It is in RIAA's (a.k.a. the few dominant record companies) interest to fight the mp3 format itself - in order to protect their monopoly on their self-proclaimed "value-added" distribution channel. Piracy is only their second reason.
Illegal mp3's are their excuse to threat and raid.
Put more LEGAL mp3's on the net.
Distribute as much of your music in mp3 as possible, and tell your musician friends to - even a 1-minute performance, vocal or purely-instrumental, or even speech. The point is to use mp3 as your DEFAULT sound format.
Put more effort on promoting mp3 as a legitimate, open channel of music distribution so that SDMI won't stand a chance.
On second thought, any window managers playing mp3's as their alert events? Or is there any effort to make a/dev/mp3 ?
As far as my observation and experience goes, people carry cellphones primarily to receive calls. Making calls is a second priority.
It also serves as some kind of identity that people can relate you to this number, so personally that you are sure that your friend, and not his/her family is going to pick up the phone. It's sort of like an email address.
Some companies tried call-only cell phones before, coupled with a pager. They didn't last...let's see how this goes.
By the way, I'm against disposable anything as long as they are not biodegradable.
Does it matter? As long as it delivers performance - a "truely revolutionary product" does not necessarily has its revolution reside on the chip. In the case of MAXX, it happens across two chips. This is revolutionary, because nobody has done alternative frame rendering with video chips before.
Strapping 2 GeForce256 chips together and get 960Mpixel/s? I guess you think AFR is a "band-aid" so easy to implement that everyone can do it without any technical difficulty?
I applaud ATI for the innovation - although I'm not getting the MAXX - I'd rather wait for their AFR T&L card. It will be out - willing to bet anything on it.
If that one line of GPL code is in your 100K BSD app, it is because you want to use that line - i.e. if you tend not to use the GPL for your app but use even one line of GPL code, it is your fault.
It is different from a virus, where an executable is passively infected without you knowing it.
Therefore, by the nature of a virus, the GPL is NOT viral. If you insist on calling it a virus then I guess it must be a virus that depends on manual infection thru the hand of programmers.
Are they really similar? I mean, while we can see a David vs. Goliah in each case, there's a subtle but very important difference between them.
Many of us choose Linux over Windows only because it is just more stable/robust and they don't care much about the availability of the souce code - as long as it works well.
For me, I can't care less about performance as long as they are in the same order of magnitude (big-O anyone? =)
This said, if NT were at least as stable as Linux many people wouldn't have jumped ship, because stability is their NUMBER-ONE priority.
My point? Intel's chips are at least runs as stable as AMD's. Have you ever heard of app crashes because you have an Intel chip?
I just can't see how the main reason why we prefer Linux to Windows apply to the AMD vs Intel war.
>They've been appealing to the average ignorant >consumer by spreading FUD and marketing fluf for >years now, and it's worked for them (look at how >they've beat down other chips and systems >producers i.e. VIA, Alpha, IBM, cyrix just to >name a few) in the past.
No. The Alpha was targeted for a completely different audience (top-end servers and labs).
VIA, IBM, Cyrix: they just make bad products - more bugs and compatibility problems than Intel's or AMD's solutions. Also, incompatibility with a lot of software (anyone with a Cyrix processor must have run a "Cyrix patch" of somesort), the "Power Rating" (translates to "I can't produce high Mhz CPU's that run cool) and their poor(est)FPU performance just killed Cyrix. Nothing else involved.
>Microsoft delivers an operating system to users >(and you pay again for development software).
Wrong. I can write Windows code with mingw32 and wxWindows without paying a cent for the development software...just that nobody takes development tools not made by MS seriously.
(also since mingw32 is a port of gcc it is bound to progress slower than the *n[iu]x versions...)
>Linux delivers an operating system and >development software to every user.
Yes.
>Which approach is going to encourage more >developers in the long run?
It depends more on the OS than the development tools because they both have free tools. Oh wait. Windows's got a commercial IDE. Maybe some equivalent for *n[iu]x helps...
At least in the Windows world. VB was released in about 1991, and it became popular, and then all the C++ programmers drooled when they talk about it.
THEN, VC++ was released to ride on the VB hype. It turned out that the word "Visual" wasn't meant as literally. But, a lot of copy were bought before the fact was well-known.
So, it is the way VC++ thus Visual Studio became popular. In itself they are nothing fancy, but people just got used to them.
The closest Linux "equivalent" to it in terms of mode-of-operation and look-and-feel is KDevelop. I guess it was done deliberately, to make the transition easier for Windows programmers.
The point? Visual Studio may not be something as powerful as emacs, but it is what most developers use everyday and it is got used to by people.
During the translation from the natural languages to UNL, some unimportant details must be dropped. During the translation from the UNL back to natural languages, the meaning of the sentences remain, however the atmosphere or the mood might be lost - it is like a lossy compression...
So much for Patent-related stupidity...maybe we can join as well? Form an organization, General Public Patent or whatever, patent as many participants' ideas as possible. The only objective? To make the ideas publicly available and not letting the idea being patented into the proprietary hell. Is it possible or plausible? By making ourselves part of the joke we'll get involved in a fun and maybe healthy process called "self-ridicule" =)
Paxman: If so, what do you say when you get a crash, a hang, or an other event that causes data loss?
Gates: Damn, I shoulda requested a taped appearance...
Gates: Eh....Uh...Hm...cough...Eh...
Paxman: Excuse me?
Gates: Sorry, I guess I have caught a cold recently...what have you just said?
Paxman: What do you say when you get a crash, a hang, or an other event that causes data loss?
Gates: Eh....Uh...Hm...cough...Eh...WHAT?
Paxman: Let's put it at the end. Mr. Gates, have you ever done anything illegal?
Gates: Being the Chairman and CEO of the world's powerful, and hence the most ethical software company, of course I haven't done anything illegal - speeding doesn't count, though - you know, being in this fast-changing industry, you'll be promptly taken over if you aren't fast.
Paxman: What would you be willing to do if (say) some upstart operating system came along and threatened to cost Micorsoft hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue over the next decade or two?
Gates: Eh...Uh...this question is irrelevant, since I can't see any competent operating system that threaten to cost us any amount of money, anytime in the future.
Paxman: Have you just said that you'll promptly be taken over if you don't act fast in this fast-changing industry? How can you be so sure that there won't be an operating system that will threaten you?
Paxman: Heh, anyway, do you believe your own bullshit, or is it just for public consumption?
Gates: Of course it is primarily targeted towards our brainwas...TCO-conscious customers and enterprise. Of course, the more people believe in us, it would be easier for us to rip'em off...Mwahaha...
Paxman: Pardon?
Gates (realizing it's live): Oh. Did I say anything? Oh yeah. We value our customers over everything else. The buck stops here.
Paxman: Do you really think we're that stupid?
Gates: Uh...eh...hm...uh...cough...excuse me?
Paxman: Wouldn't you rather have a Mac?
Gates: Definitely not. I think this is going grossly offtopic...let's talk about the exciting *new* features that will appear on Windows 2000 that we've implemented last week with 433,569 lines of new code!!! What's more...
Paxman (calling for commercial): We'll take a break for now. We'll be back 5 minutes later and ask about how Mr. Gate has caught this mysterious virus that sometimes filters what he hears.
It is possible that making one thing more secure will make the rest of system less so.
There must be some executable elements associated with the email in order for it to destroy itself.
Instead of having the email destroy itself after certain time, it probably will be (if it can be) exploited to do other "stuffs". The effect will be like those we've seen in Inspector Gadgets - the message destroys itself and some of its surroundings;)
"Calling for the downfall of Microsoft" is just showing the attitude - my observation concludes that the attitude seems to be "anti-corporate-greed" and "pro-consumer". In this perspective/. is an excellent customer-right news site.
We bash AOL when it is not opening up its messaging protocol. The whole recording industry for SDMI. CircuitCity for DIVX. Sun for not opening up Java. SCO for FUD.
We report new cool toys like Aibo, Visor, Rio...
Calling Microsoft a primary driving force of OpenSource is simply too narrow minded. Empowering the consumer is the ultimate goal.
There is a program I know that can download files using the pnm protocol. It requires Windows, though. (I'm sure that some Linux program for this exist, just too lazy to look for them now because I'm at work;p)
After repeatedly seeing on Slashdot news about FUD from MS, and a lot of enthusiastic reply from our community, I felt that something has gone slightly wrong with us - I feel that we are not countering FUDs effectively. The followings are my thoughts.
1. Audience ----------- How many times have you read an article or a reply on Slashdot and thought, "damn, wouldn't it be nice if it were on CNet / Yahoo / Wired"? While Slashdot has gained some attention of the general public, get real - by posting a reply on Slashdot, we are only talking to ourselves. It does NOT help counter the effects of the FUD and MS knows very well that they have better FUD targets than us.
Spread the words to where it counts. e.g. Friends on your icq lists. Co-workers. Your boss. Anyone savvy enough to know about computers but not enough to distinguish facts and FUDs. Suggested action: get some words on redhat.com, linux.com, and maybe wired and yahoo. These are the sites where the curious or the helpless FUD targets are.
2. Reader-friendliness ---------------------- As an extension of the above point, our counters are too unfriendly to our audience (or helpless-FUD-target-IT-managers). Look at the jargons. "FUD" itself is a good one. And the long, way-too-technical counters.
Can't we summarize our points into some short, precise, easy-to-read sentences just like MS carefully does? Short does not necessarily mean vague, and with an open effort, we CAN out-FUD the FUDs. (Yes! It may be surprising, but the effect of FUD *can* be generated even with true statements!)
3. Professionalism ------------------ How many of us have read the advocacy-HOWTO? I've see far too much zealotry, foul languages, etc. on our anti-FUD replies. While the intention is adorable, an incorrect implementation may result in counter-effect.
MS's FUD technology is lightyears ahead of ours. Study the article. Count the number of formal sentences that they use. Count the number of euphamisms. Realize the inexistence of any bluntant, rude rebuttal to Linux (yes, euphamisms again). We have a lot to learn.
4. Effort --------- How powerful are many small, personal voices from/. readers to capture the minds of the helpless-FUD-targets? From an outsider's point of view we look like nothing but a whining mob.
Is it possible for us to start an open advocacy/anti-FUD group to gather ideas, make counter-benchmark benchmarks, and make our voices known? How about making some public poll on "the number of crashes you have in NT in a week" vs. that of Linux, and make it a news on Wired?
Facts that are trivial to us may not be so to the helpless-FUD-targets. We must find some good ways to get our messages onto the other side.
8/16 bits not enough - predictable because there are so many numbers in real life that bust the 256/65536 ceiling.
32 bits was able to address most situations. For example, the human eyes are only capable of seeing about the equivalent of 26-bit colors (while our video cards use 24).
32-bit numbers are limited in (AFAIK) two ways today:
1. Storing date and time - 32-bit integers are only enough to hold as many seconds as it will go until some year in the 2030's.
2. Some applications still require floating point numbers with more precision than an IEEE 32-bit one. Going 64 makes the implementation of 64-bit floating point number more efficient.
When will we need more than 64 bits? I cannot tell. My best guess is that it would require by some off the wall metacosmic calculations.
So my take is, there'll be a heck of a lot 64-bit processors being put to use - for some years to come - before we go to 128-bit.
There a a bunch of licenses certified as "opensource" - how about a license that says,
"if you want to redistribute the software, it must be under one of the open-source licenses as approved in opensource.org"
This way, we can create a bunch of licenses thru an open license creation effort, in the "family" of opensource licenses. Developers can then choose one that makes the best sense to them and redistribute the code.
Caching proxies? Get 'em installed at your ISPs!! In situation like this...it can help lower the burden a lot - by caching the pages for the people who browse, you save bandwidth for people who have to telnet, shop, or post at/. I think I'll get mine.
Even if bots could think, learn, have emotions, have feelings just like human, turning them off is not nearly as bad as killing a human, or, even a cockroach, for that matter.
Killing a human is an irreversable process - while one can always retain bots' memory and turn them on again whenever it is convenient.
It is more like force-feeding them sleeping pills.
I guess, with a little work, one can easily spoof his/her IP address. I mean, if Clinton REALLY want to do it. Do anyone think a mere IP-address displaying does anything? C'mon.
On second thought, IPv4 actually has an advantage over IPv6 - it takes less place when you display them. I can smell NSA, ABC,... not willing to upgrade when the time comes...
Slashdot Mirror
It is in RIAA's (a.k.a. the few dominant record companies) interest to fight the mp3 format itself - in order to protect their monopoly on their self-proclaimed "value-added" distribution channel. Piracy is only their second reason.
/dev/mp3 ?
Illegal mp3's are their excuse to threat and raid.
Put more LEGAL mp3's on the net.
Distribute as much of your music in mp3 as possible, and tell your musician friends to - even a 1-minute performance, vocal or purely-instrumental, or even speech. The point is to use mp3 as your DEFAULT sound format.
Put more effort on promoting mp3 as a legitimate, open channel of music distribution so that SDMI won't stand a chance.
On second thought, any window managers playing mp3's as their alert events? Or is there any effort to make a
As far as my observation and experience goes, people carry cellphones primarily to receive calls. Making calls is a second priority.
It also serves as some kind of identity that people can relate you to this number, so personally that you are sure that your friend, and not his/her family is going to pick up the phone. It's sort of like an email address.
Some companies tried call-only cell phones before, coupled with a pager. They didn't last...let's see how this goes.
By the way, I'm against disposable anything as long as they are not biodegradable.
Ever wonder why Tom uses so many 32-bit benchmarking when he's comparing the TNT2 boards with the V3 boards
and
so surprising few (only OpenGL, in fact) when it comes to MAXX vs GeForce?
Does it matter? As long as it delivers performance - a "truely revolutionary product" does not necessarily has its revolution reside on the chip. In the case of MAXX, it happens across two chips. This is revolutionary, because nobody has done alternative frame rendering with video chips before.
Strapping 2 GeForce256 chips together and get 960Mpixel/s? I guess you think AFR is a "band-aid" so easy to implement that everyone can do it without any technical difficulty?
I applaud ATI for the innovation - although I'm not getting the MAXX - I'd rather wait for their AFR T&L card. It will be out - willing to bet anything on it.
It is different from a virus, where an executable is passively infected without you knowing it.
Therefore, by the nature of a virus, the GPL is NOT viral. If you insist on calling it a virus then I guess it must be a virus that depends on manual infection thru the hand of programmers.
Try to find a virus behaves just like that!!
Are they really similar? I mean, while we can see a David vs. Goliah in each case, there's a subtle but very important difference between them.
Many of us choose Linux over Windows only because it is just more stable/robust and they don't care much about the availability of the souce code - as long as it works well.
For me, I can't care less about performance as long as they are in the same order of magnitude (big-O anyone? =)
This said, if NT were at least as stable as Linux many people wouldn't have jumped ship, because stability is their NUMBER-ONE priority.
My point? Intel's chips are at least runs as stable as AMD's. Have you ever heard of app crashes because you have an Intel chip?
I just can't see how the main reason why we prefer Linux to Windows apply to the AMD vs Intel war.
>They've been appealing to the average ignorant >consumer by spreading FUD and marketing fluf for >years now, and it's worked for them (look at how >they've beat down other chips and systems >producers i.e. VIA, Alpha, IBM, cyrix just to >name a few) in the past.
No. The Alpha was targeted for a completely different audience (top-end servers and labs).
VIA, IBM, Cyrix: they just make bad products - more bugs and compatibility problems than Intel's or AMD's solutions. Also, incompatibility with a lot of software (anyone with a Cyrix processor must have run a "Cyrix patch" of somesort), the "Power Rating" (translates to "I can't produce high Mhz CPU's that run cool) and their poor(est)FPU performance just killed Cyrix. Nothing else involved.
Even then, the 667 Mhz CPU approxmates 666 Mhz.
This is to say, the manufactor, while not being the evil one, approximates or tends to be so, which isn't that much different.
Out of curiosity, do anyone recall any strange changes that took place at intel when people started dualing 333 Celeries?
As observed something should be going on from there to make the company look what it is today...
>Microsoft delivers an operating system to users
>(and you pay again for development software).
Wrong. I can write Windows code with mingw32 and wxWindows without paying a cent for the development software...just that nobody takes development tools not made by MS seriously.
(also since mingw32 is a port of gcc it is bound to progress slower than the *n[iu]x versions...)
>Linux delivers an operating system and
>development software to every user.
Yes.
>Which approach is going to encourage more
>developers in the long run?
It depends more on the OS than the development tools because they both have free tools.
Oh wait. Windows's got a commercial IDE. Maybe some equivalent for *n[iu]x helps...
At least in the Windows world. VB was released in about 1991, and it became popular, and then all the C++ programmers drooled when they talk about it.
THEN, VC++ was released to ride on the VB hype. It turned out that the word "Visual" wasn't meant as literally. But, a lot of copy were bought before the fact was well-known.
So, it is the way VC++ thus Visual Studio became popular. In itself they are nothing fancy, but people just got used to them.
The closest Linux "equivalent" to it in terms of mode-of-operation and look-and-feel is KDevelop.
I guess it was done deliberately, to make the transition easier for Windows programmers.
The point? Visual Studio may not be something as powerful as emacs, but it is what most developers use everyday and it is got used to by people.
The UNL is simpler than the natural languages.
During the translation from the natural languages to UNL, some unimportant details must be dropped.
During the translation from the UNL back to natural languages, the meaning of the sentences remain, however the atmosphere or the mood might be lost - it is like a lossy compression...
So much for Patent-related stupidity...maybe we can join as well? Form an organization, General Public Patent or whatever, patent as many participants' ideas as possible. The only objective? To make the ideas publicly available and not letting the idea being patented into the proprietary hell. Is it possible or plausible? By making ourselves part of the joke we'll get involved in a fun and maybe healthy process called "self-ridicule" =)
Paxman: Do you run Windows on your own computer?
Gates: Yes.
Paxman: If so, what do you say when you get a crash, a hang, or an other event that causes data loss?
Gates: Damn, I shoulda requested a taped appearance...
Gates: Eh....Uh...Hm...cough...Eh...
Paxman: Excuse me?
Gates: Sorry, I guess I have caught a cold recently...what have you just said?
Paxman: What do you say when you get a crash, a hang, or an other event that causes data loss?
Gates: Eh....Uh...Hm...cough...Eh...WHAT?
Paxman: Let's put it at the end. Mr. Gates, have you ever done anything illegal?
Gates: Being the Chairman and CEO of the world's powerful, and hence the most ethical software company, of course I haven't done anything illegal - speeding doesn't count, though - you know, being in this fast-changing industry, you'll be promptly taken over if you aren't fast.
Paxman: What would you be willing to do if (say) some upstart operating system came along and threatened to cost Micorsoft hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue over the next decade or two?
Gates: Eh...Uh...this question is irrelevant, since I can't see any competent operating system that threaten to cost us any amount of money, anytime in the future.
Paxman: Have you just said that you'll promptly be taken over if you don't act fast in this fast-changing industry? How can you be so sure that there won't be an operating system that will threaten you?
Gates: Uh...Eh...Uh...yes....Hm...cough...no... cough cough cough excuse me, the cold's strike again.
Paxman: Heh, anyway, do you believe your own bullshit, or is it just for public consumption?
Gates: Of course it is primarily targeted towards our brainwas...TCO-conscious customers and enterprise. Of course, the more people believe in us, it would be easier for us to rip'em off...Mwahaha...
Paxman: Pardon?
Gates (realizing it's live): Oh. Did I say anything? Oh yeah. We value our customers over everything else. The buck stops here.
Paxman: Do you really think we're that stupid?
Gates: Uh...eh...hm...uh...cough...excuse me?
Paxman: Wouldn't you rather have a Mac?
Gates: Definitely not. I think this is going grossly offtopic...let's talk about the exciting *new* features that will appear on Windows 2000 that we've implemented last week with 433,569 lines of new code!!! What's more...
Paxman (calling for commercial): We'll take a break for now. We'll be back 5 minutes later and ask about how Mr. Gate has caught this mysterious virus that sometimes filters what he hears.
It is possible that making one thing more secure will make the rest of system less so.
;)
There must be some executable elements associated with the email in order for it to destroy itself.
Instead of having the email destroy itself after certain time, it probably will be (if it can be) exploited to do other "stuffs". The effect will be like those we've seen in Inspector Gadgets - the message destroys itself and some of its surroundings
"Calling for the downfall of Microsoft" is just showing the attitude - my observation concludes that the attitude seems to be "anti-corporate-greed" and "pro-consumer". In this perspective /. is an excellent customer-right news site.
We bash AOL when it is not opening up its messaging protocol. The whole recording industry for SDMI. CircuitCity for DIVX. Sun for not opening up Java. SCO for FUD.
We report new cool toys like Aibo, Visor, Rio...
Calling Microsoft a primary driving force of OpenSource is simply too narrow minded.
Empowering the consumer is the ultimate goal.
Let's get 16 people together and take part in the contest. No matter who's the winner we can share the $. ;D
Given our voting skills we should be able to finish the job most quickly.
Anyone?
No it doesn't. I used the software and downloaded the high-bandwidth version, it is almost exactly 3 Mb in size.
I guess I'll take it home and watch it there...(no speaker at work, duh)
(I'm sure that some Linux program for this exist, just too lazy to look for them now because I'm at work
Get it atl es/info.html?fcode=000T36&b= .ram file and open it with a text editor to reveal the pnm location.
ht tp://hotfiles.zdnet.com/cgi-bin/texis/swlib/hotfi
Download the
Return of the Luddite, anyone?
After repeatedly seeing on Slashdot news about FUD from MS, and a lot of enthusiastic reply from our community, I felt that something has gone slightly wrong with us - I feel that we are not countering FUDs effectively. The followings are my thoughts.
/. readers to capture the minds of the helpless-FUD-targets? From an outsider's point of view we look like nothing but a whining mob.
1. Audience
-----------
How many times have you read an article or a reply on Slashdot and thought, "damn, wouldn't it be nice if it were on CNet / Yahoo / Wired"? While Slashdot has gained some attention of the general public, get real - by posting a reply on Slashdot, we are only talking to ourselves. It does NOT help counter the effects of the FUD and MS knows very well that they have better FUD targets than us.
Spread the words to where it counts. e.g. Friends on your icq lists. Co-workers. Your boss. Anyone savvy enough to know about computers but not enough to distinguish facts and FUDs. Suggested action: get some words on redhat.com, linux.com, and maybe wired and yahoo. These are the sites where the curious or the helpless FUD targets are.
2. Reader-friendliness
----------------------
As an extension of the above point, our counters are too unfriendly to our audience (or helpless-FUD-target-IT-managers). Look at the jargons. "FUD" itself is a good one. And the long, way-too-technical counters.
Can't we summarize our points into some short, precise, easy-to-read sentences just like MS carefully does? Short does not necessarily mean vague, and with an open effort, we CAN out-FUD the FUDs. (Yes! It may be surprising, but the effect of FUD *can* be generated even with true statements!)
3. Professionalism
------------------
How many of us have read the advocacy-HOWTO?
I've see far too much zealotry, foul languages, etc. on our anti-FUD replies. While the intention is adorable, an incorrect implementation may result in counter-effect.
MS's FUD technology is lightyears ahead of ours. Study the article. Count the number of formal sentences that they use. Count the number of euphamisms. Realize the inexistence of any bluntant, rude rebuttal to Linux (yes, euphamisms again). We have a lot to learn.
4. Effort
---------
How powerful are many small, personal voices from
Is it possible for us to start an open advocacy/anti-FUD group to gather ideas, make counter-benchmark benchmarks, and make our voices known? How about making some public poll on "the number of crashes you have in NT in a week" vs. that of Linux, and make it a news on Wired?
Facts that are trivial to us may not be so to the helpless-FUD-targets. We must find some good ways to get our messages onto the other side.
Just my $2%
8 /16 bits not enough - predictable because there are so many numbers in real life that bust the 256/65536 ceiling.
32 bits was able to address most situations. For example, the human eyes are only capable of seeing about the equivalent of 26-bit colors (while our video cards use 24).
32-bit numbers are limited in (AFAIK) two ways today:
1. Storing date and time - 32-bit integers are only enough to hold as many seconds as it will go until some year in the 2030's.
2. Some applications still require floating point numbers with more precision than an IEEE 32-bit one. Going 64 makes the implementation of 64-bit floating point number more efficient.
When will we need more than 64 bits? I cannot tell. My best guess is that it would require by some off the wall metacosmic calculations.
So my take is, there'll be a heck of a lot 64-bit processors being put to use - for some years to come - before we go to 128-bit.
There a a bunch of licenses certified as "opensource" - how about a license that says,
"if you want to redistribute the software, it must be under one of the open-source licenses as approved in opensource.org"
This way, we can create a bunch of licenses thru an open license creation effort, in the "family" of opensource licenses. Developers can then choose one that makes the best sense to them and redistribute the code.
Caching proxies? Get 'em installed at your ISPs!! In situation like this...it can help lower the burden a lot - by caching the pages for the people who browse, you save bandwidth for people who have to telnet, shop, or post at /. I think I'll get mine.
Even if bots could think, learn, have emotions, have feelings just like human, turning them off is not nearly as bad as killing a human, or, even a cockroach, for that matter.
Killing a human is an irreversable process - while one can always retain bots' memory and turn them on again whenever it is convenient.
It is more like force-feeding them sleeping pills.
I guess, with a little work, one can easily spoof his/her IP address. I mean, if Clinton REALLY want to do it. Do anyone think a mere IP-address displaying does anything? C'mon.
... not willing to upgrade when the time comes...
On second thought, IPv4 actually has an advantage over IPv6 - it takes less place when you display them. I can smell NSA, ABC,