To play devil's advocate here... how can you call it a real democracy if you're not free to remotely inspect and control the hardware you paid for, as legal owner or under legal authority of the corporation that owns those assets?
Democracy, voting for government action, doesn't come into this. I would call such a country a "free state for employees but not property owners."
The quote in the previous message is in err. The author referred not to the words of "Ralpha Waldo Emerson", the nineteenth century Italian Unitarian transcendentalist, but to those of "Ralph," the American one. The Onion regrets this error.
Wow, I'd skipped over that article the first time, but it's just one big error. Everything he says is incorrect, under-researched, or unrelated to his point.
2- Consistency may be the "hobgoblin of small minds" but Oliver Wendell Holmes never wrote C-Code.
And, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the quote "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and wasn't it Ralpha Waldo Emerson's? This man doesn't know computers, doesn't know Unix, doesn't know copyright law or software licenses, certainly doesn't know a thing about Red Hat, and can't even remember English.
BSD is not UNIX(TM). In fact, BSD as you probably know it (4.4 Lite) is not derived from any original UNIX source code. In 1994, all code from the USL and Novell was removed and replaced with new code for a "lite" release. Browse http://www.unix-systems.org/ for more information. It's not the code heritage that makes a UNIX, it's whether you register yourself for the Open Group blessing and the branding rights.
For AbiWord? Actually, AbiWord has a spelling checker, but it currently doesn't suggest any alternatives.:) I'd never thought about it this way, but it really does need a "spelling suggestor".
It's the new trend to speak out against genetically enhanced agriculture in Europe, even if you don't have any reasons. I think you get a free pass to Disney World France or something. Either this guy would rather "shut up and stay home [and] do nothing" (a sentiment to which I could easily agree) or he really wants to see Space Mountain.
At a previous employer, a network filter had been installed o protect the employees from the dangers of pictures of unclothed human bodies. This software would automatically block accesses to the entire domain that held the offensive content; it filtered on URL substrings and all page content.
After hours one day, I was browsing Fender's guitar web site, came upon the Yngwie Malmsteen model Stratocaster and immediately access to "fender.com" was blocked. "http://www.fender.com/somestuff/custom/malmsteen. com" had "teen" in the URL.
Shortly thereafter I found another job.
Re:Fixing Quake (was Re:what's the fscking deal?)
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 1
You could also use Unix groups for what they're intended to be used. Create a group for local users ("local" is a good name), add yourself to it, do: "chown root qwcl; chgrp local qwcl", and set the bits so that only members of that group can launch the program ("chmod 4110 qwcl").
Where in my post did I say I didn't buy CDs? Where did I say I copy CDs when I want music instead of purchasing a packaged version? Nowhere, that's where, and that you jumped to the conclusion for the sake of an "artists rights" crusade underminds all of your argument. None of your points apply to me; they're all misguided attacks. Please, next time you feel the urge to piss on someone, aim away from your own legs.
I think $15 is way too much for a disc when it only costs $0.08 to produce, a few cents to transport, a few cents to stock, a dollar goes to the artists, and $13.50 goes to the record companies. It's called capitalism; they sell it and it's my choice to buy it or not. I don't approve of these high prices so I don't pay them. That doesn't mean I'm a criminal or haven't bought CDs in the past. I've been known to buy used CDs, and I'll buy CDs worth the money for the packaging and convenience.
The astronauts of Apollo 11 circle the moon once, twice, then the lunar module implodes. No one was in it yet, they could still abort the landing, fire the rockets and head home. But Houston says ditch them. They cut the communications.
... but the crew burns anyway. They fly towards Earth, splash into the Pacific, wash onto the shores of a small island. After convincing the locals what they're up to, they gain return flights to the United States where the government has told everyone they're dead.
There you go, pulling out the old broken anlogies. There is nothing in common between copying a stream of bits and taking a Mercedes. One is a duplication of an abstract pattern of bits, one is the physical removal of matter. When you take the Mercedes, it's gone. The previous owner doesn't have one to use. When you copy a stream of bits, everyone else who has their own copy has lost nothing. The pattern is just as functional as ever for all users.
I think it was an older article on Slashdot which prompted this notion, but I can't find a source, so I'll rephrase it:
For millennia humans have invented regulations, rules, and contracts to carefully partition and limit precious, rare material resources. It was the everyman's dream that natural gas, steel, water, trees, earth, and food was plentiful and limitless, but the Earth has limits to its size and composition. Humans rationed what they had.
It's now, at the end of the second recorded millennium, that information is the key to the advancement of society. It is just now that we have a resource, information, which is inherently limitless! We, as a civilization, have evolved to thrive on a resource we can never run out of, and can be easily shared with every other inhabitant of our culture.
And, unfortunately, a group of people exist to return us to the bronze age by devising new artificial and arbitrary rules to limit this information.
This is the saddest part. Information doesn't "want" to be free; it is free. It's the humans who aren't prepared to deal with this.
I believe that's what Google is based on, only indirectly. Google claims to rank results based on the keywords matched and the number of referrals in its database that point to the page. For example, if you search for "linux", the first seven hits are as follows: "www.linux.org", "www.redhat.com", "www.planetit.com/[something]", "www.debian.org", "www.li.org", "linuxtoday.com", "www.linuxjournal.com". If you search for "linux stuff" your first hit is Slashdot.
Once you add more words to your search, the feature starts to stand out, picking out the most popular of the sites by the number of other pages which link to it.
I'm a big fan of the theory that a mail reader is for reading mail, and a text editor is for editing text; never shall the twain meet.
So how do you send mail?:)
By the way, Emacs is only as big as you install it. To put it another way, the lisp you load is the memory you take. Emacs can be built to be quite small, take up little disk space (as much as vim), and work only as a text editor if you choose to do so.
So the tranformation of "RMS" to "GOD" is a direct attack at the FSF? Care to explain? There's much more to Tom's argument than his displeasure with the licenses people use, and it shows.
I disagree that Richard Stallman is the only spokesperson for the FSF; I've been more influenced by the people who have followed his writings than his actions themselves. These are its spokespeople. Why? Because there are more of these people than Richards, and they're more visible. They also write a lot of good software.
Many people root for the FSF, Richard Stallman, and the software covered by his licenses, and this seems to offend Tom. I could respect a summary of his feelings towards the proper definition of "free" or how "free" software should be developed and used. This piece is a parody of style and manner, not of merit. The only lesson you teach by making fun of the students is that when you can't think of anything better, start with the personal attacks.
Richard Stallman might bore or offend you with his vocalization of his beliefs about free software. Some people fight for what they believe in, and often good things come from it. I think I can thank Richard Stallman for what he's given to the community, under a license perfectly acceptable to me for all the things I'd wish to do with the software.
Tom Christiansen has also given work to the community. Not being a perl-head, my appreciation of his efforts are constrained mostly to watching him protect his name on Slashdot. Tom also believes very much in what he does and isn't afriad to tell the world what he thinks.
The difference in the application of these beliefs. Richard Stallman attacks non-free software. His goal seems to be the demise of proprietary software and the widespread use of software you can share with your neighbor. I'm all for this goal, and I'm sure even Tom would prefer this future over many possible others (I'll leave his definition of "free" for another time).
Instead of attacking software, Tom attacks people. This is the difference. Instead of composing a well-researched criticism of the licenses that offend him, or of Richard's software which isn't technically suited for its use, or even the foundation's principles which he can't appreciate, he parodies a person and his character.
Caldera "OpenLinux" has always included proprietary software as the basis for its operation. It's the least "open" distribution available, and it always seems outdated.
"Rock solid" here is much a matter of architecture. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD might all run very well on an Intel machine, but even the latest release of the king of portability (NetBSD 1.4) won't boot right on my Sun 4/110. I'm using a 1.3.3 kernel and I can cause it to panic through pkg_add.
The BSD kernels aren't the operating system, and the fact that there exists now a three-way split between unencumbered BSD releases hints that there is still "a great deal of work to be done," at least in the minds of the project leaders and contributors.
All non-seniors do is look at pornography? They don't have e-mail too? Or games? Since when is an old lady's e-mail more important than pornography? I never heard of that law.
It's censorship straight from the definition, your morality crusade aside:
censor n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable v 1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn: ban] 2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the government"
Slashdot Mirror
To play devil's advocate here... how can you call it a real democracy if you're not free to remotely inspect and control the hardware you paid for, as legal owner or under legal authority of the corporation that owns those assets?
Democracy, voting for government action, doesn't come into this. I would call such a country a "free state for employees but not property owners."
The quote in the previous message is in err. The author referred not to the words of "Ralpha Waldo Emerson", the nineteenth century Italian Unitarian transcendentalist, but to those of "Ralph," the American one. The Onion regrets this error.
BSD is not UNIX(TM). In fact, BSD as you probably know it (4.4 Lite) is not derived from any original UNIX source code. In 1994, all code from the USL and Novell was removed and replaced with new code for a "lite" release. Browse http://www.unix-systems.org/ for more information. It's not the code heritage that makes a UNIX, it's whether you register yourself for the Open Group blessing and the branding rights.
The picture is of a gnu, otherwise known as a wildebeest.
For AbiWord? Actually, AbiWord has a spelling checker, but it currently doesn't suggest any alternatives. :) I'd never thought about it this way, but it really does need a "spelling suggestor".
It's the new trend to speak out against genetically enhanced agriculture in Europe, even if you don't have any reasons. I think you get a free pass to Disney World France or something. Either this guy would rather "shut up and stay home [and] do nothing" (a sentiment to which I could easily agree) or he really wants to see Space Mountain.
After hours one day, I was browsing Fender's guitar web site, came upon the Yngwie Malmsteen model Stratocaster and immediately access to "fender.com" was blocked. "http://www.fender.com/somestuff/custom/malmsteen. com" had "teen" in the URL.
Shortly thereafter I found another job.
You could also use Unix groups for what they're intended to be used. Create a group for local users ("local" is a good name), add yourself to it, do: "chown root qwcl; chgrp local qwcl", and set the bits so that only members of that group can launch the program ("chmod 4110 qwcl").
I have three computers I've owned for fewer than two years and none of them has Internet Explorer on it.
Where in my post did I say I didn't buy CDs? Where did I say I copy CDs when I want music instead of purchasing a packaged version? Nowhere, that's where, and that you jumped to the conclusion for the sake of an "artists rights" crusade underminds all of your argument. None of your points apply to me; they're all misguided attacks. Please, next time you feel the urge to piss on someone, aim away from your own legs.
I think $15 is way too much for a disc when it only costs $0.08 to produce, a few cents to transport, a few cents to stock, a dollar goes to the artists, and $13.50 goes to the record companies. It's called capitalism; they sell it and it's my choice to buy it or not. I don't approve of these high prices so I don't pay them. That doesn't mean I'm a criminal or haven't bought CDs in the past. I've been known to buy used CDs, and I'll buy CDs worth the money for the packaging and convenience.
Get your head on straight.
QNX isn't proprietary? Where do I download the source code? I might give it a try, then.
The astronauts of Apollo 11 circle the moon once, twice, then the lunar module implodes. No one was in it yet, they could still abort the landing, fire the rockets and head home. But Houston says ditch them. They cut the communications.
... but the crew burns anyway. They fly towards Earth, splash into the Pacific, wash onto the shores of a small island. After convincing the locals what they're up to, they gain return flights to the United States where the government has told everyone they're dead.
Talk about being abandoned by your country.
I think it was an older article on Slashdot which prompted this notion, but I can't find a source, so I'll rephrase it:
This is the saddest part. Information doesn't "want" to be free; it is free. It's the humans who aren't prepared to deal with this.I believe that's what Google is based on, only indirectly. Google claims to rank results based on the keywords matched and the number of referrals in its database that point to the page. For example, if you search for "linux", the first seven hits are as follows: "www.linux.org", "www.redhat.com", "www.planetit.com/[something]", "www.debian.org", "www.li.org", "linuxtoday.com", "www.linuxjournal.com". If you search for "linux stuff" your first hit is Slashdot.
Once you add more words to your search, the feature starts to stand out, picking out the most popular of the sites by the number of other pages which link to it.
He's referring to the certification of the license under which the drivers are released, not the drivers themselves.
Oh, the irony. Who's "that guy" again? :)
So how do you send mail?
By the way, Emacs is only as big as you install it. To put it another way, the lisp you load is the memory you take. Emacs can be built to be quite small, take up little disk space (as much as vim), and work only as a text editor if you choose to do so.
So the tranformation of "RMS" to "GOD" is a direct attack at the FSF? Care to explain? There's much more to Tom's argument than his displeasure with the licenses people use, and it shows.
I disagree that Richard Stallman is the only spokesperson for the FSF; I've been more influenced by the people who have followed his writings than his actions themselves. These are its spokespeople. Why? Because there are more of these people than Richards, and they're more visible. They also write a lot of good software.
Many people root for the FSF, Richard Stallman, and the software covered by his licenses, and this seems to offend Tom. I could respect a summary of his feelings towards the proper definition of "free" or how "free" software should be developed and used. This piece is a parody of style and manner, not of merit. The only lesson you teach by making fun of the students is that when you can't think of anything better, start with the personal attacks.
Richard Stallman might bore or offend you with his vocalization of his beliefs about free software. Some people fight for what they believe in, and often good things come from it. I think I can thank Richard Stallman for what he's given to the community, under a license perfectly acceptable to me for all the things I'd wish to do with the software.
Tom Christiansen has also given work to the community. Not being a perl-head, my appreciation of his efforts are constrained mostly to watching him protect his name on Slashdot. Tom also believes very much in what he does and isn't afriad to tell the world what he thinks.
The difference in the application of these beliefs. Richard Stallman attacks non-free software. His goal seems to be the demise of proprietary software and the widespread use of software you can share with your neighbor. I'm all for this goal, and I'm sure even Tom would prefer this future over many possible others (I'll leave his definition of "free" for another time).
Instead of attacking software, Tom attacks people. This is the difference. Instead of composing a well-researched criticism of the licenses that offend him, or of Richard's software which isn't technically suited for its use, or even the foundation's principles which he can't appreciate, he parodies a person and his character.
Tom, you're no Larry Wall.
Caldera "OpenLinux" has always included proprietary software as the basis for its operation. It's the least "open" distribution available, and it always seems outdated.
What part of "in whole or in part" don't you understand?
"Rock solid" here is much a matter of architecture. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD might all run very well on an Intel machine, but even the latest release of the king of portability (NetBSD 1.4) won't boot right on my Sun 4/110. I'm using a 1.3.3 kernel and I can cause it to panic through pkg_add.
The BSD kernels aren't the operating system, and the fact that there exists now a three-way split between unencumbered BSD releases hints that there is still "a great deal of work to be done," at least in the minds of the project leaders and contributors.
All non-seniors do is look at pornography? They don't have e-mail too? Or games? Since when is an old lady's e-mail more important than pornography? I never heard of that law.
It's censorship straight from the definition, your morality crusade aside:
censor n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch
theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or
politically unacceptable v 1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn:
ban] 2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the
government"