The only problem is that, as has been previously discussed on/., censorware is too flawed to be a viable ``less restrictive means.''
So, obviously, what we need is GNUwatch, a GPL-ed censorware product. That way we can make a flawless, effective censorware product that parents and libraries everywhere can confidently use to safely block whatever they consider to be offensive material from reaching the eyes of minors or anyone else they service.
So the obvious solution is for us all to join the fight against indecency and anything that offends anyone TODAY, before any other bad men are allowed to voice their opinions... er... show pornography to our kids!
My college does the email-based thing, and I have long since filtered the emails to a rarely-checked mailbox. The college also has lists for all women and all faculty/staff in addition to the whole student body.
The real problem with the all-student list is that people with access to it use it for notices that really aren't of interest to the entire student body. A fairly good article on the subject is here. Although specific to my campus, it has a general argument on how useful emails are obscured by the amount of garbage.
I don't think the kind of information to which you refer is spam, but the kinds of things that our all-student list send out are. You refer to information that does not involve any solicitation -- the all-student list, however, is used by faculty to solicit students to sign up for certain classes or performances or to attend shows and lectures. I am not against the all-student list for what is now, but I see what it's becoming, and it is becoming school-sanctioned spam.
I don't see what's wrong with customizing literature to fit your needs. Me, I read from my computer fine; the first time I read Turn of the Screw was online (thanks to Project Gutenberg). Others might be more comfortable by the fire place, but they can be by the fireplace with the book they want in the format they want cheaper than otherwise. People with sight problems can change the font or have the book read to them (the whole thing, not just a book on tape). Heck, they can probably go to Kinko's and put the book in the nolstagic paperback or hardcover form for cheaper than they could get it with all the shipping and distribution costs involved in traditional bookstore buying.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the printed word will ever die. I think that publication an the effort involved adds a level of legitimacy to a text that can never be achieved by purely online means. I just don't see any problem with online novels as an additional, flexible, inexpensive form of publication.
There is a much better article here from September, 11 1997. Does the 1999 article say anything new about this chip? (There's also a blurb on the media demonstration here from the Nov. 17, 1997 Japan Times.)
The act defines the terms "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio interface device" to only include devices "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of" or "designed specifically" for digital audio recording or interfacing.
First, it was just a joke meant to accentuate the ludicrous aspects of any act that singles out specific instances of anything as being ``legal'' and the rest as being ``illegal'' in a sweeping fashion.
Second, this is the part I misread from the act:
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for-- (A) professional model products, and (B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
What does this actually mean? That this act can easily be worked around by using devices that are intended for broad use in a narrow ``CD ripping'' fashion? So I guess this doesn't cover software at all, or what exactly is ``equipment'' or a ``device?''
It's totally disigenuous of the RIAA to say that since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, then all copying of music with computers is illegal. To the contrary: since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, copying of music with computers is much less restricted by law than copying it in other ways.
The way I read it, it does cover computers, but to a much more ridiculous extent. The act says
No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to-- (1) the Serial Copy Management System; (2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system's method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or (3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.
Seems to me like no one can even sell computers anymore.
My first impulse as to how to respond to this question is to recommend donating the money to a legal fund that protects open-source interests (assuming one exists -- if not, something like the EFF might be good). Open source supports itself mostly through donation of man-hours -- developers working for free. You could always horde the money, work less, and develop more, but if you're looking to really benefit other OSS developers, contributing to their defense is a non-trivial gesture. Although contributions in the way of better hardware, etc. are valuable, one aspect of this enterprise that requires a signifigant amounts of money is the hiring and retaining of legal services. You can't kludge a solid legal defense on your own. That way, next time a software liscense comes under fire, or a patent threatens to restrict development, the open-source community has the means to respond to such legal threats.
I wonder if the owner of a similiar domain (i.e. whatsgoingon.com or some such) is gettting a similiar idea and thinking about suing whatshappenin.com. I don't see why not...
80% - 90% is a LOT, and I think the only reason it works is specific to the nature of NT.
In order to get this much reduction, and make a process with this much overhead worthwhile, users have to have virtually all of their files in common. Where does this happen other than NT? Sunddenly everbody's default config files for every default application they run will only take up one user's worth of space, and only the unique files and modified config files will take up additional space. The only way for this to be efficient is if the bulk of the HD space a given user uses is msde up of many default config files -- this makes a lot of sense for Windows, but not so much for *nix systems.
I was really shocked when I first heard this number, but when you think about it, it kinda makes sense.
When I fingered him (`finger zoid@idsoftware.com'), I found he has HTML tags in his finger info (technically his project, not his plan)- making it kind of odd to read. I've never seen that before - any idea why he would do that? It seems that a web address would be more appropriate.
Also, his title description is `Ports' - was he behind the Linux ports perhaps?
JonKatz writes a lot, and, as such, it is difficult to pin down his views on a topic. For instance, his views on speech and discussion on/. On one hand, he says
And, as we all know ad nauseum, I get plenty of disagreement. I take responsibility for what I say. I read all criticism, even flames. I don't believe in many aspects of the moderation system. I set my prefs to everything. To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community. I consider it self-censorship, a Balkanization of ideas, an effort to smother a human problem with software.
On the other hand, however, he presents the view that
AC's simply don't permit any legitimate conversations to take place. It is not possible to have a coherent running conversation in public on Slashdot on any issue, whether youre Jon Katz or anybody else.
and even says
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
I don't get it. Is he for or against moderation? For or against open discussion? He hates steering software, but at the same time he likes that moderation facilitates dialogue (even though he doesn't use the system). I'm confused; he seems to me to be both contradictory and vague, despite writing a novella in response to a given question.
More to the point, why aren't YOU working on a QuickTime Player for Linux/PPC?
Maybe I should rephrase - There are QT players (namely xanim) for Linux/PPC, but there are elements af the format that are proprietary. There is not, nor will there ever be, a QT player for Linux/PPC that plays the QT movies commonly found on the internet until Apple allows Sorenson to license the Sorenson Video codec.
Linux is important for Apple. They know they are selling machines to have people run Linux on. Why is this a big deal? Well it given people a choice. Now you can CHOOSE your operating system (Linux) and then choose which platform you want. A lot of people are picking the newer Macs as their Linux platform.
But you can't choose Linux and still, say, play Quicktime movies. If Apple is so into letting someone choose his/her OS, then are they working on a Quicktime Player for Linux/PPC?
This isn't any form of support, nor does it contain any useful information; this is a mere acknowledgement of the existence of Linux on the PPC archetecture. (If they were serious about support, they'd release a Quicktime Player for Linux/PPC. As is, that's just about the only reason I still keep around my MacOS partition.)
I'm curious as to why this page is up. What's the point of having the page if it doesn't help anyone?
I found it odd that they included www.linuxppc.com, the LinuxPPC company website, but not www.linuxppc.org, the ``official home of the Linux/PPC project.'' I found the latter much more useful when installing LinuxPPC, especially when dealing with all of the Open Firmware setup.
They have a nice little note when you pop up the page:
You are running a UNIX operating system with an X-Windows browser.
There are no products currently on the market for X that support the Sorenson Video Codec that we use on The Ad Critic. You will be unable to view any of our commercials. We will keep searching for one and will update the site when we do.
Let us know if you know of a UNIX Plugin that will display QuickTime moves encoded in Sorenson Video Codec. Email webmaster@adcritic.com.
Please feel free to browse out site in the meantime.
OK, so I suppose they mean ``find a product'' when the ambiguously use ``do'', and I run LinuxPPC, not UNIX, but it's at least nice to be recognized and treated with respect as opposed to having that ``You are not running Windows or MacOS! Conform!'' message thrown in our faces.
Moderation? I've seen a lot of on-topic posts recently marked "Troll" or "Flamebait", which tells me we are getting some really bad moderators. Hopefully, M2 will weed some of them out.
Back when I had points, I could have sworn that a post I marked as being ``Overrated'' ended up being marked as ``Troll''. Maybe those on-topic posts aren't marked as ``Troll'', but someone thinks that that it isn't worth the score it has.
How about leaving the threshold at 0, but having it sorted with ``Highest scores first''? That way, all (non-troll) voices are heard, but moderation does have influence.
I want to be the guy in the control booth who sees the two 95 mph dots heading towards each other, see them meet, see the dots dissappear, and see them appear again at 0 mph as each calls his/her lawyer.
Conventional wisdom states that cell-phone users get into more accidents and have less control over their speed; I wonder how this will affect the data.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem is that, as has been previously discussed on
So, obviously, what we need is GNUwatch, a GPL-ed censorware product. That way we can make a flawless, effective censorware product that parents and libraries everywhere can confidently use to safely block whatever they consider to be offensive material from reaching the eyes of minors or anyone else they service.
So the obvious solution is for us all to join the fight against indecency and anything that offends anyone TODAY, before any other bad men are allowed to voice their opinions... er... show pornography to our kids!
My college does the email-based thing, and I have long since filtered the emails to a rarely-checked mailbox. The college also has lists for all women and all faculty/staff in addition to the whole student body.
The real problem with the all-student list is that people with access to it use it for notices that really aren't of interest to the entire student body. A fairly good article on the subject is here. Although specific to my campus, it has a general argument on how useful emails are obscured by the amount of garbage.
I don't think the kind of information to which you refer is spam, but the kinds of things that our all-student list send out are. You refer to information that does not involve any solicitation -- the all-student list, however, is used by faculty to solicit students to sign up for certain classes or performances or to attend shows and lectures. I am not against the all-student list for what is now, but I see what it's becoming, and it is becoming school-sanctioned spam.
I don't see what's wrong with customizing literature to fit your needs. Me, I read from my computer fine; the first time I read Turn of the Screw was online (thanks to Project Gutenberg). Others might be more comfortable by the fire place, but they can be by the fireplace with the book they want in the format they want cheaper than otherwise. People with sight problems can change the font or have the book read to them (the whole thing, not just a book on tape). Heck, they can probably go to Kinko's and put the book in the nolstagic paperback or hardcover form for cheaper than they could get it with all the shipping and distribution costs involved in traditional bookstore buying.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the printed word will ever die. I think that publication an the effort involved adds a level of legitimacy to a text that can never be achieved by purely online means. I just don't see any problem with online novels as an additional, flexible, inexpensive form of publication.
-ac
This one is pretty cool.
-ac
There is a much better article here from September, 11 1997. Does the 1999 article say anything new about this chip?
(There's also a blurb on the media demonstration here from the Nov. 17, 1997 Japan Times.)
-ac
The act defines the terms "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio interface device" to only include devices "designed or marketed for the primary purpose of" or "designed specifically" for digital audio recording or interfacing.
First, it was just a joke meant to accentuate the ludicrous aspects of any act that singles out specific instances of anything as being ``legal'' and the rest as being ``illegal'' in a sweeping fashion.
Second, this is the part I misread from the act:
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for--
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.
What does this actually mean? That this act can easily be worked around by using devices that are intended for broad use in a narrow ``CD ripping'' fashion? So I guess this doesn't cover software at all, or what exactly is ``equipment'' or a ``device?''
My bad.
-ac
It's totally disigenuous of the RIAA to say that since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, then all copying of music with computers is illegal. To the contrary: since the Audio Home Recording Act doesn't cover computers, copying of music with computers is much less restricted by law than copying it in other ways.
The way I read it, it does cover computers, but to a much more ridiculous extent. The act says
No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to--
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system's method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.
Seems to me like no one can even sell computers anymore.
My first impulse as to how to respond to this question is to recommend donating the money to a legal fund that protects open-source interests (assuming one exists -- if not, something like the EFF might be good). Open source supports itself mostly through donation of man-hours -- developers working for free. You could always horde the money, work less, and develop more, but if you're looking to really benefit other OSS developers, contributing to their defense is a non-trivial gesture. Although contributions in the way of better hardware, etc. are valuable, one aspect of this enterprise that requires a signifigant amounts of money is the hiring and retaining of legal services. You can't kludge a solid legal defense on your own. That way, next time a software liscense comes under fire, or a patent threatens to restrict development, the open-source community has the means to respond to such legal threats.
-ac
I wonder if the owner of a similiar domain (i.e. whatsgoingon.com or some such) is gettting a similiar idea and thinking about suing whatshappenin.com. I don't see why not
-ac
80% - 90% is a LOT, and I think the only reason it works is specific to the nature of NT.
In order to get this much reduction, and make a process with this much overhead worthwhile, users have to have virtually all of their files in common. Where does this happen other than NT? Sunddenly everbody's default config files for every default application they run will only take up one user's worth of space, and only the unique files and modified config files will take up additional space. The only way for this to be efficient is if the bulk of the HD space a given user uses is msde up of many default config files -- this makes a lot of sense for Windows, but not so much for *nix systems.
I was really shocked when I first heard this number, but when you think about it, it kinda makes sense.
-ac
<Annoying, ain't it?>
The actual Inquirer web site is here, and the actual article is here.
-ac
His website is kind of "under construction" :)
threewave.com
Yeah, but at least ``It Worked!''
Good catch.
-ac
When I fingered him (`finger zoid@idsoftware.com'), I found he has HTML tags in his finger info (technically his project, not his plan)- making it kind of odd to read. I've never seen that before - any idea why he would do that? It seems that a web address would be more appropriate.
Also, his title description is `Ports' - was he behind the Linux ports perhaps?
-ac
-AC
cnn.com has been down for a while - does anyone know if that's internal failure or DoS? Does anyone know if it'll be back up soon?
More to the point, why aren't YOU working on a QuickTime Player for Linux/PPC?
Maybe I should rephrase - There are QT players (namely xanim) for Linux/PPC, but there are elements af the format that are proprietary. There is not, nor will there ever be, a QT player for Linux/PPC that plays the QT movies commonly found on the internet until Apple allows Sorenson to license the Sorenson Video codec.
-AC
Linux is important for Apple. They know they are selling machines to have people run Linux on. Why is this a big deal? Well it given people a choice. Now you can CHOOSE your operating system (Linux) and then choose which platform you want. A lot of people are picking the newer Macs as their Linux platform.
But you can't choose Linux and still, say, play Quicktime movies. If Apple is so into letting someone choose his/her OS, then are they working on a Quicktime Player for Linux/PPC?
This isn't any form of support, nor does it contain any useful information; this is a mere acknowledgement of the existence of Linux on the PPC archetecture. (If they were serious about support, they'd release a Quicktime Player for Linux/PPC. As is, that's just about the only reason I still keep around my MacOS partition.)
I'm curious as to why this page is up. What's the point of having the page if it doesn't help anyone?
-AC
I found it odd that they included www.linuxppc.com, the LinuxPPC company website, but not www.linuxppc.org, the ``official home of the Linux/PPC project.'' I found the latter much more useful when installing LinuxPPC, especially when dealing with all of the Open Firmware setup.
-AC
They have a nice little note when you pop up the page:
You are running a UNIX operating system with an X-Windows browser.
There are no products currently on the market for X that support the Sorenson Video Codec that we use on The Ad Critic. You will be unable to view any of our commercials. We will keep searching for one and will update the site when we do.
Let us know if you know of a UNIX Plugin that will display QuickTime moves encoded in Sorenson Video Codec. Email webmaster@adcritic.com.
Please feel free to browse out site in the meantime.
OK, so I suppose they mean ``find a product'' when the ambiguously use ``do'', and I run LinuxPPC, not UNIX, but it's at least nice to be recognized and treated with respect as opposed to having that ``You are not running Windows or MacOS! Conform!'' message thrown in our faces.
-AC
Moderation? I've seen a lot of on-topic posts recently marked "Troll" or "Flamebait", which tells me we are getting some really bad moderators. Hopefully, M2 will weed some of them out.
Back when I had points, I could have sworn that a post I marked as being ``Overrated'' ended up being marked as ``Troll''. Maybe those on-topic posts aren't marked as ``Troll'', but someone thinks that that it isn't worth the score it has.
Already started ... check out all the LinuxOne stuff (not to mention the MPAA and RIAA).
How about leaving the threshold at 0, but having it sorted with ``Highest scores first''? That way, all (non-troll) voices are heard, but moderation does have influence.
I want to be the guy in the control booth who sees the two 95 mph dots heading towards each other, see them meet, see the dots dissappear, and see them appear again at 0 mph as each calls his/her lawyer.
Conventional wisdom states that cell-phone users get into more accidents and have less control over their speed; I wonder how this will affect the data.
-AC