, share them, preach them, or even
ridicule them. Just try to remember where you
gained them...
If you click the Read More link, it reveals this.
from the site:
"Until I can pay for my groceries with a pirated MP3 file, I think that Q Prime's position is nothing but hype, and does nothing to endear Metallica or its associates with their fans."
In the commercials, some person is asking a man dressed up as a butler question after question in the format, "Jeeves, how do I tie my shoes?", "Jeeves, what is a pencil?", "Jeeves, what is 1+1?", etc.
So it would be expected that entering a question using the same format would yeild some expected results.
On the contrary, every result pertained to "What is Ask Jeeves?" or "How do I use Ask Jeeves?"
Then again, who uses AskJeeves anyway...
www.google.com
That's like saying templates are more work than overloading a function for every possible data type.
As stated in an earlier post, if the page updates are as frequent as every hour, that will quickly become an intense amount of overhaul.
I believe the most efficient approach would be to code a single application that took a native language as input and generated the alternate language pages automatically. I would assume such an application already exists. Perhaps open source?
Hell, if William Shatner advocated it, its gotta be cool, right? right? kidding...
As far as I know napster is banned here (as I couldn't connect to the registration server when I initially ran the client).
So speaking for my school, it appears to be a matter of bandwidth rather than a matter of legality.
True... true.
Ferrari, Mauro
Unique name at OSU = Ferrari.5
Email addresses: Email forwarded to = ferrari@chopin.bme.ohio-state.edu
Published address = Ferrari.5@osu.edu
Current status = Currently employed
Department (College) = Biomedical Engineering (College Of Engineering)
but when you hear it on /. it is almost always in reference to microsoft and the evil leader bill gates.
close netscape, edit, reopen netscape.
you are going way out of your way to prevent netscape from overwriting your preference file. If you close it first, then edit, netscape will read from your newly edited pref file.
Does this not defeat the whole purpose of giving away anything? I have not been to the freePC sight nor have I looked into the cause, but isn't free distribution done with a humanitarian goal? If you can't afford a PC, we will give you one. The fact they are using advertising seems to be an hopeless way to compensate, in that if you can in fact afford a PC, but sought out a free one regardless of how obsolete it is, what makes the distributor think you have any interest whatsoever in buying anything considering you just took a hand out. If, on the other hand, you cannot afford one: again, what makes the distributor think you will be able to spend money? This appears to be a lost cause for the distributor.
Free PC's are a good thing in my mind for those who are unable to purchase one themselves, but to benefit both ends of the deal, I think a new method of compensation needs to be considered. Perhaps one not as annoying, and as hopeless, as banners.
Even then, it is a bit misleading to the average person. Although it is clear to me what your meaning is, the fact that even some of the elite slashdot readers (hehe) were confused proves that the unintelligable person would too most likely be confused (hows that for blatant stereotyping). We have "discovered" that the universe is much larger than the radial distance of this newly found quasar (if you still believe we are the center of the universe) through mathematics, but we have visually seen the quasar which is the furthest object we have seen (seeing apparently is believing). So, the phrase of choice in the article is valid in that "known" is again due to "seeing is believing." If clarity is what you are going for, then "is the most distanst object we have seen with our eyes" would pretty much suffice for any literate person.
or not *shrug*
Just turn on your television :)
10 percent of that black/white static you see is caused by photons left over from the big bang.
well he did create the internet didn't he?
When I enter a CD distributor, I am almost always in search of a particular CD. I have to make a random guess as to how they categorized that particular CD. I then have to walk up and down the isles to find the appropriate letter. If I fail to guess correctly, I have to rinse and repeat (multiple times depending on how large the place is) This could have been avoided had they categorized EVERY CD in stock alphabetically. No trial-error. Go to 'p' for 'phish' and vuala.
The arbitrary categorization should be left to the computers, places like Best Buy have, where you can search by genre, artist, etc. This saves the distributor, and the consumer lots of time as the consumer doesn't have to run up and down 20 isles looking for a CD, and the distributor doesn't have to physically move 10,000 CD's in hopes of recategorization. Simply a copy/paste (cuz we all know major corporations have given in to m$). Furthermore, they have a better opurtunity to push sales by introducing such things as "Purchasers of Phish: Rift also purchased Medeski Martin and Wood and Bela Fleck and the Flecktones
Back on topic, Katz is, in the same way, making an arbitrary claim in regards to categories, or 'continents' of the internet. This is ok because it allows him to push sale... err, because the internet is already categorized in alphab... There is no correlation. :)
Allow each Tom to exist in society individually (preferably not interacting) for X amount of years and then bring them all together to be tested. This would give us a greater concept of environment as stimuli.
And I bet all the Toms would have one hell of a conversation.
My intention of metioning a successful mouse transport was that only AFTER a successful mouse tranport (hell, even a successful elephant transport to make up for the physical complexity of a human compared to a mouse) can we theorize my above statements.
sorry for the second post.
Sure it made sense in the fictional world, but until the day we actually build a transport that can disassemble and reassemble anything flawlessly larger than a proton will we know (well, "have any inkling" to be safe) whether a "soul" (I'd prefer to call it an "alternate substance permitting conciousness" as "soul" has too many biases connected to it) exists or not. If we create said transport and attempt our first test on a human (I won't even go into the moot controversy of whether it is safe to compare a successful result of a mouse transport to a human transport as many of you humans think we are a superior beings beyond our mental capabilities) and the test subject dematerializes at point A, and rematerializes at point B only to drop dead can we theorize that the link between our brain substance and the concious substance has been broken halting the life function of the subject. If on the other hand a human transport is successful, we can also then theorize that there is no alternate substance leading us to believe that humans are['t] anything more than the sum of their parts.
When we reach a point where computing power defeats that of the human brain (according to the article, by 2050 a $1000 computer of today's standards will have the combined processing power of all humans on earth) and when our study of this theory advances to the point where we have mastered all aspects of this theory, a virtual microcosm of society will eventually begin to be constructed. The article begins with a probable interaction in given virtual world. During the alpha stages, multiple human brains will most likely already be 'uploaded' and functional in cpu's by then and therefore test subjects will experience the first interactions in the newly created virtual world.
This will plausibly only lead to one thing - the human body becoming obsolete. Therefore the idea of the matrix applied to this will need to altered.
Assuming society is being run in the same manner at this period in time, the government will without doubt take into their hands sole control of it. The effects of this are trivial.
One possible effect is as follows:
Humans become so accustomed to this, per se, matrix that come the birth of a new child, parents will be presented with an obvious option:
Yeilding endless theoretical questions.
Who would maintain this matrix?
Would the human race become extinct in the substance world and live therein digitally?
If this matrix becomes required, would there exist only those existing eternals with no further births as the body has become obsolete?
How would the microcosm be controlled internally?
My views are obviously wild with no way of giving them any credibility.
Wild as they may seem, they are undoubtfully valid
disclaimer: I just now read the article and my thoughts are running pretty wild so they are not organized or even well thought out :) This is simply my reaction.
Mr. Cracker X cracks the encryption of Corporate Product Y and hacks an app to exploit it. Cracker X then compiles a web site dedicated to the source code but does not present it as a crack utility.
In actuality, he states that he has written a story in the c language about foo and his adventures in bar, and posts the source on the same page.
This next part is trivial, but say he then adds as a later note that someone who enjoyed the adventures of foo attempted to compile it and realized that a.out can be applied to crack the encryption of Corporate Product Y.
Where does freedom of speech come into play here? All Cracker X claimed to do was put sequences of characters on a web page to be read as a story (this may sound rediculous, but I'm sure many of you have read the parody written in c posted here on slashdot, IIRC)
I have had no experience with the app of topic and I am not even sure if this is relevent. But if he had presented the source as text rather than as a binary, would he still be liable?
I apologize if this has already been debated on /. before as I haven't the time to sift through the archives. Please redirect me if so.
universities should be truthful and rename Women's Studies as Lesbian Studies.
Perhaps you would like to contact her:
Phone: 602-542-3255
E-mail: jmcgrath@azleg.state.az.us
or... "Perhaps she is just insane" -Sheila Bapat
Why do I have trouble using the software if I have AOL 5.0 installed?
Welcome to the new addition to ISP based FAQ's all over the internet.
"Danger Will Robinson" didn't hint you to what they are really suppose to be?
Your machine MAY have survived this attack. I say MAY simply becuase its effects possibly haven't shown themselves blatantly YET (such as you haven't executed the precise protocol to yeild such unsatisfactory results).
This does _not_ mean that multiple others are suffering from AOL's v5.0's installation tactics.
I would assume your machine is running the appropriate OS to handle the file overwrites that 5.0 does simply by a click of a mouse.
Take into account those running an OS which won't comply with such hidden installations.
Furthermore, this is AOL. If one is the regisered owner of the upgrade, you must acknowlegde the stereotype of the basic AOL user. (This disregards AOL users who happen to be AOL users by default, such as those home from college with parents naive enough to seek such control from AOL).
You say that they have the OPTION. Allow me to describe ONLY those AOL users who I have come into personal contact with. The average computer illiterate user who have surcomed(sp?) to the monopolized adverts of AOL. Those who trust the higher power simply becuase they are the dominant figure in the world of ISP.
When such user see's would [you] like to use AOL 5.0 for all email, news, www, ftp, they put sole trust in this dominant figure simply because they have no prior knowledge of the acronym "ftp."
Therefore, by clicking "yes," they have trusted AOL to manipulate their files in a respectable manner as to not corrupt any prior decisions on their part.
Unless they RTFM (which, according to my personal experience with the average AOL user, of course) they are oblivious to the blatant atack that AOL is undoing to their machine. Even IF they take it upon themselves to RTFM, they will not completely (or at all) understand the complexity of the explanation given to them in techno-babble.
So if you truly believe that the average AOL user has any clue whatsoever what is happening to their machine, then more power to you. Otherwise, thank you for being objective.
Let us not forget that AOL's own message board is apparently filled with complaints with people who even know what a fricken "message board" is!
Due to their prior installations of AOL upgrades, they are simply basing their judgement of clicking "yes" on what has happened in the past.
This is without a doubt a shock to all AOL users (despite those naive enough to have no idea why their machines are crashing constantly enough to the point where they give up on computers all together - which has no beneficial aspect on our society whatsoever, unless of course you are that bastard on IRC who answers well thought out respectable questions with RTFM, no matter how simple the answer is.)
just a thought.
i retract my previous message because I failed to notice 7 came before 3.
apologies to the gods