Lemme see. To summarize, X is the "greatest graphical platform that I've ever seen" because:
- Aqua doesn't have the flexibility, user base and developer base of X. (huh?) - It's the only thing that runs on Linux. I've no choice. ("I can't install them on my Linux and FreeBSD boxes at home.") - No one has managed to do better (on Unix, that is) ("Sure, there are a bunch of things that could be improved on X but I don't see any other initiatives out there that is even remotely close to accomplish what X has done. ")
I would like all of these people to sit back and watch the original trilogy again. Now watch it again. Pay attention this time and ignore any nostalgia you had from when you saw this when you were ten.
Er, no. I watched "A New Hope" for the first time about a year ago (I'd already seen "Empire strikes back" and "Return of the Jedi" long ago), and I thought it was fantastic. Sharper, wittier dialog, interesting characters, betting acting, and settings that felt real. Much better than the crap that is Phantom Menace.
Firstly free software as I understand it refers to freedom, and not price. Free software might very well be sold by their authors. What then? No free software sold commercially that I know of fails to disclaim warranties. Supppose that you package up software that you wrote with a manual, and sell it with support. Are you then willing to warrant your software? (note that support is not the same as a warranty)
Even supposing that we are refering to software given for free. Well a lot of commercial software is sold for very little profit, zero economic profit in fact. I'm thinking of shareware here, where the price of the software is just enough for the developer to make a livelihood. Requiring a warranty increases the potential cost of developing the software dramatically, and will have an especially chilling effect on small software developers. I don't think this is desirable.
I'd be happy to exchange warranty protection for money. That's what most proprietary software publishers do as part of charging for their software.
What proprietary software are you refering to that comes with a warranty?
Anyone who wants a warranty can contract with LinuxCare or their local consultant to provide one, and pay for the privilege.
I didn't know that LinuxCare warrantied free software. I thought they provided support, which is distinct from providing a warranty. Will they replace, refund or fix my free software in a timely manner if it fails to perform as advertised?
. When I write free software, I don't provide a warranty, that is only fair.
Rhetoric. Why is that any fairer than a commercial software developer disclaiming warranty? Simply because it's free? What if I sell free software I wrote?
Free software developers dislike providing a warranty for precisely the same reasons commercial software developers dislike providing warranties: the potential cost, given the complexity of software. What if I'm a small shareware developer, and the need provide a warranty has the potential to destroy my livelihood?
It seems to me that he's saying the reverse: commercial software should be warrantied, but free software should be exempt, for who knows what reason (but particularly, I suspect, because he writes free software). But UCITA will require warranties, unless disclaimed through a license? At least that's what I gather from the article text and the discussion on technocrat.net, although I couldn't find anything on this matter from scanning through the UCITA. Perhaps someone can post a reference.
This is of interest to free software authors because UCITA and other proposed law actually require warranties on the software you give away that would cause great hardship to free software authors. It's of interest for proprietary software users because the warranties attached to software that you pay for are generally considered inadequate.
i.e. Giving warranties is a good thing, except when I have to do it.
My goodness. Will you just go read the link to the story, and then come back and admit that you're wrong. And you wonder why people think you're an idiot. Idiot.
IMO, it doesn't mean much. It's largely hype, a symbolic milestone. It's akin to getting a bit dump of a binary program. The hard part will be to understand what it all means.
. People here don't find it immoral to expose CyberPatrol blacklists... they find it immoral to blacklist at all.
"Information wants to be free," they chime.
Given this strange behavior to this story, I have to ask. Is it "information wants to be free, except when lives are at stake"?
If you don't see the difference between exposing a list of blocked sites and exposing a list of names which may endanger the lives of people, then you've a very warped sense of morality.
"Information wants to be free". What does that mean? An evocative phrase devoid of rational content... Freedom of information and the need for privacy have to be balanced.
It's pretty obvious: they're trying to place a cookie to track anonymous users, so that your reading patterns can be tracked even if you're not logged in. Better user tracking == more advertising revenue.
In a time when new technologies are blossoming like never before, it seems a bit strange that the Academy is apparently doing whatever they can to lock filmmakers into the status quo.
Why is it strange? It isn't strange at all that a group with vested interests would want to preserve the status quo. In fact, it's the law.
I saw this debate between Al Gore and Bradley sometime back (when Bradley was still in the running). A member of the audience asked whether either of them would commit to sending a manned mission to Mars if they were elected President. Al Gore said (in his typical, sleazy, spineless crowd pleasing way) something to effect of "There are much more important things here on Earth, like medical care (the pet topic of the time)." But what took the cake was the hearty round of applause the audience gave him for this statement.
Q: Can I enter Random (Optimal)? A: No. You shouldn't want to anyway, because it is guaranteed to finish in the middle of the pack. It definitely will not finish in first place, because it cannot exploit the weaker programs.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? The more people believe the above statement, the more there is to gain or lose from a non (uniform) random strategy.
Come on, people. I hear so much Mozilla bashing it's not even funny. Mozilla may be slower than IE on Windows, and it may make my machine use nothing but swap space for an hour, but if you don't like it, fix it. That's the beauty of open-souce (i.e., free) software.
I assume you don't like it either. Please fix all the problems you listed then. I'm eagerly awaiting your fixes. I'll even be happy to pay you for Mozilla once it's decent.
Does liveconnect work at all with mozilla? I haven't been able to find much information on the issue, and all the mozillas I've tried up to M16 don't work correctly with a liveconnect applet I've written.
I attended a talk last november given by a Sante Fe institute lecturer on computer intrusion detection systems modelled after the human immune system. (unfortunately, I can't remember what her name was, otherwise I would try to post a link). There's actually a very strong parallel between what a computer security system has to do, and the role of the human immune system: the key behind both these systems is to be able to distinguish between "self" and "non-self". In the case of the human immune system, the anti-bodies are trained on marrow cells (?) and only released into general circulation if they do not attack host cells. In their research, they used genetic programming to train the intrusion detectors on "typical" network activity - after which, the detectors would be able to identify and report non-typical activity. It supposedly works pretty well.
Welcome to the *real* world. The 'Internet' isn't a utopia where everyone get's along.. Technically, the internet doesn't really exist. It's a bunch on indipendant networks that all interconnect with eachother.
You don't understand what the Internet it. It's an international network. It doesn't matter what it is technically, or who invented it. The non-US internet using population is exploding. It connects people all over the world and belongs to the world now.
We can have the wonderful situation where everyone tries to set up their own root servers.
Or the US can let go of it's hegemony.
And try to stick your head out of the narrow American sandpit.
Duh, the servers are paying for the bandwidth because they want to - they want to get all their nice little streaming advertisements and what not to people. Will the world be a better place if the server can't pay to get a better connection? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Lemme see. To summarize, X is the "greatest graphical platform that I've ever seen" because:
- Aqua doesn't have the flexibility, user base and developer base of X. (huh?)
- It's the only thing that runs on Linux. I've no choice. ("I can't install them on my Linux and FreeBSD boxes at home.")
- No one has managed to do better (on Unix, that is) ("Sure, there are a bunch of things that could be improved on X but I don't see any other initiatives out there that is even remotely close to accomplish what X has done. ")
Wonderfully convincing.
Want KDE to win? Make Qt free. Game over.
No. Troll Tech wants Troll Tech to win. i.e. make money.
I would like all of these people to sit back and watch the original trilogy again. Now watch it again. Pay attention this time and ignore any nostalgia you had from when you saw this when you were ten.
Er, no. I watched "A New Hope" for the first time about a year ago (I'd already seen "Empire strikes back" and "Return of the Jedi" long ago), and I thought it was fantastic. Sharper, wittier dialog, interesting characters, betting acting, and settings that felt real. Much better than the crap that is Phantom Menace.
Firstly free software as I understand it refers to freedom, and not price. Free software might very well be sold by their authors. What then? No free software sold commercially that I know of fails to disclaim warranties. Supppose that you package up software that you wrote with a manual, and sell it with support. Are you then willing to warrant your software? (note that support is not the same as a warranty)
Even supposing that we are refering to software given for free. Well a lot of commercial software is sold for very little profit, zero economic profit in fact. I'm thinking of shareware here, where the price of the software is just enough for the developer to make a livelihood. Requiring a warranty increases the potential cost of developing the software dramatically, and will have an especially chilling effect on small software developers. I don't think this is desirable.
I'd be happy to exchange warranty protection for money. That's what most proprietary software publishers do as part of charging for their software.
What proprietary software are you refering to that comes with a warranty?
Anyone who wants a warranty can contract with LinuxCare or their local consultant to provide one, and pay for the privilege.
I didn't know that LinuxCare warrantied free software. I thought they provided support, which is distinct from providing a warranty. Will they replace, refund or fix my free software in a timely manner if it fails to perform as advertised?
. When I write free software, I don't provide a warranty, that is only fair.
Rhetoric. Why is that any fairer than a commercial software developer disclaiming warranty? Simply because it's free? What if I sell free software I wrote?
Free software developers dislike providing a warranty for precisely the same reasons commercial software developers dislike providing warranties: the potential cost, given the complexity of software. What if I'm a small shareware developer, and the need provide a warranty has the potential to destroy my livelihood?
It seems to me that he's saying the reverse: commercial software should be warrantied, but free software should be exempt, for who knows what reason (but particularly, I suspect, because he writes free software). But UCITA will require warranties, unless disclaimed through a license? At least that's what I gather from the article text and the discussion on technocrat.net, although I couldn't find anything on this matter from scanning through the UCITA. Perhaps someone can post a reference.
This is of interest to free software authors because UCITA and other proposed law actually require warranties on the software you give away that would cause great hardship to free software authors. It's of interest for proprietary software users because the warranties attached to software that you pay for are generally considered inadequate.
i.e. Giving warranties is a good thing, except when I have to do it.
My goodness. Will you just go read the link to the story, and then come back and admit that you're wrong. And you wonder why people think you're an idiot. Idiot.
IMO, it doesn't mean much. It's largely hype, a symbolic milestone. It's akin to getting a bit dump of a binary program. The hard part will be to understand what it all means.
. People here don't find it immoral to expose CyberPatrol blacklists... they find it immoral to blacklist at all.
"Information wants to be free," they chime.
Given this strange behavior to this story, I have to ask. Is it "information wants to be free, except when lives are at stake"?
If you don't see the difference between exposing a list of blocked sites and exposing a list of names which may endanger the lives of people, then you've a very warped sense of morality.
"Information wants to be free". What does that mean? An evocative phrase devoid of rational content... Freedom of information and the need for privacy have to be balanced.
Why are the pictures so badly taken? It seems that every shot has someone's face pressed up right against the camera.
It's pretty obvious: they're trying to place a cookie to track anonymous users, so that your reading patterns can be tracked even if you're not logged in. Better user tracking == more advertising revenue.
In a time when new technologies are blossoming like never before, it seems a bit strange that the Academy is apparently doing whatever they can to lock filmmakers into the status quo.
Why is it strange? It isn't strange at all that a group with vested interests would want to preserve the status quo. In fact, it's the law.
I saw this debate between Al Gore and Bradley sometime back (when Bradley was still in the running). A member of the audience asked whether either of them would commit to sending a manned mission to Mars if they were elected President. Al Gore said (in his typical, sleazy, spineless crowd pleasing way) something to effect of "There are much more important things here on Earth, like medical care (the pet topic of the time)." But what took the cake was the hearty round of applause the audience gave him for this statement.
Q: Can I enter Random (Optimal)?
A: No. You shouldn't want to anyway, because it is guaranteed to finish in the middle of the pack. It definitely will not finish in first place, because it cannot exploit the weaker programs.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? The more people believe the above statement, the more there is to gain or lose from a non (uniform) random strategy.
If you don't need the computer at night, why not just turn it off? What does uptime do for you?
Come on, people. I hear so much Mozilla bashing it's not even funny. Mozilla may be slower than IE on Windows, and it may make my machine use nothing but swap space for an hour, but if you don't like it, fix it. That's the beauty of open-souce (i.e., free) software.
I assume you don't like it either. Please fix all the problems you listed then. I'm eagerly awaiting your fixes. I'll even be happy to pay you for Mozilla once it's decent.
Does liveconnect work at all with mozilla? I haven't been able to find much information on the issue, and all the mozillas I've tried up to M16 don't work correctly with a liveconnect applet I've written.
There is also GTK for Windows. /i
Horribly slow. At least GIMP is.
I attended a talk last november given by a Sante Fe institute lecturer on computer intrusion detection systems modelled after the human immune system. (unfortunately, I can't remember what her name was, otherwise I would try to post a link). There's actually a very strong parallel between what a computer security system has to do, and the role of the human immune system: the key behind both these systems is to be able to distinguish between "self" and "non-self". In the case of the human immune system, the anti-bodies are trained on marrow cells (?) and only released into general circulation if they do not attack host cells. In their research, they used genetic programming to train the intrusion detectors on "typical" network activity - after which, the detectors would be able to identify and report non-typical activity. It supposedly works pretty well.
Yes, Slashdot is definitely going down the drain. I used to read Slashdot 8 hours a day. Now it's down to 4.
Welcome to the *real* world. The 'Internet' isn't a utopia where everyone get's along.. Technically, the internet doesn't really exist. It's a bunch on indipendant networks that all interconnect with eachother.
You don't understand what the Internet it. It's an international network. It doesn't matter what it is technically, or who invented it. The non-US internet using population is exploding. It connects people all over the world and belongs to the world now.
We can have the wonderful situation where everyone tries to set up their own root servers.
Or the US can let go of it's hegemony.
And try to stick your head out of the narrow American sandpit.
Being able to do something is not the same as having the right to do something. Might does not make right. Blinking idiot American.
Duh, the servers are paying for the bandwidth because they want to - they want to get all their nice little streaming advertisements and what not to people. Will the world be a better place if the server can't pay to get a better connection? I don't think so.
No, you're wrong, because you'll be hard pressed to find an ISP which will protect freedom of speech over their bottomline.