Of course, Heckler hasn't figured out that Gnutella (which, BTW, is open-source) can be reconfigured or rewritten to use HTTP or SMTP as its transport. Let's see them firewall 25 or 80 on a PC and get away with it. This guy is talking through his butt.
Biochemists aren't the best ones to come to for opinions about evolution, since they look at complex chemical pathways in near isolation. It's their job, after all, to isolate things like the Krebs Cycle or RNA transcription, and not to figure out how such a pathway could come from something less complex or to try understanding the similarities between pathways and surmise that they could have been the result of the divergence of a common pathway. You don't say you're a graduate student, but you claim to be about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a "top school" without naming it. You also use terms like "intelligent design" after trashing, without attribution, caricatures of biological teachings. You sound like a garden-variety creationist trying to sneak in under the radar and hoping nobody will notice, and I suspect that the "top school" you're about the "graduate" from is the Institute for Creation Research's phony graduate school. For those interested in the actual facts, I suggest
http://www.talkorigins.org
as an excellent starting place.
The basic tenet of the hacker ethic is that information wants to be free. AOL-Timer Warner sounds like the Levittown of online services, designed for people too stupid to own a computer or too young to be allowed to surf the real web (like my kids are) or too afraid and insecure or just plain inexperienced to deal with the difficult mechanics of clicking a link or watching to see when IE or Netscape gives them the finger to indicate when they're over a link. There are always going to be more readers of AOL than Slashdot, just as there will always be more readers of USA Today than "Brill's Content" or "Scientific American" or even the Washington Post. If you were to find thinking people in America and ask them who they trust for depth and accuracy and insight, I bet USA Today would rank far down the list. Ditto with AOL. Slickly packaged mush will always appeal to the booboisie, because they often lack the intellectual teeth to tackle anything more. However, there will always be market for edgy, serious, and unconventional media... for example, Web sites for people who don't need training wheels anymore.
True, Utah is within its rights to travel back to the Middle Ages and keep its eyes shut while sticking its fingers in its ears. It's about what you'd expect from a bunch of religious zealot fraidy-cats.
In this country, fundamentalists have every right to bring this up to the powers that be. However, we have the right and the obligation to explain, in regular terms and without trying to make anyone sound like an idiot, why they're wrong. It isn't difficult to do, you know. Most fundamentalism is built on fear, and if you dug deep enough you'd find it. Most politicians are honest and dedicated public servants (the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls aside) who really want to do the right thing. It's up to us to explain to them why censorship is always the wrong thing.
A library has a duty to promote a free flow of information and ideas. At the very least, it should provide children-only and adults-only terminals to take care of whatever legitimate concerns the AFA may have... over and above their main goal of turning the whole country into goody-two-shoes small-town churchgoers.
Then it seems to me that all real Conservatives ought to drop this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude and start whacking away at these moralistic idiots *in public* and *in force*. The only reason people like this moron in Arizona can get away with calling themselves conservative is that we let them. Let's quit letting them.
Not bitter, just amused. Did you notice the squibs in the article about Linux's reliability? Unix servers (and this includes Linux) tend to have uptimes measured in years. When was the last time you saw an NT server go for more than a few months without BSOD'ing?
Well, you always have the choice of writing a UI and basing it on GNOME, or KDE, or Motif for that matter. And I'm not being sarcastic, either. That's the real strength of Linux over the Evil Empire - knowledgeable users can make it look however they want it to look. If you want to write a UI that looks and works like NextStep (which ran on top of a Mach Unix kernel, BTW), then have at it.
So how long do you think it'll be before someone hacks the MS Media Player format and releases it for free? MS doesn't charge for the player... Or, someone could build a media player that's better than MS's player, that runs faster and lighter. That's the real strength of open source, you know... with hundreds of thousands of people working in parallel, a better solution is bound to emerge faster than MS can try to catch up. It took a five years and upwards of a billion dollars for Microsoft to come up with an OS that's even half as stable as Linux, and it's *still* built on that stupid DCOM architecture that's like hanging a sign on your box saying "Infect Me!".
Nope, I don't put Linux in the same trash can as NT, because NT has the advantage in the following categories: 1. most blue-screens when doing something non-standard. 2. Most confusing, unnecessary, and poorly-documented OS feature: The Registry! 3. Biggest disconnect between what the GUI and sell-copy says is required for configuration and what is really required.
As others have pointed out, this is an evaluation rather than a certification. NT is not inherently secure (being based on that stupid DCOM/ActiveX architecture with its remote stack), and you have to munge it up with hot fixes and service packs to even get it to the point where it's can be C2 evaluated. Sorry, "ROCK", NT still sucks.
And then the technology will race ahead of them again, and there will be an entire industry of tail-chasers... sort of like our own DEA. America has already tried this with that misbegotten CDA that was pushed by the Christian Coalition (which is now self-destructing). In this country, we like our porn and we don't like being told we can't have it.
but Apache's architecture will allow extensions to be added as fast as they can be written. Right now there are ASP Perl modules available for Apache (which, by the way, is available for Win32 and is extremely easy to administer). The company I work for has IIS as its intranet server, and the webmaster tells me that IIS 4 is a dog. Microsoft's architecture is inherently insecure, no matter *what* Steve Ballmer said at Comdex. Has an all-Microsoft intranet gone blooey recently because of a virus? I'd like to hear from y'all.
If I might interject and pretend I'm a lawyer... which means I'm going to be picky about terminology. "Shared memory" is a particular mechanism of IPC present on Unix systems. It is likely that this patent would refer only to templates stored in that manner by that mechanism, since it refers explicitly to "shared memory". This would seem to mean that coding not using the shared memory API would be exempt. If it's a broadly-used technique, then a successful challenge should follow shortly. Of course, someone somewhere has probably done this before Yahoo, which means that Yahoo's patent will be voided.
To paraphrase Gore Vidal, it is impossible to underestimate the importance of top quality developers to most companies. The reason you don't have to hire top-notch talent to program in VB is that it makes it easy to write mediocre-to-awful code. As long as there's a GUI on top of it that resembles other Windows GUIs, then it's "good enough".
And certainly lighter. Look at the link http://perl.apache.org/stories/idl-net.html for a story that indicates that Apache running mod_perl is 1100% faster than ASP.
True enough. Microsoft, as a corporation, is not to be trusted at all. If it weren't for Linux and the threat it represents, we'd see Windows2000 out for release *right now* and MS would continue its practice of letting its customers debug its code for them. Would *you* run mission-critical applications on a platform that generates at least one bad security hole a month? Gates and Ballmer expect you to. Would you drive a car that stopped for no apparent reason in the middle of the highway? Would you drive one that slowed down to the point where you had to turn it off and start it again to get performance from it?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, Heckler hasn't figured out that Gnutella (which, BTW, is open-source) can be reconfigured or rewritten to use HTTP or SMTP as its transport. Let's see them firewall 25 or 80 on a PC and get away with it. This guy is talking through his butt.
Biochemists aren't the best ones to come to for opinions about evolution, since they look at complex chemical pathways in near isolation. It's their job, after all, to isolate things like the Krebs Cycle or RNA transcription, and not to figure out how such a pathway could come from something less complex or to try understanding the similarities between pathways and surmise that they could have been the result of the divergence of a common pathway. You don't say you're a graduate student, but you claim to be about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a "top school" without naming it. You also use terms like "intelligent design" after trashing, without attribution, caricatures of biological teachings. You sound like a garden-variety creationist trying to sneak in under the radar and hoping nobody will notice, and I suspect that the "top school" you're about the "graduate" from is the Institute for Creation Research's phony graduate school. For those interested in the actual facts, I suggest http://www.talkorigins.org as an excellent starting place.
The basic tenet of the hacker ethic is that information wants to be free. AOL-Timer Warner sounds like the Levittown of online services, designed for people too stupid to own a computer or too young to be allowed to surf the real web (like my kids are) or too afraid and insecure or just plain inexperienced to deal with the difficult mechanics of clicking a link or watching to see when IE or Netscape gives them the finger to indicate when they're over a link. There are always going to be more readers of AOL than Slashdot, just as there will always be more readers of USA Today than "Brill's Content" or "Scientific American" or even the Washington Post. If you were to find thinking people in America and ask them who they trust for depth and accuracy and insight, I bet USA Today would rank far down the list. Ditto with AOL. Slickly packaged mush will always appeal to the booboisie, because they often lack the intellectual teeth to tackle anything more. However, there will always be market for edgy, serious, and unconventional media ... for example, Web sites for people who don't need training wheels anymore.
True, Utah is within its rights to travel back to the Middle Ages and keep its eyes shut while sticking its fingers in its ears. It's about what you'd expect from a bunch of religious zealot fraidy-cats.
... bending over and grabbing your ankles in the prison shower.
In this country, fundamentalists have every right to bring this up to the powers that be. However, we have the right and the obligation to explain, in regular terms and without trying to make anyone sound like an idiot, why they're wrong. It isn't difficult to do, you know. Most fundamentalism is built on fear, and if you dug deep enough you'd find it. Most politicians are honest and dedicated public servants (the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls aside) who really want to do the right thing. It's up to us to explain to them why censorship is always the wrong thing.
A library has a duty to promote a free flow of information and ideas. At the very least, it should provide children-only and adults-only terminals to take care of whatever legitimate concerns the AFA may have ... over and above their main goal of turning the whole country into goody-two-shoes small-town churchgoers.
Then it seems to me that all real Conservatives ought to drop this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude and start whacking away at these moralistic idiots *in public* and *in force*. The only reason people like this moron in Arizona can get away with calling themselves conservative is that we let them. Let's quit letting them.
Not bitter, just amused. Did you notice the squibs in the article about Linux's reliability? Unix servers (and this includes Linux) tend to have uptimes measured in years. When was the last time you saw an NT server go for more than a few months without BSOD'ing?
Well, you always have the choice of writing a UI and basing it on GNOME, or KDE, or Motif for that matter. And I'm not being sarcastic, either. That's the real strength of Linux over the Evil Empire - knowledgeable users can make it look however they want it to look. If you want to write a UI that looks and works like NextStep (which ran on top of a Mach Unix kernel, BTW), then have at it.
So how long do you think it'll be before someone hacks the MS Media Player format and releases it for free? MS doesn't charge for the player... Or, someone could build a media player that's better than MS's player, that runs faster and lighter. That's the real strength of open source, you know... with hundreds of thousands of people working in parallel, a better solution is bound to emerge faster than MS can try to catch up. It took a five years and upwards of a billion dollars for Microsoft to come up with an OS that's even half as stable as Linux, and it's *still* built on that stupid DCOM architecture that's like hanging a sign on your box saying "Infect Me!".
Nope, I don't put Linux in the same trash can as NT, because NT has the advantage in the following categories: 1. most blue-screens when doing something non-standard. 2. Most confusing, unnecessary, and poorly-documented OS feature: The Registry! 3. Biggest disconnect between what the GUI and sell-copy says is required for configuration and what is really required.
As others have pointed out, this is an evaluation rather than a certification. NT is not inherently secure (being based on that stupid DCOM/ActiveX architecture with its remote stack), and you have to munge it up with hot fixes and service packs to even get it to the point where it's can be C2 evaluated. Sorry, "ROCK", NT still sucks.
And then the technology will race ahead of them again, and there will be an entire industry of tail-chasers... sort of like our own DEA. America has already tried this with that misbegotten CDA that was pushed by the Christian Coalition (which is now self-destructing). In this country, we like our porn and we don't like being told we can't have it.
but Apache's architecture will allow extensions to be added as fast as they can be written. Right now there are ASP Perl modules available for Apache (which, by the way, is available for Win32 and is extremely easy to administer). The company I work for has IIS as its intranet server, and the webmaster tells me that IIS 4 is a dog. Microsoft's architecture is inherently insecure, no matter *what* Steve Ballmer said at Comdex. Has an all-Microsoft intranet gone blooey recently because of a virus? I'd like to hear from y'all.
If I might interject and pretend I'm a lawyer... which means I'm going to be picky about terminology. "Shared memory" is a particular mechanism of IPC present on Unix systems. It is likely that this patent would refer only to templates stored in that manner by that mechanism, since it refers explicitly to "shared memory". This would seem to mean that coding not using the shared memory API would be exempt. If it's a broadly-used technique, then a successful challenge should follow shortly. Of course, someone somewhere has probably done this before Yahoo, which means that Yahoo's patent will be voided.
To paraphrase Gore Vidal, it is impossible to underestimate the importance of top quality developers to most companies. The reason you don't have to hire top-notch talent to program in VB is that it makes it easy to write mediocre-to-awful code. As long as there's a GUI on top of it that resembles other Windows GUIs, then it's "good enough".
And certainly lighter. Look at the link http://perl.apache.org/stories/idl-net.html for a story that indicates that Apache running mod_perl is 1100% faster than ASP.
Don't do it. If you do, then you're no better than the lawyers you don't seem to like.
True enough. Microsoft, as a corporation, is not to be trusted at all. If it weren't for Linux and the threat it represents, we'd see Windows2000 out for release *right now* and MS would continue its practice of letting its customers debug its code for them. Would *you* run mission-critical applications on a platform that generates at least one bad security hole a month? Gates and Ballmer expect you to. Would you drive a car that stopped for no apparent reason in the middle of the highway? Would you drive one that slowed down to the point where you had to turn it off and start it again to get performance from it?