Bigotry in linux distributions is contrary to the point of open source and the GPL.
If Linux wants to be a 'major player' it has to be Linux. It can't be Corel-Linux and Redhat-Linux and so forth otherwise we'll end up with a huge holy war which will, end up in the end, Hurting the GPL and the 'movement'.
The only way I can think of to save us from ourselves is by getting People who run Distros (by that I mean the dev teams of groups like Corel, VA, Etc., people who have respect need to try to stop these wars before they start.) to pass some sort of test to prove that, while they like the distro they work for best, (as they work on it) they will never spread lies, flames, or the like about another distro or another groups work. That way we wont end up like those we scorn for their policy, philosophy, and what we consider to be general evil, (or as I see it, those who put the profit motive above people, or friendships, or trust, that sort of thing. But hey what do I know, i'm stuck up. And obviously I can't talk for everyone.:)
But do you REALLY want to be there if they don't want you there in the first place? heh, be pretty funny if the interviewee couldn't attend the chat though.
As far as I can tell the reason for not letting people using stuff like BitchX in is because they think people using BitchX are like women haters or something, I heard they let them back in recently when they wised up but bleh, it's talk back live, it's not that great a show, do I really want to be a part of it?:)
I've been to chat.cnn.com a few times and theres a few problems with them, most of you wont be able to go.
They ban by Version, (snicker) so theres a chance that anyone not using mIRC wont be able to get in. They use to akill everyone off who has two part version replies, thereby killing everyone who ever got lagged, due to a madly 1337 k-r33t mIRC script:)
Add this to the fact that the operators don't even know how to use the simple mIRC clients they are using, and the admins will probaly see something like BitchX and be like, GRUGH WOMAN HATER AKILL GURGH! O:LINE SMASH! ^_^
I have a pair of very intresting chat.cnn quotes. They are from the day when the media was trying to pull off a coup against rollercoasters telling people that they were incredibly dangerous even though they reported that you had a one in four billion chance of being injured on one.
[This is an op in #talkback on chat.cnn.com] (sharonka) my kids are forbidden ever to go to a carnival and ride anything! The people who run those things are filthy, reek of alcohol and scare me!! [chat.cnn.com quote] (Dix) Guns are safer tan [sic] roller coasters
Other events included the ops throwing colors at everyone that were so horrendous against my black background, I suggested to the op that she doesn't do this and she called me an idiot and told me that everyone else had a white background, so I should too. I told her that maybe she should use the ctrl-k x,y format (a dumb mIRC thing which is fine because shes using mIRC and most of the people there were too anyway, so there was no point in being anal about some clients not being able to see colors.) when using colors so everyone with all kinds of backgrounds could see. She told me she would 'look into it'.
In conclusion the chat will probaly be rather homogonised unless they've made some drastic changes over there. This is by no means a bash against chat.cnn, This is all truth, I assure you.
The fact is that it's just going to be incredibly boring for just about everyone here because the ops like to step in and say "woah! too complicated! We don't know what you are talking about, talk about something else", of course then again when CNN is talking about the Great IP Crunch of 2010, you never know.
WOOHOO! We've turned Jon into a flaming usenet trollish type!
Well not really but you talk like this is a bad thing that Jon is doing, when in reality it's no ones fault but the people who flamed him. Why shouldn't he bear ill will to those who consider him a complete and total babbling, disgusting, computer illiterate, prick? I know I would, and quite frankly, I don't understand why everyone who comments dislikes Jon so much.
AHEM, LET ME REPHRASE.
considering how many people actually read the articles but don't comment, Jon should consider just how huge a compliment silence actually is. There might be 100 comments but how many people saw the story and read the article? It's pretty safe to assume that people who post will disagree since conflict breeds discussion and conversation better than agreement.
Sorry janes, I really wanted to just run thru this after I saw it because it's kind of.. well, bleh, I apologise for the grammar but if i'd had more time I would have written you a shorter letter, as mark twain would say.
The article is really grasping at straws. The problem with the article is that it assumes so many things and points out the obvious far too often to be of any use. Obviously if you damage a country or groups telecommunications they will have a harder time using that network to communicate.
As for using IRC and email, it's alot harder for governments to regulate and sort thru and de-encrypt (where applicable) or even know exist to detect plots brewing, this is diffrent from if they used the telephone which is easily wire-tapped, an ISP could be asked to hold over email but with the proliferation of things like hot mail, the fact that everyone and their brother has eighty or ninety email accounts, and the fact that it's really just impossible to deal with everyone who takes out their agressions online where their speech isn't restricted, so yes, email and IRC and chatrooms are used, but quite sparingly, and quite frankly I see "plotters" on various IRC networks all the time, although usually they are semi-retarded white-supremists in the age group of 15-25 who really, well, they aren't that bright.
On breaking into websites and changing what they say, politically this has little or no effect. I think personally each american might look at a government website once a month, and I don't think any american reads *.gov to learn about political agenda, well not yet although that is what the people over here at/. would love to see. The problem is that most people don't give a crap about politics edgewise, so changing a website to push the agenda oppsite to what the website would normally be saying would be the equivilant of someone putting down a woopie cushion where the UN Secretary General sat, good for a laugh, nothing else.
One part of the article I enjoyed was the political factors that motivate terrorist groups to cause violence. This is very informative and useful.
The article, however, suffers from one tragic flaw that appears to affect many, many articles on the same subject have. It assumes the false truth that all computers on a network are automatically linked to a network. If you do this and a cracker (note the use of the term Cracker, and not hacker. I'm stuck up.) destroys your stock market they will need to have done a few things.
They will need access to the network; this is not a problem if the network is linked to the internet, but most networks are intranets simply because there is no logical pourpose for linking the network to the internet. Governments who do this most tragic error will fall to darwin's theory of natural selection when someone gets lucky. If you have a missle base, and someone who is say on vacation needs to shoot the missile in a pinch because of political actions, then they should have to fly back and do it that way, OR they should have to dial straight into the system via long distance with a protected and undisclosed number that changes often and is only enabled when people who need to get in in a pinch are away from the base. And of course they'd still have to log-in with a funny looking username and password. This is my solution for the problem, there are probaly a thousand others, just about all of them will prevent catastrophe from all but the BEST terrorist organisations.
The best terrorist organisations will capitalise on any oppourtunity given and the fact that they have access to the internet has absoloutely nothing to do with it, except for the intresting recuiting procedures via the internet, which is of course dangerous because if you put up a big sign that says RECUITING TERRORISTS everyone comes to the party just to take a peek.
I think the reason why you haven't seen many extremely tragic cases where people were killed by 'cyberwarfare' is because as terrorists learn about the very intresting buzzword they realise there is essentially jack they can do. I once read a story about a group of terrorists who inflitrated a place where traffic was controlled, the terrorists learned about the program controlling it and almost killed a state offical. However this is fantasy.
You see this is perhaps every networks greatest defense that runs a specific operation. When the software is developed in house, (usually because there is no market for selling such software, like for instance software to drive traffic lights.) you would need to figure out how the program worked how to cause the most havoc (or in a 'surgical' strike, how to kill the one person you want to kill.), when this relates to something so mathematically complex as a series of traffic lights as it relates to one mans path relative to his speed and make a four way stop go all green, sure, it's possible, but only if you already have operatives inside the operation, you can't just run in, learn about the program and the laws behind what it does on the fly and cause havoc. You don't have that much time, unless of course you're an operative inside the operation, in which case i'd find getting the operative in much more impressive than 'cyber terrorism'
I think the more terrorist groups research computer science and cyber warfare the less of it we will see, well, we wont see much that is JUST cyber terrorism, When you put a master of geography and navagation, a physicist, and someone who understands nuclear missles, all with computer science knowledge and knowledge of the system, you've got one frigging scary scenario, But quite frankly, it's not cyber-terrorism, knowledge of computer science just comes with the biz. People who run the things normally have to understand whats going on just to maintain it, people who want to cause havoc REALLY have to understand it.
In conclusion, I think the article needs a major revision, The guy really knows what hes talking about when it comes to politics and thats obviously his forte, but I don't think he knows what hes getting into when he says 'cyber terrorism', it's a remarkably boring (and on it's own, useless) thing.
Yeah, and also you'll need to make an alloy that is stronger than diamonds and can withstand the intense pressure that can CREATE diamonds from GAS. You're gonna have a helluva time.
Besides what we are finding as probes go deeper into space is that the pressure becomes so intense that they just implode anyway, so when we can travel to the core of neptune or uranus and back again, it will mean leaps and bounds for space exploration.
Now if we can create a ship that can haul back a diamond the size of the earth, or even take a chunk out of it, it'll be a miracle. But thats beside the point.
Sure, if we could get the diamonds out of there it would be great, but uh, they are in an area of _INTENSE_PRESSURE_, thats why they are diamonds, after all, and thats going to make it a real pain in the butt to get them out, since you can't just send in a gigantic retractable claw, (it would get squeezed into nothing) Although maybe you could hold coal close to where the pressure is extremely intense and watch the coal turn to diamonds.
It's kind of hard to ask for Tech support on a story on/., admittedly, and it would, of course, be wiser for him to go into a #linux on some network or asking a mailing list, of course people could reply to him via e-mail which would be even the wiser, but then hes an AC so thats not possible.
There is a mention in the CNN Article that there is a propellent leak in the OMS (Orbital Maneuvering system, helps the shuttle stay in the right orbit) There is a possibility that the problem is not isolated, and if thats the case, "You can kiss shuttle flights goodbye for this year"
Yet another comment from the conspiracy to make it look like there is only one conspiracy
Honestly, do we have anything to fear from the technology as it is now? No, of course not. However, you have to expect plenty of fear on the part of people from/., just look at the stories on geek profiling (The Katz stories). The Government IS out to get us, they admit it after all, and what is this caused by? Paranoia on the part of people in power. It's a dramatic irony, of sorts. But the Light in the darkness and the shadow from the sun is manditory for everything in life.
This mass paranoia against governments isn't bred because someone reads Farenheight 451 and says "shock!", (although it probaly does happen in SMALL quantaties) It's because we see it in our government today. We see corruption, and special intrests, and all sorts of scary, scary things, in government TODAY. The fact that this could be used to track all of the recordings a person ever made is scary.
Is it a long way off? Sure. Can you blame them for being overprotective of their rights? No, of course not.
Nothing personal but I don't see how you can mock or make fun of anyone for holding these fears.
Well that quote was about usenet and every ISP caches their own newsgroups, so it's obviously not that large.
As for spending 158 years looking at web pages this is just a huge 'what-if' which, in another form is a useless factoid. I'd only look at pages that I was intrested in the first place via search engine, (which I shall remind you this is NOT, this is, essentially a site where they review pages.)
Do you look at every book in the libary when you go in? Of course not, you use the card catalog. When it comes down to it, I can decide what i'm intrested easily, and we all know this. I'm not going to look at web pages on say David Bowie if I'm not intrested. I'm not even going to venture close to them. Ultimately although this site may have some uses it will probaly end up having more cons than pros.
Everyone would search a different 'part' of the net or for different things. Not censorship per se, though you would lose out on some content in some places. Heck, come to think of it that's the best idea I've had in a few days, I think I'll go tell all of my friends to start e-mailing me things that are interesting.>:)
I hate to burst your bubble but you've basically just described what/. does =)
How rude. Yes I mis-spelled competition, do you want to make something out of it? I'm quite aware of how cable signals get into my house. You see I do, in fact, have two jacks, one that I would use for mediaone, if I used it, and one for comcast. The cables are actually incredibly thin and even if there were 300 cable companies with seperate wires, they would fit in a bulky, although not a hulking wire. This would not block out the sky like smog. And I wouldn't have jacks for all of them, I would just switch the connectors in the wall to the access 300 or so connectors in the box on the telephone pole, this is acceptable to me, although perhaps not to you.
Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to go respond to non-flames. (By the way, there are grammatical and spelling errors in your post, you can go to hell, troll.)
This is really just kind of a silly idea, you have to pick a group to moderate your content? I'd rather moderate my own, and I can do this with my brain, and alot faster too, no group or person is going to feel EXACTLY as I do about a wide range of things, (this is the point on reading content, your view point and knowledge can change.) and personally I wouldn't even trust or have the audicity to ask Linus Torvalds to sift thru information on a subject like linux.
OTOH, continuing with the Linus example, it's not censorship if it's only blocking lies, for instance if Linus Torvalds censored out things like 'LINUX USERS KILL BABIES AND EAT PEOPLE'
But as per any ratings system, laws can be hung on it. This has been proven with the australians who hung their laws on filtering software, and barring that they just rip a list off the filtering software and put it on the ISP.
Summary: Someones view point and knowledge base can change, which is why it is a shame to have one group of people censor or otherwise promote things IF it is used as the only resource for learning about such things. Furthermore Any ratings system can have laws hung on it, including this one.
Really? Wow, I guess all of those (user links) I saw to people who consistently had +'s with extremely good content or on the flip side -'s with horrendiously bad content is just flukes.
Try looking at someone's User page who you think is making a grain of truth, a good statement, or otherwise just well spoken, you may be suprised when you see someone with +100 karma (their statements tend to be consistently good), you'll see that the cream truly does rise to the top.
Essentially it's a licence, NOT a program, there aren't any requirements/benifits for doing such a thing, and whoever contributes knows that they are doing it for free, they have no reason to expect compensation, They aren't required to do x-hours of work like in the AOL case, it's not arguably a job like the Moderators in AOL were.
Although...
It would be really funny to see someone comment the entire source of programs and force sun to pay them for their effort.
I think the issue is not whether or not Linux or solaris 'wins' against the other, but if Sun does something dirty, upperhanded, and *shudder* Micro$oftish using the Sun Licence.
IANAL, but I think what we need to worry most about is if sun claims that distro's owe them money for having their proggies in the distro that were GPL to begin with or perhaps by some programmer that didn't have an idea what he was doing, licence wise, that got assimilated somehow into the SCSL, and then Sun could charge people who make distros for say, adding Drivers or patches to it.
Yes! I can imagine how many cables there would be, in fact, I can *see* how many cables there would be!
I live in atlanta and I have the option (shock!) between Comcast and Mediaone, two cable companies, and I think we are like one of 3 places in the united states who have the option or something. But uh, no, we don't have alot more cables, comcast just sort of moved in, and quite frankly Comcast is better than mediaone, I get gameshow network, foxnews, and Sci-fi on comcast, I wouldn't on mediaone.
I'm sorry, but there isn't a realistic parallel between NYC at the turn of the century and if we allowed compedition in the cable industry.
Hehehe, now we get into the evil of chess players, are you willing to try to convince a high level GM to do it? How much are you willing to pay him? Keep in mind chess masters are starving so they are always looking for $$.
Essentially the filter would just turn into another chess engine.
This is the standard of chess. It is one person and their opponent, sure team play is possible in chess but it always boils down to you against someone else, it's a fairly solitary and poetic game, and it wasn't created for or ment to be played in matches like "Kasprov V World" (which of course is really Kasparov V Polling Engine w/ Chess advisors)
It wouldn't be that intresting or even that useful as a result. Generally speaking it depends on who writes the better engine with a better opening book. You see you can't just get an engine and throw it into a game, it'll lose in the opening unless it's given a 'book' of openings. This is simply because in the opening the number of possible moves is just so incredibly high that the 0.0001% or so of relevant moves just don't get processed, this was possible with DT and DB, but i'm not sure if it was done, if I had to guess i'd assume it was, though, it's a standard caveat with chess engines.
I've never heard of a Knights to Bishops exception in any tournament annoucement myself, so I don't know what you're talking about personally. The most common change is actually the time controls, and if you don't count that, theres always Shogi (japanese chess) and Bughouse (team chess).
Computers have a very horrid way of thinking, There is no computer that cannot be beaten by a Grand Master simply because the computers aren't capable of 'thinking' outside of predicting the move that would be the most likely to bring about the result.
Deep Blue Lost games to Kasprov, by the way, and the reason he lost the second match is because IBM Cheated, they had a group of GM's in a hotel across the street with a monitor of the game and May have had (although it hasn't been proven) a button that says "don't go there"
But i'm not as eloquent at saying all this as Kasparov says it, somewhere on that page He has a nice little rant about how IBM cheated during the match and almost lost points for shrugging at his coach and mother when the computer stalled and they rebooted it, "Do not talk to your player" the manager said to his coach, "But they are talking to theirs" Said Kasparov.
Slashdot Mirror
Bigotry in linux distributions is contrary to the point of open source and the GPL.
:)
If Linux wants to be a 'major player' it has to be Linux. It can't be Corel-Linux and Redhat-Linux and so forth otherwise we'll end up with a huge holy war which will, end up in the end, Hurting the GPL and the 'movement'.
The only way I can think of to save us from ourselves is by getting People who run Distros (by that I mean the dev teams of groups like Corel, VA, Etc., people who have respect need to try to stop these wars before they start.) to pass some sort of test to prove that, while they like the distro they work for best, (as they work on it) they will never spread lies, flames, or the like about another distro or another groups work. That way we wont end up like those we scorn for their policy, philosophy, and what we consider to be general evil, (or as I see it, those who put the profit motive above people, or friendships, or trust, that sort of thing. But hey what do I know, i'm stuck up. And obviously I can't talk for everyone.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
But do you REALLY want to be there if they don't want you there in the first place? heh, be pretty funny if the interviewee couldn't attend the chat though.
:)
As far as I can tell the reason for not letting people using stuff like BitchX in is because they think people using BitchX are like women haters or something, I heard they let them back in recently when they wised up but bleh, it's talk back live, it's not that great a show, do I really want to be a part of it?
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
I've been to chat.cnn.com a few times and theres a few problems with them, most of you wont be able to go.
:)
They ban by Version, (snicker) so theres a chance that anyone not using mIRC wont be able to get in. They use to akill everyone off who has two part version replies, thereby killing everyone who ever got lagged, due to a madly 1337 k-r33t mIRC script
Add this to the fact that the operators don't even know how to use the simple mIRC clients they are using, and the admins will probaly see something like BitchX and be like, GRUGH WOMAN HATER AKILL GURGH! O:LINE SMASH! ^_^
I have a pair of very intresting chat.cnn quotes. They are from the day when the media was trying to pull off a coup against rollercoasters telling people that they were incredibly dangerous even though they reported that you had a one in four billion chance of being injured on one.
[This is an op in #talkback on chat.cnn.com] (sharonka) my kids are forbidden ever to go to a carnival and ride anything! The people who run those things are filthy, reek of alcohol and scare me!!
[chat.cnn.com quote] (Dix) Guns are safer tan [sic] roller coasters
Other events included the ops throwing colors at everyone that were so horrendous against my black background, I suggested to the op that she doesn't do this and she called me an idiot and told me that everyone else had a white background, so I should too. I told her that maybe she should use the ctrl-k x,y format (a dumb mIRC thing which is fine because shes using mIRC and most of the people there were too anyway, so there was no point in being anal about some clients not being able to see colors.) when using colors so everyone with all kinds of backgrounds could see. She told me she would 'look into it'.
In conclusion the chat will probaly be rather homogonised unless they've made some drastic changes over there. This is by no means a bash against chat.cnn, This is all truth, I assure you.
The fact is that it's just going to be incredibly boring for just about everyone here because the ops like to step in and say "woah! too complicated! We don't know what you are talking about, talk about something else", of course then again when CNN is talking about the Great IP Crunch of 2010, you never know.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
WOOHOO! We've turned Jon into a flaming usenet trollish type!
Well not really but you talk like this is a bad thing that Jon is doing, when in reality it's no ones fault but the people who flamed him. Why shouldn't he bear ill will to those who consider him a complete and total babbling, disgusting, computer illiterate, prick? I know I would, and quite frankly, I don't understand why everyone who comments dislikes Jon so much.
AHEM, LET ME REPHRASE.
considering how many people actually read the articles but don't comment, Jon should consider just how huge a compliment silence actually is. There might be 100 comments but how many people saw the story and read the article? It's pretty safe to assume that people who post will disagree since conflict breeds discussion and conversation better than agreement.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Sorry janes, I really wanted to just run thru this after I saw it because it's kind of.. well, bleh, I apologise for the grammar but if i'd had more time I would have written you a shorter letter, as mark twain would say.
/. would love to see. The problem is that most people don't give a crap about politics edgewise, so changing a website to push the agenda oppsite to what the website would normally be saying would be the equivilant of someone putting down a woopie cushion where the UN Secretary General sat, good for a laugh, nothing else.
The article is really grasping at straws. The problem with the article is that it assumes so many things and points out the obvious far too often to be of any use. Obviously if you damage a country or groups telecommunications they will have a harder time using that network to communicate.
As for using IRC and email, it's alot harder for governments to regulate and sort thru and de-encrypt (where applicable) or even know exist to detect plots brewing, this is diffrent from if they used the telephone which is easily wire-tapped, an ISP could be asked to hold over email but with the proliferation of things like hot mail, the fact that everyone and their brother has eighty or ninety email accounts, and the fact that it's really just impossible to deal with everyone who takes out their agressions online where their speech isn't restricted, so yes, email and IRC and chatrooms are used, but quite sparingly, and quite frankly I see "plotters" on various IRC networks all the time, although usually they are semi-retarded white-supremists in the age group of 15-25 who really, well, they aren't that bright.
On breaking into websites and changing what they say, politically this has little or no effect. I think personally each american might look at a government website once a month, and I don't think any american reads *.gov to learn about political agenda, well not yet although that is what the people over here at
One part of the article I enjoyed was the political factors that motivate terrorist groups to cause violence. This is very informative and useful.
The article, however, suffers from one tragic flaw that appears to affect many, many articles on the same subject have. It assumes the false truth that all computers on a network are automatically linked to a network. If you do this and a cracker (note the use of the term Cracker, and not hacker. I'm stuck up.) destroys your stock market they will need to have done a few things.
They will need access to the network; this is not a problem if the network is linked to the internet, but most networks are intranets simply because there is no logical pourpose for linking the network to the internet. Governments who do this most tragic error will fall to darwin's theory of natural selection when someone gets lucky. If you have a missle base, and someone who is say on vacation needs to shoot the missile in a pinch because of political actions, then they should have to fly back and do it that way, OR they should have to dial straight into the system via long distance with a protected and undisclosed number that changes often and is only enabled when people who need to get in in a pinch are away from the base. And of course they'd still have to log-in with a funny looking username and password. This is my solution for the problem, there are probaly a thousand others, just about all of them will prevent catastrophe from all but the BEST terrorist organisations.
The best terrorist organisations will capitalise on any oppourtunity given and the fact that they have access to the internet has absoloutely nothing to do with it, except for the intresting recuiting procedures via the internet, which is of course dangerous because if you put up a big sign that says RECUITING TERRORISTS everyone comes to the party just to take a peek.
I think the reason why you haven't seen many extremely tragic cases where people were killed by 'cyberwarfare' is because as terrorists learn about the very intresting buzzword they realise there is essentially jack they can do. I once read a story about a group of terrorists who inflitrated a place where traffic was controlled, the terrorists learned about the program controlling it and almost killed a state offical. However this is fantasy.
You see this is perhaps every networks greatest defense that runs a specific operation. When the software is developed in house, (usually because there is no market for selling such software, like for instance software to drive traffic lights.) you would need to figure out how the program worked how to cause the most havoc (or in a 'surgical' strike, how to kill the one person you want to kill.), when this relates to something so mathematically complex as a series of traffic lights as it relates to one mans path relative to his speed and make a four way stop go all green, sure, it's possible, but only if you already have operatives inside the operation, you can't just run in, learn about the program and the laws behind what it does on the fly and cause havoc. You don't have that much time, unless of course you're an operative inside the operation, in which case i'd find getting the operative in much more impressive than 'cyber terrorism'
I think the more terrorist groups research computer science and cyber warfare the less of it we will see, well, we wont see much that is JUST cyber terrorism, When you put a master of geography and navagation, a physicist, and someone who understands nuclear missles, all with computer science knowledge and knowledge of the system, you've got one frigging scary scenario, But quite frankly, it's not cyber-terrorism, knowledge of computer science just comes with the biz. People who run the things normally have to understand whats going on just to maintain it, people who want to cause havoc REALLY have to understand it.
In conclusion, I think the article needs a major revision, The guy really knows what hes talking about when it comes to politics and thats obviously his forte, but I don't think he knows what hes getting into when he says 'cyber terrorism', it's a remarkably boring (and on it's own, useless) thing.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Yeah, and also you'll need to make an alloy that is stronger than diamonds and can withstand the intense pressure that can CREATE diamonds from GAS. You're gonna have a helluva time.
Besides what we are finding as probes go deeper into space is that the pressure becomes so intense that they just implode anyway, so when we can travel to the core of neptune or uranus and back again, it will mean leaps and bounds for space exploration.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Now if we can create a ship that can haul back a diamond the size of the earth, or even take a chunk out of it, it'll be a miracle. But thats beside the point.
Sure, if we could get the diamonds out of there it would be great, but uh, they are in an area of _INTENSE_PRESSURE_, thats why they are diamonds, after all, and thats going to make it a real pain in the butt to get them out, since you can't just send in a gigantic retractable claw, (it would get squeezed into nothing) Although maybe you could hold coal close to where the pressure is extremely intense and watch the coal turn to diamonds.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
He actually _did_ help them out.
/., admittedly, and it would, of course, be wiser for him to go into a #linux on some network or asking a mailing list, of course people could reply to him via e-mail which would be even the wiser, but then hes an AC so thats not possible.
It's kind of hard to ask for Tech support on a story on
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
There is a mention in the CNN Article that there is a propellent leak in the OMS (Orbital Maneuvering system, helps the shuttle stay in the right orbit) There is a possibility that the problem is not isolated, and if thats the case, "You can kiss shuttle flights goodbye for this year"
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Yet another comment from the conspiracy to make it look like there is only one conspiracy
/., just look at the stories on geek profiling (The Katz stories). The Government IS out to get us, they admit it after all, and what is this caused by? Paranoia on the part of people in power. It's a dramatic irony, of sorts. But the Light in the darkness and the shadow from the sun is manditory for everything in life.
Honestly, do we have anything to fear from the technology as it is now? No, of course not. However, you have to expect plenty of fear on the part of people from
This mass paranoia against governments isn't bred because someone reads Farenheight 451 and says "shock!", (although it probaly does happen in SMALL quantaties) It's because we see it in our government today. We see corruption, and special intrests, and all sorts of scary, scary things, in government TODAY. The fact that this could be used to track all of the recordings a person ever made is scary.
Is it a long way off? Sure. Can you blame them for being overprotective of their rights? No, of course not.
Nothing personal but I don't see how you can mock or make fun of anyone for holding these fears.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Well that quote was about usenet and every ISP caches their own newsgroups, so it's obviously not that large.
As for spending 158 years looking at web pages this is just a huge 'what-if' which, in another form is a useless factoid. I'd only look at pages that I was intrested in the first place via search engine, (which I shall remind you this is NOT, this is, essentially a site where they review pages.)
Do you look at every book in the libary when you go in? Of course not, you use the card catalog. When it comes down to it, I can decide what i'm intrested easily, and we all know this. I'm not going to look at web pages on say David Bowie if I'm not intrested. I'm not even going to venture close to them. Ultimately although this site may have some uses it will probaly end up having more cons than pros.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Everyone would search a different 'part' of the net or for different things. Not censorship per se, though you would lose out on some content in some places. Heck, come to think of it that's the best idea I've had in a few days, I think I'll go tell all of my friends to start e-mailing me things that are interesting.>:)
/. does =)
I hate to burst your bubble but you've basically just described what
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
How rude. Yes I mis-spelled competition, do you want to make something out of it? I'm quite aware of how cable signals get into my house. You see I do, in fact, have two jacks, one that I would use for mediaone, if I used it, and one for comcast. The cables are actually incredibly thin and even if there were 300 cable companies with seperate wires, they would fit in a bulky, although not a hulking wire. This would not block out the sky like smog. And I wouldn't have jacks for all of them, I would just switch the connectors in the wall to the access 300 or so connectors in the box on the telephone pole, this is acceptable to me, although perhaps not to you.
Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to go respond to non-flames. (By the way, there are grammatical and spelling errors in your post, you can go to hell, troll.)
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
I never read those newsgroups but i'd imagine it's not extremely relevant what the thread started off being if the subject had changed in the thread.
For determining if something is worth my time to read it usually takes me about five seconds to infer whether the post is a flame or a friend.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
My posts really aren't that good.
;)
I'm obviously a troll
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
No offense to Jon. ;)
This is really just kind of a silly idea, you have to pick a group to moderate your content? I'd rather moderate my own, and I can do this with my brain, and alot faster too, no group or person is going to feel EXACTLY as I do about a wide range of things, (this is the point on reading content, your view point and knowledge can change.) and personally I wouldn't even trust or have the audicity to ask Linus Torvalds to sift thru information on a subject like linux.
OTOH, continuing with the Linus example, it's not censorship if it's only blocking lies, for instance if Linus Torvalds censored out things like 'LINUX USERS KILL BABIES AND EAT PEOPLE'
But as per any ratings system, laws can be hung on it. This has been proven with the australians who hung their laws on filtering software, and barring that they just rip a list off the filtering software and put it on the ISP.
Summary: Someones view point and knowledge base can change, which is why it is a shame to have one group of people censor or otherwise promote things IF it is used as the only resource for learning about such things. Furthermore Any ratings system can have laws hung on it, including this one.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Really? Wow, I guess all of those (user links) I saw to people who consistently had +'s with extremely good content or on the flip side -'s with horrendiously bad content is just flukes.
Try looking at someone's User page who you think is making a grain of truth, a good statement, or otherwise just well spoken, you may be suprised when you see someone with +100 karma (their statements tend to be consistently good), you'll see that the cream truly does rise to the top.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Well, short answer no.
Essentially it's a licence, NOT a program, there aren't any requirements/benifits for doing such a thing, and whoever contributes knows that they are doing it for free, they have no reason to expect compensation, They aren't required to do x-hours of work like in the AOL case, it's not arguably a job like the Moderators in AOL were.
Although...
It would be really funny to see someone comment the entire source of programs and force sun to pay them for their effort.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
I think the issue is not whether or not Linux or solaris 'wins' against the other, but if Sun does something dirty, upperhanded, and *shudder* Micro$oftish using the Sun Licence.
IANAL, but I think what we need to worry most about is if sun claims that distro's owe them money for having their proggies in the distro that were GPL to begin with or perhaps by some programmer that didn't have an idea what he was doing, licence wise, that got assimilated somehow into the SCSL, and then Sun could charge people who make distros for say, adding Drivers or patches to it.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Yes! I can imagine how many cables there would be, in fact, I can *see* how many cables there would be!
I live in atlanta and I have the option (shock!) between Comcast and Mediaone, two cable companies, and I think we are like one of 3 places in the united states who have the option or something. But uh, no, we don't have alot more cables, comcast just sort of moved in, and quite frankly Comcast is better than mediaone, I get gameshow network, foxnews, and Sci-fi on comcast, I wouldn't on mediaone.
I'm sorry, but there isn't a realistic parallel between NYC at the turn of the century and if we allowed compedition in the cable industry.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Hehehe, now we get into the evil of chess players, are you willing to try to convince a high level GM to do it? How much are you willing to pay him? Keep in mind chess masters are starving so they are always looking for $$.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Essentially the filter would just turn into another chess engine.
This is the standard of chess. It is one person and their opponent, sure team play is possible in chess but it always boils down to you against someone else, it's a fairly solitary and poetic game, and it wasn't created for or ment to be played in matches like "Kasprov V World" (which of course is really Kasparov V Polling Engine w/ Chess advisors)
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
It wouldn't be that intresting or even that useful as a result. Generally speaking it depends on who writes the better engine with a better opening book. You see you can't just get an engine and throw it into a game, it'll lose in the opening unless it's given a 'book' of openings. This is simply because in the opening the number of possible moves is just so incredibly high that the 0.0001% or so of relevant moves just don't get processed, this was possible with DT and DB, but i'm not sure if it was done, if I had to guess i'd assume it was, though, it's a standard caveat with chess engines.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
I've never heard of a Knights to Bishops exception in any tournament annoucement myself, so I don't know what you're talking about personally. The most common change is actually the time controls, and if you don't count that, theres always Shogi (japanese chess) and Bughouse (team chess).
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
WRONG!
Computers have a very horrid way of thinking, There is no computer that cannot be beaten by a Grand Master simply because the computers aren't capable of 'thinking' outside of predicting the move that would be the most likely to bring about the result.
Deep Blue Lost games to Kasprov, by the way, and the reason he lost the second match is because IBM Cheated, they had a group of GM's in a hotel across the street with a monitor of the game and May have had (although it hasn't been proven) a button that says "don't go there"
But i'm not as eloquent at saying all this as Kasparov says it, somewhere on that page He has a nice little rant about how IBM cheated during the match and almost lost points for shrugging at his coach and mother when the computer stalled and they rebooted it, "Do not talk to your player" the manager said to his coach, "But they are talking to theirs" Said Kasparov.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-