In general what would happen if they left the safe zone?
"Grandma took little Timmy to get ice cream, then, on the way he started shaking a lot. After a trip to the hospital (within the safe zone), Timmy was diagnosed epileptic."
Though, it would be funny to see a real life equivilant to an IndexOutofBounds execption.
I'll bet there are more GNU tools in OS1. But there were still GNU programs in OS0, so, I ask, shoud I have called OS0 GNU/BSD or something similar? Or is that a different issue?
Yes, I'll believe that Allen is disenfranchised with the executives in ms, but there was no evidence that the stories he told was the reason Allen sold his stock and quit.
The ambiguous line in my mind was: "but it didn't go over well with Paul Allen"
Is Cringley asserting that, or is that what he heard?
If I shot someone yesterday, but I gave an old lady on the bus my seat today, would that make me a good person? Or would I have to give a million seats away.
Trying to cast Bill Gates as a 21st century Robin Hood (takes from the richest and gives to the poorest) to defend the various critisms of him is suspect at best. In fact, I like calling it, the Gates defence, being a subset of the chewbaca defence.
Giving money away, if you have enough of it, is easy. Being truely forgiven for past sins (and in this case, personal attacks), isn't. As much as your wife/gf/etc. would like a diamond ring everytime you fuck up, it doesn't cut it (unless the fuck up was buying a terrible gift, then the new one also acts as an "I'm sorry."). That and they would eventually run out of fingers. Of course, there are always gold diggers as the exception.
In summary, you can't buy forgiveness, only earn it.
Even worse, if a government agency, such as NASA, started monitoring and collecting vast amounts of data about every known quasar, then they could run through this history upon recieving an "encrypted" signal. (Depending on the factors, I think this could be done in polynomial time)
Thus, even though the data is random, it still isn't secure.
Yes, I know they want to add ciphers to it FTA, but that is snake oil on snake oil. And One time pads are very weak if the key isn't properly handled and generated.
Good news though, I think we might have found a way for NASA to encrease funding, considering the recent NSA wiretapping.
I view software as a contract. In open source, if you view code and find problems then you should try to have the "contract" updated. If you do not find problems on a pre-emptive basis yet they exist then you are SOL. Think that is unfair to non-programmers? If I signed a large/vital contract without a lawyer's assistance and got screwed, would I get much sympathy, let alone any legal recourse (would I even get legal recourse if I had a lawyer)?
This means that in closed source, the developers are the "lawyers" who proof-read the "contract". Though, agreeing to a secret contract may not be the best idea (not like I've read the Linux/BSD/* source), but that is another issue.
This means that we have to trust the developer's judgement. In this case, we have to trust that the developers will fix it as soon as possible. If that is legislated then rushing may occur to meet deadlines, possibly leading to more bugs.
I think we should hold companies responsible for errors, where a EULA cannot absolve them from the responsibility provide the services that they promised at the time of purchase, let alone any loss/theft of data. If managers had to factor in "cost of bugs" then I suspect developers would be given more time/resources to fix problems.
While I think that being incarcerated for theft of most kinds is excessive (and I hope there are considerations for minors [logically the largest set of media downloaders]), we must remember that theft is theft.
I'd much rather a passive internet police force be formed (Not a global one! I do not want to be held accountable to laws I have absolutely no control over of. That would be anti-democratic at best.) than having to add bullshit features such as "trusted computing".
Personally, I think a warning followed by a fine is acceptable for theft that does not deprive the creator of anything. Another issue that should not be disregarded is that many of us are software creators, yet I rarely meet any who want stupid measures taken to "protect" us (again, "trusted computing").
This is really a rant that could be surmised as: it could be worse, they could have legislated a law saying that computers have to have potential backdoors. While I know that it is a rare departure from my usual pessimism, I contend that I hold to my cynicism by adding that, they still might do something stupid. And that is what we should really fear (even if I'm not German, I still want what is best for their computing population).
"It would be an understatement to say that OS X is derived from NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP. In many respects, it's not just similar, it's the same. One can think of it as OpenStep 5 or 6, say. This is not a bad thing at all - rather than create an operating system from scratch, Apple tried to do the smart thing, and used what they already had to a great extent. However, the similarities should not mislead you: Mac OS X is evolved enough that what you can do with it is far above and beyond NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP."
Just like you can think of XP being NTv5.1 (I think it is 1 or 01...)
These are going to be underpowered PCs, potentially used for years.
This means a few things:
0. Are they powerful enough to run XP / 2K? If not, then how well do you think 98 will fare over time (when is it EOL'd?)
1. What are the people going to use them for? Web-surfing, e-mail, IM, office, etc.
2. As the parent brought up, owning the software is going to be a requirement. That might turn out to be the most expensive aspect of the project.
3. Is the Original Poster going to be available (via email, in person, etc.) for the next year? If so, and they have the time to do any additional modifications, then Linux isn't that bad of an option. How many people are going to screw up their computers (through whatever means) if Linux xor Windows is installed?
Personally, I give a LiveCD and email scripts (to a webmail account with space) to people after servicing their computers. On top of that I tell them exactly how to execute the main one (that executes the rest). So even in a worse case scenario where they FUBAR their OS, they'll still be able to do the basics. This is something I recommend to the original poster no matter what.
"I'm sick to death of smug Slashdotters pissing on this project as if they know better than MIT and the UN."
I think that there are a few angles that can be brought up against both parties...
The first, is that the UN probably knows jack shit about technology. If an organization that was famous for producing technology came up to them and said "We have a great idea for empowering people in developing nations using technology." The UN would at least listen, and have very little room to critize any logistics (from your logic, who does the UN think they are if they can critize MIT about technology?)
Likewise, MIT could have an oversight and a technology that would be better suited to assist people may be possible (not that there is, or isn't, I have no idea of the status of these nation(s)). The point is that "the technology experts" may not see the full potential of an idea where "the people" are concerned (IBM + HP ignoring the PC market for years would be an example).
To be honest, I don't know where I stand on the whole issue. I see people in the western world who have full access to technology, and do practically nothing with it. Yet, from personal experiece, I know that technology can be a very positive thing in some people's lives. I do think that a durable and inexpensive laptop would be great to give a young child (in any country) as a first computer.
But I do have to disagree with you, some people on slashdot might be perfectly eligible to give advice on this issue. Prehaps someone has volenteered as a teacher, missionary, or prehaps they've always lived there. In general you are probably right, but at the same time, who are we to disagree with Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Dvorak, or even a partly like Infinium Labs? The answer is that we are observers who try to call things the way we see them. And if we get something wrong, then it is a good thing that we aren't being listened to, but if we (in general) get something right when the experts get it wrong, then maybe that "expert" opinion shouldn't be trusted in the future.
What I'm saying is that dissenting perspective isn't necessarily a bad thing. If a random programmer finds a bug in the Linux kernel, is that person met with hostility, or thanks, for critizing others work? I would venture a guess that your criticism of/. comes not from the reason of dissent, but in the method of execution. But I don't think of/. as a place where tact is a positive thing (that may be why I like it).
When did I say that I agreed or disagreed with that label? That information cannot be determined from my earlier statement.
The only reason I brought it up is becuase I don't see it as a direct subset of hate speech (but some people do). Unless certain things are stated within (If one was to express some of the Nazis more vulgar sentiments, for example).
As a Canadian, I'm pissed that this has happened. Why? Because let's take this to its logical conclusion, if a patron of a restruant, a university student, or even someone on a bus, says something out of line and the owner of a "public" place does not object, then they might be penalized for it.
What does this lead to? Censorship by citizens, censorship by the government is bad enough, but this could lead to a disaster.
Frankly, the ISP shouldn't have to do anything unless ordered to. And, if in doubt, they should have contacted the authorities (I don't know if they did or not).
Now I don't feel like hosting any form of forum in Canada, becuase I don't want to be held responsible for what some random fuckwad says.
FTA:
"The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate," Maillet said.
I have little tolerance for censhorship as well. I pray that they challenge this ruling with the Supreme Court (assuming it hasn't already happened, which I doubt). Because I doubt this "Human Rights Tribunal" is thinking about the consequences of this ruling in a greater context.
Fortunately, I came prepared for browser discrimination, so I loaded IE into OS X... After it saying that it was "Loading..." forever with Safari, I decided to try IE.
All it did was make a fraction of the Microsoft logo in the corner. I didn't even see a search box.
I probably could upgrade my version of IE... But it isn't worth it...
"Just put 2 where you see X in 2*5X+8 and put it into your calculator, then give me the answer", which is basically what Java and other high level languages do.
"Just shift 00101 to the left by 10 and then use full adders with the input of 01000", is, by this analogy, what C does.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends, If you "reset" the clock with the correct time once a day, then despite being annoying, it it still a better solution than the dead one.
Welcome to the Windows world, btw.
I think he meant that Windows users are "expecting" them.
Why fake a kidnapping when you can make a dog-napping reality?
Then again, I like Rube Goldberg plans as much as the next guy. Next time, work in some monkies.
In general what would happen if they left the safe zone?
"Grandma took little Timmy to get ice cream, then, on the way he started shaking a lot. After a trip to the hospital (within the safe zone), Timmy was diagnosed epileptic."
Though, it would be funny to see a real life equivilant to an IndexOutofBounds execption.
"If Linus had never come along, RMS would be running GNU tools on top of a BSD kernel and telling everyone why it should be called GNU/BSD."
...
You make a good point, and I'd like to expand on it...
I recently changed OSs a little while ago, let's look at the difference:
OS0 = FreeBSD + GNOME + Firefox + gcc + gaim + ssh +
OS1 = Linux + GNOME + Firefox + gcc + gaim + ssh +...
I'll bet there are more GNU tools in OS1. But there were still GNU programs in OS0, so, I ask, shoud I have called OS0 GNU/BSD or something similar? Or is that a different issue?
Yes, I'll believe that Allen is disenfranchised with the executives in ms, but there was no evidence that the stories he told was the reason Allen sold his stock and quit.
The ambiguous line in my mind was:
"but it didn't go over well with Paul Allen"
Is Cringley asserting that, or is that what he heard?
If I shot someone yesterday, but I gave an old lady on the bus my seat today, would that make me a good person? Or would I have to give a million seats away.
Trying to cast Bill Gates as a 21st century Robin Hood (takes from the richest and gives to the poorest) to defend the various critisms of him is suspect at best. In fact, I like calling it, the Gates defence, being a subset of the chewbaca defence.
Giving money away, if you have enough of it, is easy. Being truely forgiven for past sins (and in this case, personal attacks), isn't. As much as your wife/gf/etc. would like a diamond ring everytime you fuck up, it doesn't cut it (unless the fuck up was buying a terrible gift, then the new one also acts as an "I'm sorry."). That and they would eventually run out of fingers. Of course, there are always gold diggers as the exception.
In summary, you can't buy forgiveness, only earn it.
Even worse, if a government agency, such as NASA, started monitoring and collecting vast amounts of data about every known quasar, then they could run through this history upon recieving an "encrypted" signal. (Depending on the factors, I think this could be done in polynomial time)
Thus, even though the data is random, it still isn't secure.
Yes, I know they want to add ciphers to it FTA, but that is snake oil on snake oil. And One time pads are very weak if the key isn't properly handled and generated.
Good news though, I think we might have found a way for NASA to encrease funding, considering the recent NSA wiretapping.
I view software as a contract. In open source, if you view code and find problems then you should try to have the "contract" updated. If you do not find problems on a pre-emptive basis yet they exist then you are SOL. Think that is unfair to non-programmers? If I signed a large/vital contract without a lawyer's assistance and got screwed, would I get much sympathy, let alone any legal recourse (would I even get legal recourse if I had a lawyer)?
This means that in closed source, the developers are the "lawyers" who proof-read the "contract". Though, agreeing to a secret contract may not be the best idea (not like I've read the Linux/BSD/* source), but that is another issue.
This means that we have to trust the developer's judgement. In this case, we have to trust that the developers will fix it as soon as possible. If that is legislated then rushing may occur to meet deadlines, possibly leading to more bugs.
I think we should hold companies responsible for errors, where a EULA cannot absolve them from the responsibility provide the services that they promised at the time of purchase, let alone any loss/theft of data. If managers had to factor in "cost of bugs" then I suspect developers would be given more time/resources to fix problems.
While I think that being incarcerated for theft of most kinds is excessive (and I hope there are considerations for minors [logically the largest set of media downloaders]), we must remember that theft is theft.
I'd much rather a passive internet police force be formed (Not a global one! I do not want to be held accountable to laws I have absolutely no control over of. That would be anti-democratic at best.) than having to add bullshit features such as "trusted computing".
Personally, I think a warning followed by a fine is acceptable for theft that does not deprive the creator of anything. Another issue that should not be disregarded is that many of us are software creators, yet I rarely meet any who want stupid measures taken to "protect" us (again, "trusted computing").
This is really a rant that could be surmised as: it could be worse, they could have legislated a law saying that computers have to have potential backdoors. While I know that it is a rare departure from my usual pessimism, I contend that I hold to my cynicism by adding that, they still might do something stupid. And that is what we should really fear (even if I'm not German, I still want what is best for their computing population).
Does this mean that Dmitri Sklyarov did a favour for adobe?
In my first year there was a guy that played Quake 3 on his laptop. Flashing colours every couple of seconds was damn annoying.
If I became a prof, I would ban laptops too.
If a consumer purchases a PC on the cusp of Vista, and MS doesn't change the featured OS for years, then eventually some users will want to upgrade.
Microsoft tax + upgrade money, rather than just microsoft tax.
To back up what you were saying http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/history.html:
"It would be an understatement to say that OS X is derived from NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP. In many respects, it's not just similar, it's the same. One can think of it as OpenStep 5 or 6, say. This is not a bad thing at all - rather than create an operating system from scratch, Apple tried to do the smart thing, and used what they already had to a great extent. However, the similarities should not mislead you: Mac OS X is evolved enough that what you can do with it is far above and beyond NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP."
Just like you can think of XP being NTv5.1 (I think it is 1 or 01...)
These are going to be underpowered PCs, potentially used for years.
This means a few things:
0. Are they powerful enough to run XP / 2K?
If not, then how well do you think 98 will fare over time (when is it EOL'd?)
1. What are the people going to use them for? Web-surfing, e-mail, IM, office, etc.
2. As the parent brought up, owning the software is going to be a requirement. That might turn out to be the most expensive aspect of the project.
3. Is the Original Poster going to be available (via email, in person, etc.) for the next year? If so, and they have the time to do any additional modifications, then Linux isn't that bad of an option. How many people are going to screw up their computers (through whatever means) if Linux xor Windows is installed?
Personally, I give a LiveCD and email scripts (to a webmail account with space) to people after servicing their computers. On top of that I tell them exactly how to execute the main one (that executes the rest). So even in a worse case scenario where they FUBAR their OS, they'll still be able to do the basics. This is something I recommend to the original poster no matter what.
I lost count of how many times I said "yet" while reading this...
Maybe I should take my cynical hat off and read it again.
Hell, I don't think it will even fit in the tower-space in my desk.
Did anyone else notice the "(Patent Applied For)" statement on the site? What kind of patent could they be refering to? Apple already has a Cube...
"I'm sick to death of smug Slashdotters pissing on this project as if they know better than MIT and the UN."
/. comes not from the reason of dissent, but in the method of execution. But I don't think of /. as a place where tact is a positive thing (that may be why I like it).
I think that there are a few angles that can be brought up against both parties...
The first, is that the UN probably knows jack shit about technology. If an organization that was famous for producing technology came up to them and said "We have a great idea for empowering people in developing nations using technology." The UN would at least listen, and have very little room to critize any logistics (from your logic, who does the UN think they are if they can critize MIT about technology?)
Likewise, MIT could have an oversight and a technology that would be better suited to assist people may be possible (not that there is, or isn't, I have no idea of the status of these nation(s)). The point is that "the technology experts" may not see the full potential of an idea where "the people" are concerned (IBM + HP ignoring the PC market for years would be an example).
To be honest, I don't know where I stand on the whole issue. I see people in the western world who have full access to technology, and do practically nothing with it. Yet, from personal experiece, I know that technology can be a very positive thing in some people's lives. I do think that a durable and inexpensive laptop would be great to give a young child (in any country) as a first computer.
But I do have to disagree with you, some people on slashdot might be perfectly eligible to give advice on this issue. Prehaps someone has volenteered as a teacher, missionary, or prehaps they've always lived there. In general you are probably right, but at the same time, who are we to disagree with Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Dvorak, or even a partly like Infinium Labs? The answer is that we are observers who try to call things the way we see them. And if we get something wrong, then it is a good thing that we aren't being listened to, but if we (in general) get something right when the experts get it wrong, then maybe that "expert" opinion shouldn't be trusted in the future.
What I'm saying is that dissenting perspective isn't necessarily a bad thing. If a random programmer finds a bug in the Linux kernel, is that person met with hostility, or thanks, for critizing others work? I would venture a guess that your criticism of
"Smithers, release the robotic Richard Stallman!"
-Obligitory Simpsons paraphrase
When did I say that I agreed or disagreed with that label? That information cannot be determined from my earlier statement.
The only reason I brought it up is becuase I don't see it as a direct subset of hate speech (but some people do). Unless certain things are stated within (If one was to express some of the Nazis more vulgar sentiments, for example).
Way to troll against someone who agrees with you.
The only thing that is really censored is hate speech (including Holcaust denial).
As a Canadian, I'm pissed that this has happened. Why? Because let's take this to its logical conclusion, if a patron of a restruant, a university student, or even someone on a bus, says something out of line and the owner of a "public" place does not object, then they might be penalized for it.
What does this lead to? Censorship by citizens, censorship by the government is bad enough, but this could lead to a disaster.
Frankly, the ISP shouldn't have to do anything unless ordered to. And, if in doubt, they should have contacted the authorities (I don't know if they did or not).
Now I don't feel like hosting any form of forum in Canada, becuase I don't want to be held responsible for what some random fuckwad says.
FTA:
"The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate," Maillet said.
I have little tolerance for censhorship as well. I pray that they challenge this ruling with the Supreme Court (assuming it hasn't already happened, which I doubt). Because I doubt this "Human Rights Tribunal" is thinking about the consequences of this ruling in a greater context.
Fortunately, I came prepared for browser discrimination, so I loaded IE into OS X... After it saying that it was "Loading..." forever with Safari, I decided to try IE.
All it did was make a fraction of the Microsoft logo in the corner. I didn't even see a search box.
I probably could upgrade my version of IE... But it isn't worth it...
"VB6 was always a horse designed by a committee."
That's flattery, I'd call it a camel designed by committee.
"Just put 2 where you see X in 2*5X+8 and put it into your calculator, then give me the answer", which is basically what Java and other high level languages do.
"Just shift 00101 to the left by 10 and then use full adders with the input of 01000", is, by this analogy, what C does.