It was one of the best articles I have seen for quite long. Hope Jane's will keep it the philosophy that gave birth to it.
It has flaws, it lacks a few important points, it makes some not so correct interpretations. But it is a real article and it is almost correct. Frankly I think that even we would make mistakes very near to those that exist over the article. Let us think on Morris. How many people were here when the thing happen. Well I had my dad lost on the tsunami on that day. But even having a so near testimony didn't help to know a lot of very interesting details of that event. Besides I still remember the call I made to my father a few minutes after the wave hit their computers (by pure coincidence, I wanted to know who would catch my brothers from school). He dropped the whole dictionary of low, high and holy slang over the phone and said it was too busy. That someone has made a BIG mistake and the whole net was in shambles... Even a few hours later many people and my father didn't know what was really going on. And even he realized the dimensions and the reasons of the problem some days later. And it seems that he didn't know for everything. Besides in relation to one comment here. Their comps went so bad that they lost information on the disks. I still remember that they had to restore two-three disks that were working at that moment.
So I consider these mistakes something that no one can avoid. They are the result of our limitations of seeing reality. That don't degrade the value of the article. It is a great piece of journalism anyway. Something that we are lacking a lot.
The ideas that have been presented here are amasing. But it seems that no one has touched the real point. Humans have to, one day, to deal with Mars. Like it or not. What has been done till now is mostly child's play. Or what was called Caligula's conquests some good time ago.
Mars is a planet with an History. And look at it with an History as old as the planet you live. And if anyone takes the care to look carefully then he may note that there are a lot of wrong things with that planet. In any case that planet is a BIG MISTAKE. It is something much like the cross between a mouse and an elephant that was forced to run faster than a leopard and had to face a full crash. That's how I "subjectively" see that thing over there, after many years of observations. A funny analogy but also very tragic and alarming.
Mars presents problems starting from its orbit. It goes over what is called as "proper movements". They don't fit well accepted schemes and predictions. Note that due to this Kepler has managed to find the laws of planetary orbits. Because Mars didn't fit any acceptable scheme.
Martian general geology is also a serious problem. The inners of the planet are assymetric. A pure planetary aberration. Tectonics and magnetism seem to have existed. However what we get of their remains are not answers but more and more questions.
The atmosphere is also a big problem. Yes most people tell you about its thiness and a lot of bla-bla-bla about its past. However 90% forget to tell you that this atmosphere could not exist for too long. It is dynamically unstable. So it is either recent or there is something we are missing.
The channels exist. Look through a telescope and sooner or later you will note them. However these are not Martians or water flows. It is that same crazy atmosphere playing games with the landscape. A strange tidal game of harmonics that shows how highly unstable it is.
Life in Mars? 99% that you will find nothing. Even ashes to ashes. The planet suffered serious hits and got hotter than a steam pan. Just look at Hellas and you may get what I mean.
Water? Probably some. And probably not the one that formed its rivers lakes and seas. By the same reason above.
Aliens? Maybe yes, maybe not. But forget looking at Mars Face as a shrine sending telepatic messages to Earth. That thing is interesting but it is very hard to consider it an alien product. In fact a lot of things shown as alien are far from such. However there are a lot of very interesting places where anyone would start seriously think if "Aliens? Baaa..." would be enough.
Colonization? Don't be crazy. It is probable that humans will find much easier to colonize Io than that piece of overfried pan. Besides that planet has really Bad Luck. More than 80% of crafts had a mission not fulfilled or a strange disappearence into the Black Houl of Mars.
But should humans stay away from Mars? Absolutely not. They should go there and try to find the answers for the questions this planet arise. Talking in "martial" terms they should make expedtions to find its comrade MIA. And give him an honourable burial. It is a moral duty for Earthlings to look at the fate of its brother planet. For the sake of their own future. One day, Earth may suffer similar fate.
This can be only accomplished by going to Mars. Note that sending machines is not an answer. Machines can only give snapshots. And very incomplete ones. Human presence can give a serious weight to the process of search by trial and error. Human decisionmaking will allow a faster development on investigation. Besides humans may receive a unique experience by exploring the harshest friendly planet they know.
This is not without risks. There will be deads. There will be coffins returning home. There will be eyes staring forever over an empty landscape. But without this, there will be humans, that one day will not understand why they deserved a tragic fate sitting in their armchairs, laying in their beds or walking on the street. There will be humans that would never understand, what really could mean a flash of light over the skies. There will be a Mankind that suffered millions of years to see its children dying in the most stupid of deaths.
So this means that patents and copyrights laws are relatively useless. At least at a Universum dimension...
Ooooooh. I see the future claimers Copyright 1999 Ektanoor All rights reserved for Past, Present and Future.
This is an act against Freedom of Information
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 2
First let me note. Child Pornography, Racism and others things like terrorism and such stuff can be traced up to a certain measure. Sometimes you can trace out even the creator up to his home address, with whom he/she sleeps, where he works and what his phone. However it is always harder to trace him on his financial doings. Moreover it is much harder to trace out clear evidences of criminal behaviour even if it seems that you know "everything" about him.
Licensing users does not help in anything to solve this situation. It will be a few bucks more in the hands of beaurocrats. Just think. If there are guys working so openly why they should bother by paying a few more bucks for a very "foggy" license?
Foggy? Exactly. Internet deals with information. From A to Z, Alpha to Omega, A to Ya. If we count all the types and forms of information we get some sort of informational Babylon. Now how will you license this? "You have the right to express your ideas?" Or worse "You have the right to receive information" ? A license is supposed to regulate a type of activity to avoid excesses. I may agree that there are certain types of activities that should be licensed. However I never heard that we could receive licenses to obtain a type of service.
Frankly. Does anyone pays a license to take a ride? Does anyone has to pay a license to read a newspaper? Does your friend have to check if you have a license beofre he borrows you his book? Do you have to get a license to hear your presidential candidate? Do you need to have a license to buy a Coke?
Let us suppose that we get a chance to "classify" the licensing system. And let us suppose that they avoid this dangerous "right to read" and leave the "right to publish". Now if we force everyone to have a "right to publish" then we are attempting against something that the constitutions of all democratic countries set as a fundamental right: the right of free expression.
This is not just bla-bla-bla. Imagine the situation when a country, considering that there is dangerous information roaming on the Internet, immediately invalidates the licenses of his citizens. A thing very much like "The Matrix has you...".
We may think on other things. How Hackers play with a bad secured license. How we get hostages of a tax game much like the hideous "Microsoft tax". How people can be easily traced by the Super-Echelon license tracing system...
However there is one thing that can be the most flagrant. You walk on Internet. As in any street, the Internet has its dangers. You can harm or get harmed. But has anyone asked you a license to walk?
Sincerly I consider that by not delivering Unreal with Linux GT will deliver a bad commercial image to its game. Linux could be considered an outsider and this may be seen by many people as outlaw.
This has the danger to give an incentive to piracy. Today we have to face the fact that a commercial product can only avoid piracy by creating an image of quality and respectability. Or else it will be either ignored or pirated by a good segment of its potential market.
I already saw Unreal's demo and was fascinated. If GT produces a good and well strucutured game I would probably buy it. But by cuting legs and probably introducing some burden in the ease to use and compatibility then it could be probable that I would take a look at its pirated version.
Seems strange? I know a lot of people who have seen The Matrix in pirated videos. Now these same people are storming cinemas and buying official DVDs and videos to see the "real thing". Maybe this has managed to make The Matrix to overpass the popularity of Star Wars in several places. Star Wars had also a big audience. However there was a huge wave to hunt down pirated Star Wars stuff. And sincerly, when I saw it, I was disappointed. I couldn't look at more than 10 minutes. Too childish and too silly for my taste.
That's how we see things in Russia. If you make a great product you can be sure that people will buy the "real thing". If not, then it's either "fire and forget" or "jolly roger"...
I have followed some appearences of this organisation for several years. Funny but you know that Mr. Luzhkov, Moscow's Mayor may have some relation with these guys? At least, his well-known lawyer is known to be a scientologist...
Anyway I hardly believe that Mr. Luzhkov will suddenly run over the street and start shooting people because someone "comanded" him. The problem is that what scientology pretends to attain can crash with a few logical blows.
There is a problem with the human mind. Our brain seems to create patterns with some inconsistency. That means, many reasonings and behaviours are not "complete". If we take the care to analyse them we may note a lot of paradoxes and logical inconsistencies. However humans tend to overcome these "imperfections" by delivering their "solutions" to third persons. Usually this is covered by the social relations a human creates.
There is nothing new on this. Our society exploits these situations since its creation. However destroying society is not a solution. No matter you make revolutions or build communism, these inconsistencies remain.
In this century we met a inner nature of the human mind that was not known before. That by creating some sort of "short-circuit" in the logical building of the human brain, you may reprogram it for specific tasks. However this can be done only at lower levels of the human brain. Meanwhile he rational section still demands a straight logical structure for most of its toughts.
This is the problem why Scientology is so acid on fighting its opposition. Hubbard is known to have participated in experiments with humans in some american institutes in the 50's. There were amazing findings. I saw some films of that time and they showed how an average american could be easily turned into a typical SS of of a nazi camp.
These experiments were probably what turned Hubbard's mind to make the "perfect" ideology/religion. However he should have taken care to dig a little bit on Stalin's or Hitler's rule. You may create a temporary blackout in society. But it cannot last for long. In any case it breaks out for many reasons.
The main problem is external information that may show the internal inconsistencies of the theory. In such case he idea may fly away quite soon. A turn around is to create an Iron Curtain. However it is shown in several societies that such element can break in 2-5 generations and create a complete social chaos. This happens if you hold up certain material values. However if you degrade the material basis of the society, then wait for a few centuries to overcome it. Somehow this is what happen with Europe in the Middle Ages.
In any case the idea will degrade. There is a use problem with it. By being inconsistent with reality,in many aspects, Hubbard's religion will have to face either a chance to more real conditions or to break much like communism broke in USSR. This religion is doomed in one way or the other.
The only thing positive I see on it is to have shown on how fragile can be human thinking. And how this thing can be so flagrant in the less privileged groups of our society.
These things sound with an interesting similarity to some SF and paranormal stories. While most of these things go too much over fantasy there is a point that humans cannot imagine things completely out of this world. So are these "fantasies" a mirror of what the human mind may presume out of its own reality? Are dreams a middle term between "our" world and this "parallel" part of reality?:)
What about travelling between worlds? Frankly this theory does not sound like StarTrek. It sounds much more like Zelazny's "9 Princes of Amber". There are several worlds. They are the result of the intersection between two "original" ones. So there are several Earths. Each one differs from the other by its distance to each of the "original" worlds. Funny but, somehow, certain human myths exactly reflect this nature.
While this is the world of phantasies and dreams there is a point that still theory seems to pass by. The fact that, the other possible "world", may be not like ours. Not only by events or biology but by its inner nature. Physics and its constants may be a little different from ours. Even its geometry may be quite different from ours. Maybe somehow that "other" dimension may be felt stronger than in our world...
Interesting is the Universe has such a nature. So don't get scared if you suddenly see your mirror image with a grey skin. It's just you:)
Since I entered the Web in 94 Gutenberg has been one of the most important points I have found there. What it has done is of fundamental importance. Let us note that some of the texts are considered World Literature. Besides project Gutenberg allows us to reach literature that hardly one can find today.
However I am very critical of project Gutenberg in other point. It is good to be conservative. Specially if we consider the nature of this project. However it is too much conservative.
Project Gutenberg always suffered from a illness of having a very primitive search interface. Or by preserving for too long an interface that is morally old. The problem is that sometimes it may not be only necessary to search books by author or title. There are a lot of other search classifications and tools. One of the most important is to search for specific context much like Altavista or Excite do. If project Gutenberg wants to deliver availability then it needs to work on this.
The other point is the cumbersome nature of texts. I agree that it was rather dangerous to choose a text format that could deliver some incompatibility in the future. But that was good in 1994. Today HTML is standard, SGML is standard, XML is new but it is also a standard, TEX may not be so popular but it is also a standard, PDF may carry a commercial tone but anyway it is a standard. And there are tons of tools for converting and reconverting from one standard to the other. So it is time to rethink the standards.
Other point is organisation. Project Gutenberg was and is badly organised. This may look as a seen for some but I really think that a little bit of marketing would help the project a lot. And maybe a little commercial flavour would help even more. Much like what RedHat is to Linux. Gutenberg needs a face. It needs a design. It needs to deliver people something. Frankly no one is borned with the name Oesopus burned in big letters in the brain.
I don't pretend that Gutenberg should become another Amazon. But I think that by making literature a free tool, by delivering an infrastructure in a very GPL'ed nature and, by building a commercial basis for more complex tasks and material support, I believe that Gutneberg may become another lighthouse of the Web.
Sincerly it would be sad to see project Gutenberg closing its doors. Yes we hackers may give some help on making tools and helping project Gutenberg with some design and technical support. Humanists may help by translation, classification and analysis. We may try to push a marketing campaign all over it on our own resources. But this will not save the project if there is not an organisation. If there is not a mechanism to deliver people that the world does not end on The Matrix and Coca-Cola. And if we don't take the care to feed the project with some material resources that may be needed for its future.
Ok I know that the analogy might not be very successful. But it is the most flagrant on how Science can be very very wrong.
Exactly at the beginning of this century two guys decided to take a great feat. To reform the foundations of Algebra. At that time Algebra had an History of a few thousands of years. However it suffered from serious internal problems. It was a building of small, nearly autoctonous mathematical ideas. Somehow they possessed a common linkage though several theoretical threads. However if we compared it to the body of Geometry, Algebra looked miserable. Geometry had a very "perfect" building body. It started from a few simple rules and all demonstrations were generated from them. So in the beginning of this century two big minds tried to make the same in Algebra. Some sort of trying to build a Theory of Great Unification. They went on this task no matter that, by that same time, Geometry had already broke into several Geometries. It was demonstrated the not only the theoretical consistence of "dissident" geometries but also the fact that some of them were much more "real" than the traditional Euclidian Geometry. However there was still some stubbornes to consider Euclidian Geomtry a "right" geometry and the others "wrong".
The blow came right at the moment of the publication of a huge work that pretended to unify the whole Algebra into one body. And right from the inners of that same body. A logical inconsistence on one theorem gave a death blow to the whole theory. Years of hard work were turned into dust in a few lines. As far as I know one of the mathematicians seemed to have quit after that. The other passed the rest of his life trying to repair a building that theoretically was impossible to restore. This story ended with a miriad of Algebras. It reflected in every corner of Mathematics. In a few years the number of mathematical branches and theories skyrocketted. The culmination was Godel's theorem which "popularly" stated that "there will be always undemonstratable truths" and laid the foudations to the axiomatic nature of modern Mathematics.
Physics can be quite different from Mathematics. But we have already a good past experience on how such Unifications may end. There is only one problem. In the beginnings of the Christian era there were also some attempts to unify the branches of human knowledge. Many aspects of Geoncentrism and its interpretations were a clear reflection of this. And we know how this beautiful "Harmonia Mundii" ended. The names of Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler are a testimony in the History of Science to what happens when someone tries to hold the Theories of the Great Unification
Ok people I can't understand this. Why this Mindcraft crap has put everybody in the wheels??? Windows NT better than Linux? That's questionable in detail but the general result is that Linux IS better than Windows. Sorry Windows fans, but I had some serious troubles with Windows stuff to say good words from it. Both on workstation and server side. And in the same hardware Linux outperformed NT in every detail, except beauty. However Linux is not a solution for all. Frankly a good professional should measure what OS is better for a specific task. In fact a lot of high-performance servers are better done on FreeBSD. If you need an Abrams-class server then it is better to use Solaris. If your server will look much like an autoban of data with a lot of warehouses, than choose Novell. If you have a lot of interface work and one-tasked server than Windows has a good chance to do the job. And Linux is a hybrid of a rocker/viloncelist capable of playing 7 instruments at once.
Oh! And don't forget about DOS. They are a Hell on small server systems. Easy, fast and good preformance...
Interesting to note how these Companies are concerned on legalities. As in Norway, Russia has legislation regulating the right to reverse engineer software. For purposes of adding or adapting software to more specific purposes. Note that this does not mean that piracy is allowed, as some people try to interpret. In the law this stuff is well remarked and distribution of cracked soft is considered a copyright violation.
However many well known western companies and even russian ones hunt down hackers for reverse engineering their soft. Any reverse engineer btw. Most commercial licenses try to "forbid" users doing this.
What they are? The Law? Is Microsoft a company or the Holy Redmond Empire, with sovereignity over the whole world? They don't even seem to care that such statements on their licenses may void them in face of the laws of sovereign countries.
Frankly if there is someone to blame for illegalities in software, blame 90% of copyright holders...
"The ignorance of the law oes not free a person from responsability..."
The States get once again their nerves on Jugoslavia. And this time they do ti! They start to systematically throwing down Jugoslav Internet connections. In one server a small link to a site located in Russia sends the whole mess into Russian territory. Immediately all Russian Internet goes in flames. Russian hackers start to counter attack US sites. US hackers reply. Europe gets in the middle. In one point tries to throw back the attacks and contempt a flurry of "collateral damage". In the end nerves break out. They start to attack US and Russia. In the mean time Asian hackers decide that to be out of te mess is too boring. And they start to shoot everywhere and everyone. Some of these shoots get into Australia, South America and Africa. They also start replying.
In the mean time in the US, in a big computer center, a small engineer comes to the conclusion that he is not paid for such mess. "Enough is enough". He picks a shotgun and drops the whole stuff at a nearby box...
Frankly considering the problem that the skull is real or a hoax I can come only to two conclusions: Real: It's a human. A 100% human being with a serious genetic defect. Even a fast look to it shows that it cannot be alien. If anyone has a small knowledge on paleontologic evolution then he may guess what I'm talking about. Hoax: Probably the skull does not even exist. The supposed morphology of the skull highly reminds a rather common image manipulation. So it's just another child's play.
Frankly I don't know on how to choose either conclusions. In one way such skull deformation seems to happen. A similar skull seems to exist on Kunts Kamera (St. Peterburg, Russia). On the other way they look quite funny on their writings. At least I know they I already violated their copyright by reading their site:).
Really I can't understand one thing. Why most people think that aliens should have BIG skulls and small faces? Frankly get a small walk at night. Look a little bit over that blackness over there. And think that, in this Universe, every hour several civilizations are born while others die. Hard to believe? Then count how many galaxies are in the Universe...
Well about extraterrestrials reading slashdot for the first time... Well we have been here for quite a long time. In fact we have been ALWAYS here... So what's the problem?
Well if anyone read carefully the article then it may note how "clean" this approach could be:) .
Imagine tons of disposed wires. Radioactive ones btw. Plus some other secondary equipment among this messy caroussel. Sincerly would not call it this way. I would better call it the Gatling gun scheme... Ra-ta-ta-ta...:)))))))))
It controls devices. It controls programs. It does everything for you. It thinks for you. It makes a lot of beautiful things for you. It plays for you. Well it does everything for you...
Ok the commies are speaking:) Frankly Open Source has little to do with comunism. Yes, it has several threads that are very idealistic. But I consider them not to be proper to Open Source but to the present conditions of the software distribution. Probably if the problems with such guys as Microsoft were not so acute, then Open Source would present a more typical capitalist face. This dissidence feels like comunism to many. However I think that we could label it as christianism. In fact the problem is that Open Source pretends to furnish something for everyone. No more no less. It is this hallmark that everyone turns around. However Comunism does not stop here. Frankly Comunism has also too many faces. So let's stop on the more "populist" one and which some states have adopted as an oficial ideology. 1. Comunism pretends to offer people a "bright future" where several rights will be fullfilled (a materialist variant of Eden/Paradise/Nirvana) 2. Comunism considers the group to be the decisive force in decision taking (NOTE: State does not exist in the "final" Comunist world) 3. Comunists consider that society should be lead be a group of "enlightened" people through its Socialist epoch (i.e. the Communist Party) 4. Due to several considerations, it is pretended that, under Comunism, money will be unecessary (so in Socialism money is considered as a evil:) ) 5 Higher ranks of the capitalist/socialist society are considered to be unrreliable on trying to attain Communism. So Communists try to rely their efforts on lower layers of society.
Now let's see Open Source world. 1. Open Source does not claim "bright futures". Its claim on future conditions is technical and based in real technical problems many developers face today.
2. Open Source does not consider a group to be a decisive force. In Open Source we have everything. Starting from such giants like AT&T, running through Linus and his lieutenants, and ending on groups where any change is a small modification on the CVS tree. Besides the most important is that most projects are individual (well that is also Communist, somehow, but that's completely other trend...). 3. Open Source does not pretend on enlightened minds and gurus to lead the movement (apart of some trying to become such...:) ) 4. On Open Source money is not evil. No one forbids you to get something for your work. The problem is not to create barriers to source code distribution. The rest remains in the clouds... 5. Open Source does not pretend on class squirmishes. Open Source does not ask who you are and how much money you have. Open Source goes against Property Software. But that is an historic result of thousands of disgruntled developers and users. It is because those who hold behind Property Software had several times fired their guns against Open Source. But there are many Property Software developers who have any problems with Open Source.
I think you are making some sort of confusion. If your statement about CSS preventing interoperability, then CSS is illegal. CSS can be interpreted as a mean to spread a monopoly in a given market segment. Considering the last "legal hunts" and the fact that deCSS was primarly meant as an instrument to implement a new interoperability (something defended by law), then it seems that someone is trying to hold up a monopoly...
Past: First let me note. Pirates had already solved their problems with DVD. I have seen several pirated DVDs in the last monthes. So it is stupid to consider that this program has given some breakout in this field.
Present: The fact that such program is probably breaking the law gives several serious doubts. First there is a problem that reverse engineering is defended by the law of several countries, in cases when there are compatibility problems or needs to integrate new third-party features. Law only goes against such crack tools when authors suffer "significant material damage". Real one, well counted bucks. Not the abstract problem of how "dangerous" can be deCSS.
Future: DVD will end the same way CD ended. When CDs started, such guys as Sony claimed it to be a blow against piracy. As we see now piracy got a Hell of money exactly due to CDs. The fact is that DVDs, just as CDs, are a mean to spread information openly and massively. It is a practical nonsense to try to restrict the distribution of such stuff by means meant to be individual and private.
However the problem does not end just here. Right now the producers of information for mass consumption entered a field that may overturn our values of today. Those same supposedely defended by our dear capitalism. You buy a DVD. Do you possess it? Or are you renting it for a "one time fee"? And what are your rights on having a rented piece of information? Can you borrow it, sell it? Can you manipulate it? Can you destroy it? I don't want to go in details here. But if anyone analyses the problem DVDs and other media present today, then one will note that we are facing not a problem of "capitalist" ownership. In fact what we are facing is an attempt to feudalise the ownership of media. You have no right to own information. You cannot use it above a restricted set of permissions. You become an servant (hostage) of the information lords.
It would be much better and much more useful I believe. At least Bill has done something good among the whole mess. Antionline has just mess the whole mess even more.
Frankly I consider this an error. Well Antionline was something some time ago. It was a place one could agree/disagree with. But since that "major overhaul" there, the thing is pure crap. Vranesivich has become the Hoagland of the hacker community. He uses lies damn lies and statistics just the same way as he manipulates information, making his site a very dangerous place. It sounds much like a radio Freedom broadcasting over enemy territory. In this point Antionline is a great site. It has gained its point of perfection.
Anyway I would like Vranesevich to answer one simple question: Is Antionline just a metaphora or an intent?
Just-in-case disclaimer: My opinions, here, do not mean that I intend to cause any physical harm to Mr. Vranesevich, his family, his dog or anyone else related directly or indirectly to him.
Yahoo has been censoring sites and links since its early times. At least I know about this because I was censored by Yahoo in 1996. This happened with me and several sites referred to Mars.
The thing happened when the whole group concerning UFOs, Aliens, parallel theories about Mars (pro and contra) was suddenly transferred from Mars Category (under Astronomy and Science) to Entertainment-Paranormal. One site was gone at all. The scandal that followed up manage to return the group to its general category. However one of the sites never managed to return to Yahoo. No mater that the author tried 5 times to reach them. A year later this same site "disappeared" from several search indexes.
Note that this strange event had to do not only with such things as the mystic "Circles of Fire", Hoagland's crazynesses but also with Stanley McDaniel's site, who I consider a relatively serious dissident. The most stupid of all was that Mike Malin, the guy who rules the intrumentation on Mars probes and a terrible traditionalist, suffered the same fate.
Besides. Some data gathered by one guy notes that Yahoo did this under request of some "scientific authority" from Stanford University. We never managed to identif the guy, but as far as know he did talk to Yahoo staff and they told him that.
So don't worry about Yahoo's censorship. They have taken care of what you think long ago...:(
Copyright for Eternity, God Allmighty (Alpha and Omega). All Rights Reserved.
Ok people stop speaking, writing, crying, reading, squatting, bubling, cursing, whispering. Well in resume just SHUT UP! Or else legal action will be taken...
These guys never learn. Well the maintainer already spoke here. And clearly show that the story is one more of those Massive Media dreaming myths.
However there is an important point that he left out. This hype around TurboLinux seems not to have nothing to do with any Linux flavour...
The article's hype goes not much around technical aspects but about Linus "being forced" to introduce property software. It sounds much like an ultimatum. Well written btw. However for the managers but not for the techies. Any cluster expert may see how stupid the article goes by.
Well I'm a cluster expert. At least in the area I work I have to deal with 4-5 types of cluster realizations. As far as I know there are several more that don't go with the madness of the system we have here. Btw TurboLinux is one of them. Not because it is bad but because there are several technical problems to use it in the architecture we have here.
Now the problem. Why the Hell this guy says Turbolinux should go into the kernel? And why not PVM, MPI, MOSIX, Bewoulf's metamorphoses and several others I heard of? Besides 2.3 kernel seems to be showing some glimpses of one more cluster realization. So let's put the question... Why not? Because WE ARE NOT WINDOWS DAMN! Because we need a working system and not a bucket of flowers with the label "DON'T BREATH! DON'T SMOKE! DON'T SHAKE! DON'T TOUCH!" Because if Linux turns up to this side, then it will be DON'T BUY! Even if it is given for free... I don't need a "fully do it for you, in 234 flavours and 500Mb of property code" I need working code in a damn network with a quite restricted set of resources. I don't have 80 *(PIII dual processor + 20Gb HDD + 256Mb RAM) for playing "proprietary" W2K.
What if anyone from Outer Space comes up and says this words?
Silly yeah? But the unfortunate thing is that this already happened. 500 years ago another guy claimed for the crown of Spain a several islands in what was supposed to be the End of the World. And he created a precedent, that, until the beginning of this century, was an epidemia turned one of the greatest tragedies of Mankind. Even the democratic, pluralist and liberal United States of America did not avoid this train. Even now we have a few islands that came into possession of the US through such procedure. No one asked the people of these lands what did they think of the fact that they belonged to anyone else. No one cared if these lands were completely desertic or had civilizations much older than their new "owners". On the contrary. Every european, asian or american power used all its means to "prove" such ownerships through Ironclad policies. And every resitence or rebellion had to face a terrible fate.
No matter these agreements or treaties, the first space powers (the real ones, those who will start up Space colonisation, if one gets the guts to do it) will just leave them on the shelf. And they will not take a damn about these Outer Space Real Estate dealers. All this is just snake oil. It is playing with everyone who wishes to become Colombus or Lord Sandwich (yeah, it seems there was such a guy). Btw, these new Pizarros and Corteses are doing a silly and unethical play.
The Moon is probably much worser then Mojave or Skeleton beach since its beginning. Mars is probably in a RIP status for quite a long time. Yeah Europe could have some bacteria inside. But I also heard that these unreal estaters sell stars, pieces of galaxy or even whole galaxies.
A warning. The next terminal station can be 10, 100 or 100000000 light years from us. BUT IT IS THERE. No matter we know or don't know about it. And we don't know how alien humour reacts to human dumbiness. Sincerly Clinton once said some harsh words about Mars. Luck no one's there now. But even for a human his words could be measured as highly offensive. To understand the level of what he said there is only the need to change the word "Mars" with any US foe or less friendly state. Had he messed a word (like Reagan once did) and that would be very serious diplomatic trouble.
You may think this sounds silly. Well NO ONE seems to be out there... For now, and here... But if IT IS out there? Or even here and now? What do you think he thinks about us and these stupidities?
Time zones will be mainly local with a translation system to Earth times. It is not correct to say that UTC is used in space applications. UTC is mainly used in observations from Earth. However it is not the main standard for times in space probe communications. There, it is mostly used sideral time and more complex stuff. One of them is to use the planet's "proper" timings. Presently I only know about one planet carrying a complete timing up to a calendar system: Mars. Due to several constraints people at JPL created and used the Darien calendar. It looks much like Earth's but with clear differences. For example the day, "sol" is a bit longer than Earth's. As far as I know the first use of the Darien calendar was on Viking missions. After that and until Pathfinder's arrival it was nearly forgotten.
Ok Doom may not be perfect for all this but I'm putting here some ideas that could be used on it May look funny but some of these could be get some serious end...;)
You press a button and start a new process.
Each room is a user environment.
Shoot BFG in a room. All user's processes are killed.
The processes are shown in different "demons" according to several system parameters (ex. netscape as a Hell Baron:) )
Every weapon you choose is equivalent to a kill signal.
The "architecture" of the level is based on a certain scheme "reflecting" the structure of demons, environments and users.
A lot of patches, several new objects for command and control and a whole new world. Funny? OF COURSE!! But not only. What will happen in a year or two if we start "playing" this new game?
Frankly when I saw the first Linux letters I thought that it was some funny but highly perspective kid's play. However I think that 95% of us would look at it the same way. So, let's do it?
Slashdot Mirror
It was one of the best articles I have seen for quite long. Hope Jane's will keep it the philosophy that gave birth to it.
It has flaws, it lacks a few important points, it makes some not so correct interpretations. But it is a real article and it is almost correct. Frankly I think that even we would make mistakes very near to those that exist over the article. Let us think on Morris. How many people were here when the thing happen. Well I had my dad lost on the tsunami on that day. But even having a so near testimony didn't help to know a lot of very interesting details of that event. Besides I still remember the call I made to my father a few minutes after the wave hit their computers (by pure coincidence, I wanted to know who would catch my brothers from school). He dropped the whole dictionary of low, high and holy slang over the phone and said it was too busy. That someone has made a BIG mistake and the whole net was in shambles... Even a few hours later many people and my father didn't know what was really going on. And even he realized the dimensions and the reasons of the problem some days later. And it seems that he didn't know for everything. Besides in relation to one comment here. Their comps went so bad that they lost information on the disks. I still remember that they had to restore two-three disks that were working at that moment.
So I consider these mistakes something that no one can avoid. They are the result of our limitations of seeing reality. That don't degrade the value of the article. It is a great piece of journalism anyway. Something that we are lacking a lot.
The ideas that have been presented here are amasing. But it seems that no one has touched the real point. Humans have to, one day, to deal with Mars. Like it or not. What has been done till now is mostly child's play. Or what was called Caligula's conquests some good time ago.
Mars is a planet with an History. And look at it with an History as old as the planet you live. And if anyone takes the care to look carefully then he may note that there are a lot of wrong things with that planet. In any case that planet is a BIG MISTAKE. It is something much like the cross between a mouse and an elephant that was forced to run faster than a leopard and had to face a full crash. That's how I "subjectively" see that thing over there, after many years of observations. A funny analogy but also very tragic and alarming.
Mars presents problems starting from its orbit. It goes over what is called as "proper movements". They don't fit well accepted schemes and predictions. Note that due to this Kepler has managed to find the laws of planetary orbits. Because Mars didn't fit any acceptable scheme.
Martian general geology is also a serious problem. The inners of the planet are assymetric. A pure planetary aberration. Tectonics and magnetism seem to have existed. However what we get of their remains are not answers but more and more questions.
The atmosphere is also a big problem. Yes most people tell you about its thiness and a lot of bla-bla-bla about its past. However 90% forget to tell you that this atmosphere could not exist for too long. It is dynamically unstable. So it is either recent or there is something we are missing.
The channels exist. Look through a telescope and sooner or later you will note them. However these are not Martians or water flows. It is that same crazy atmosphere playing games with the landscape. A strange tidal game of harmonics that shows how highly unstable it is.
Life in Mars? 99% that you will find nothing. Even ashes to ashes. The planet suffered serious hits and got hotter than a steam pan. Just look at Hellas and you may get what I mean.
Water? Probably some. And probably not the one that formed its rivers lakes and seas. By the same reason above.
Aliens? Maybe yes, maybe not. But forget looking at Mars Face as a shrine sending telepatic messages to Earth. That thing is interesting but it is very hard to consider it an alien product. In fact a lot of things shown as alien are far from such. However there are a lot of very interesting places where anyone would start seriously think if "Aliens? Baaa..." would be enough.
Colonization? Don't be crazy. It is probable that humans will find much easier to colonize Io than that piece of overfried pan. Besides that planet has really Bad Luck. More than 80% of crafts had a mission not fulfilled or a strange disappearence into the Black Houl of Mars.
But should humans stay away from Mars? Absolutely not. They should go there and try to find the answers for the questions this planet arise. Talking in "martial" terms they should make expedtions to find its comrade MIA. And give him an honourable burial. It is a moral duty for Earthlings to look at the fate of its brother planet. For the sake of their own future. One day, Earth may suffer similar fate.
This can be only accomplished by going to Mars. Note that sending machines is not an answer. Machines can only give snapshots. And very incomplete ones. Human presence can give a serious weight to the process of search by trial and error. Human decisionmaking will allow a faster development on investigation. Besides humans may receive a unique experience by exploring the harshest friendly planet they know.
This is not without risks. There will be deads. There will be coffins returning home. There will be eyes staring forever over an empty landscape. But without this, there will be humans, that one day will not understand why they deserved a tragic fate sitting in their armchairs, laying in their beds or walking on the street. There will be humans that would never understand, what really could mean a flash of light over the skies. There will be a Mankind that suffered millions of years to see its children dying in the most stupid of deaths.
So this means that patents and copyrights laws are relatively useless. At least at a Universum dimension...
Ooooooh. I see the future claimers
Copyright 1999 Ektanoor All rights reserved for Past, Present and Future.
First let me note. Child Pornography, Racism and others things like terrorism and such stuff can be traced up to a certain measure. Sometimes you can trace out even the creator up to his home address, with whom he/she sleeps, where he works and what his phone. However it is always harder to trace him on his financial doings. Moreover it is much harder to trace out clear evidences of criminal behaviour even if it seems that you know "everything" about him.
Licensing users does not help in anything to solve this situation. It will be a few bucks more in the hands of beaurocrats. Just think. If there are guys working so openly why they should bother by paying a few more bucks for a very "foggy" license?
Foggy? Exactly. Internet deals with information. From A to Z, Alpha to Omega, A to Ya. If we count all the types and forms of information we get some sort of informational Babylon. Now how will you license this? "You have the right to express your ideas?" Or worse "You have the right to receive information" ? A license is supposed to regulate a type of activity to avoid excesses. I may agree that there are certain types of activities that should be licensed. However I never heard that we could receive licenses to obtain a type of service.
Frankly. Does anyone pays a license to take a ride? Does anyone has to pay a license to read a newspaper? Does your friend have to check if you have a license beofre he borrows you his book? Do you have to get a license to hear your presidential candidate? Do you need to have a license to buy a Coke?
Let us suppose that we get a chance to "classify" the licensing system. And let us suppose that they avoid this dangerous "right to read" and leave the "right to publish". Now if we force everyone to have a "right to publish" then we are attempting against something that the constitutions of all democratic countries set as a fundamental right: the right of free expression.
This is not just bla-bla-bla. Imagine the situation when a country, considering that there is dangerous information roaming on the Internet, immediately invalidates the licenses of his citizens. A thing very much like "The Matrix has you...".
We may think on other things. How Hackers play with a bad secured license. How we get hostages of a tax game much like the hideous "Microsoft tax". How people can be easily traced by the Super-Echelon license tracing system...
However there is one thing that can be the most flagrant. You walk on Internet. As in any street, the Internet has its dangers. You can harm or get harmed. But has anyone asked you a license to walk?
Sincerly I consider that by not delivering Unreal with Linux GT will deliver a bad commercial image to its game. Linux could be considered an outsider and this may be seen by many people as outlaw.
This has the danger to give an incentive to piracy. Today we have to face the fact that a commercial product can only avoid piracy by creating an image of quality and respectability. Or else it will be either ignored or pirated by a good segment of its potential market.
I already saw Unreal's demo and was fascinated. If GT produces a good and well strucutured game I would probably buy it. But by cuting legs and probably introducing some burden in the ease to use and compatibility then it could be probable that I would take a look at its pirated version.
Seems strange? I know a lot of people who have seen The Matrix in pirated videos. Now these same people are storming cinemas and buying official DVDs and videos to see the "real thing". Maybe this has managed to make The Matrix to overpass the popularity of Star Wars in several places. Star Wars had also a big audience. However there was a huge wave to hunt down pirated Star Wars stuff. And sincerly, when I saw it, I was disappointed. I couldn't look at more than 10 minutes. Too childish and too silly for my taste.
That's how we see things in Russia. If you make a great product you can be sure that people will buy the "real thing". If not, then it's either "fire and forget" or "jolly roger"...
I have followed some appearences of this organisation for several years. Funny but you know that Mr. Luzhkov, Moscow's Mayor may have some relation with these guys? At least, his well-known lawyer is known to be a scientologist...
Anyway I hardly believe that Mr. Luzhkov will suddenly run over the street and start shooting people because someone "comanded" him. The problem is that what scientology pretends to attain can crash with a few logical blows.
There is a problem with the human mind. Our brain seems to create patterns with some inconsistency. That means, many reasonings and behaviours are not "complete". If we take the care to analyse them we may note a lot of paradoxes and logical inconsistencies. However humans tend to overcome these "imperfections" by delivering their "solutions" to third persons. Usually this is covered by the social relations a human creates.
There is nothing new on this. Our society exploits these situations since its creation. However destroying society is not a solution. No matter you make revolutions or build communism, these inconsistencies remain.
In this century we met a inner nature of the human mind that was not known before. That by creating some sort of "short-circuit" in the logical building of the human brain, you may reprogram it for specific tasks. However this can be done only at lower levels of the human brain. Meanwhile he rational section still demands a straight logical structure for most of its toughts.
This is the problem why Scientology is so acid on fighting its opposition. Hubbard is known to have participated in experiments with humans in some american institutes in the 50's. There were amazing findings. I saw some films of that time and they showed how an average american could be easily turned into a typical SS of of a nazi camp.
These experiments were probably what turned Hubbard's mind to make the "perfect" ideology/religion. However he should have taken care to dig a little bit on Stalin's or Hitler's rule. You may create a temporary blackout in society. But it cannot last for long. In any case it breaks out for many reasons.
The main problem is external information that may show the internal inconsistencies of the theory. In such case he idea may fly away quite soon. A turn around is to create an Iron Curtain. However it is shown in several societies that such element can break in 2-5 generations and create a complete social chaos. This happens if you hold up certain material values. However if you degrade the material basis of the society, then wait for a few centuries to overcome it. Somehow this is what happen with Europe in the Middle Ages.
In any case the idea will degrade. There is a use problem with it. By being inconsistent with reality,in many aspects, Hubbard's religion will have to face either a chance to more real conditions or to break much like communism broke in USSR. This religion is doomed in one way or the other.
The only thing positive I see on it is to have shown on how fragile can be human thinking. And how this thing can be so flagrant in the less privileged groups of our society.
These things sound with an interesting similarity to some SF and paranormal stories. While most of these things go too much over fantasy there is a point that humans cannot imagine things completely out of this world. So are these "fantasies" a mirror of what the human mind may presume out of its own reality? Are dreams a middle term between "our" world and this "parallel" part of reality? :)
:)
What about travelling between worlds? Frankly this theory does not sound like StarTrek. It sounds much more like Zelazny's "9 Princes of Amber". There are several worlds. They are the result of the intersection between two "original" ones. So there are several Earths. Each one differs from the other by its distance to each of the "original" worlds. Funny but, somehow, certain human myths exactly reflect this nature.
While this is the world of phantasies and dreams there is a point that still theory seems to pass by. The fact that, the other possible "world", may be not like ours. Not only by events or biology but by its inner nature. Physics and its constants may be a little different from ours. Even its geometry may be quite different from ours. Maybe somehow that "other" dimension may be felt stronger than in our world...
Interesting is the Universe has such a nature. So don't get scared if you suddenly see your mirror image with a grey skin. It's just you
Since I entered the Web in 94 Gutenberg has been one of the most important points I have found there. What it has done is of fundamental importance. Let us note that some of the texts are considered World Literature. Besides project Gutenberg allows us to reach literature that hardly one can find today.
However I am very critical of project Gutenberg in other point. It is good to be conservative. Specially if we consider the nature of this project. However it is too much conservative.
Project Gutenberg always suffered from a illness of having a very primitive search interface. Or by preserving for too long an interface that is morally old. The problem is that sometimes it may not be only necessary to search books by author or title. There are a lot of other search classifications and tools. One of the most important is to search for specific context much like Altavista or Excite do. If project Gutenberg wants to deliver availability then it needs to work on this.
The other point is the cumbersome nature of texts. I agree that it was rather dangerous to choose a text format that could deliver some incompatibility in the future. But that was good in 1994. Today HTML is standard, SGML is standard, XML is new but it is also a standard, TEX may not be so popular but it is also a standard, PDF may carry a commercial tone but anyway it is a standard. And there are tons of tools for converting and reconverting from one standard to the other. So it is time to rethink the standards.
Other point is organisation. Project Gutenberg was and is badly organised. This may look as a seen for some but I really think that a little bit of marketing would help the project a lot. And maybe a little commercial flavour would help even more. Much like what RedHat is to Linux. Gutenberg needs a face. It needs a design. It needs to deliver people something. Frankly no one is borned with the name Oesopus burned in big letters in the brain.
I don't pretend that Gutenberg should become another Amazon. But I think that by making literature a free tool, by delivering an infrastructure in a very GPL'ed nature and, by building a commercial basis for more complex tasks and material support, I believe that Gutneberg may become another lighthouse of the Web.
Sincerly it would be sad to see project Gutenberg closing its doors. Yes we hackers may give some help on making tools and helping project Gutenberg with some design and technical support. Humanists may help by translation, classification and analysis. We may try to push a marketing campaign all over it on our own resources. But this will not save the project if there is not an organisation. If there is not a mechanism to deliver people that the world does not end on The Matrix and Coca-Cola. And if we don't take the care to feed the project with some material resources that may be needed for its future.
Ok I know that the analogy might not be very successful. But it is the most flagrant on how Science can be very very wrong.
Exactly at the beginning of this century two guys decided to take a great feat. To reform the foundations of Algebra. At that time Algebra had an History of a few thousands of years. However it suffered from serious internal problems. It was a building of small, nearly autoctonous mathematical ideas. Somehow they possessed a common linkage though several theoretical threads. However if we compared it to the body of Geometry, Algebra looked miserable.
Geometry had a very "perfect" building body. It started from a few simple rules and all demonstrations were generated from them. So in the beginning of this century two big minds tried to make the same in Algebra. Some sort of trying to build a Theory of Great Unification.
They went on this task no matter that, by that same time, Geometry had already broke into several Geometries. It was demonstrated the not only the theoretical consistence of "dissident" geometries but also the fact that some of them were much more "real" than the traditional Euclidian Geometry.
However there was still some stubbornes to consider Euclidian Geomtry a "right" geometry and the others "wrong".
The blow came right at the moment of the publication of a huge work that pretended to unify the whole Algebra into one body. And right from the inners of that same body. A logical inconsistence on one theorem gave a death blow to the whole theory. Years of hard work were turned into dust in a few lines.
As far as I know one of the mathematicians seemed to have quit after that. The other passed the rest of his life trying to repair a building that theoretically was impossible to restore.
This story ended with a miriad of Algebras. It reflected in every corner of Mathematics. In a few years the number of mathematical branches and theories skyrocketted. The culmination was Godel's theorem which "popularly" stated that "there will be always undemonstratable truths" and laid the foudations to the axiomatic nature of modern Mathematics.
Physics can be quite different from Mathematics. But we have already a good past experience on how such Unifications may end. There is only one problem. In the beginnings of the Christian era there were also some attempts to unify the branches of human knowledge. Many aspects of Geoncentrism and its interpretations were a clear reflection of this. And we know how this beautiful "Harmonia Mundii" ended. The names of Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler are a testimony in the History of Science to what happens when someone tries to hold the Theories of the Great Unification
Ok people I can't understand this. Why this Mindcraft crap has put everybody in the wheels???
Windows NT better than Linux? That's questionable in detail but the general result is that Linux IS better than Windows. Sorry Windows fans, but I had some serious troubles with Windows stuff to say good words from it. Both on workstation and server side. And in the same hardware Linux outperformed NT in every detail, except beauty. However Linux is not a solution for all. Frankly a good professional should measure what OS is better for a specific task. In fact a lot of high-performance servers are better done on FreeBSD. If you need an Abrams-class server then it is better to use Solaris. If your server will look much like an autoban of data with a lot of warehouses, than choose Novell. If you have a lot of interface work and one-tasked server than Windows has a good chance to do the job. And Linux is a hybrid of a rocker/viloncelist capable of playing 7 instruments at once.
Oh! And don't forget about DOS. They are a Hell on small server systems. Easy, fast and good preformance...
Interesting to note how these Companies are concerned on legalities. As in Norway, Russia has legislation regulating the right to reverse engineer software. For purposes of adding or adapting software to more specific purposes. Note that this does not mean that piracy is allowed, as some people try to interpret. In the law this stuff is well remarked and distribution of cracked soft is considered a copyright violation.
However many well known western companies and even russian ones hunt down hackers for reverse engineering their soft. Any reverse engineer btw.
Most commercial licenses try to "forbid" users doing this.
What they are? The Law? Is Microsoft a company or the Holy Redmond Empire, with sovereignity over the whole world? They don't even seem to care that such statements on their licenses may void them in face of the laws of sovereign countries.
Frankly if there is someone to blame for illegalities in software, blame 90% of copyright holders...
"The ignorance of the law oes not free a person from responsability..."
The States get once again their nerves on Jugoslavia. And this time they do ti! They start to systematically throwing down Jugoslav Internet connections. In one server a small link to a site located in Russia sends the whole mess into Russian territory. Immediately all Russian Internet goes in flames. Russian hackers start to counter attack US sites. US hackers reply. Europe gets in the middle. In one point tries to throw back the attacks and contempt a flurry of "collateral damage". In the end nerves break out. They start to attack US and Russia.
In the mean time Asian hackers decide that to be out of te mess is too boring. And they start to shoot everywhere and everyone. Some of these shoots get into Australia, South America and Africa. They also start replying.
In the mean time in the US, in a big computer center, a small engineer comes to the conclusion that he is not paid for such mess. "Enough is enough". He picks a shotgun and drops the whole stuff at a nearby box...
Frankly considering the problem that the skull is real or a hoax I can come only to two conclusions:
:).
Real: It's a human. A 100% human being with a serious genetic defect. Even a fast look to it shows that it cannot be alien. If anyone has a small knowledge on paleontologic evolution then he may guess what I'm talking about.
Hoax: Probably the skull does not even exist. The supposed morphology of the skull highly reminds a rather common image manipulation. So it's just another child's play.
Frankly I don't know on how to choose either conclusions. In one way such skull deformation seems to happen. A similar skull seems to exist on Kunts Kamera (St. Peterburg, Russia).
On the other way they look quite funny on their writings. At least I know they I already violated their copyright by reading their site
Really I can't understand one thing. Why most people think that aliens should have BIG skulls and small faces? Frankly get a small walk at night. Look a little bit over that blackness over there. And think that, in this Universe, every hour several civilizations are born while others die. Hard to believe? Then count how many galaxies are in the Universe...
Well about extraterrestrials reading slashdot for the first time... Well we have been here for quite a long time. In fact we have been ALWAYS here... So what's the problem?
Well if anyone read carefully the article then it may note how "clean" this approach could be :) .
:)))))))))
Imagine tons of disposed wires. Radioactive ones btw. Plus some other secondary equipment among this messy caroussel. Sincerly would not call it this way. I would better call it the Gatling gun scheme... Ra-ta-ta-ta...
It controls devices.
It controls programs.
It does everything for you.
It thinks for you.
It makes a lot of beautiful things for you.
It plays for you.
Well it does everything for you...
So why it should care for you?..
Ok the commies are speaking :) :) )
:) )
;)
Frankly Open Source has little to do with comunism. Yes, it has several threads that are very idealistic. But I consider them not to be proper to Open Source but to the present conditions of the software distribution. Probably if the problems with such guys as Microsoft were not so acute, then Open Source would present a more typical capitalist face.
This dissidence feels like comunism to many. However I think that we could label it as christianism. In fact the problem is that Open Source pretends to furnish something for everyone. No more no less. It is this hallmark that everyone turns around.
However Comunism does not stop here. Frankly Comunism has also too many faces. So let's stop on the more "populist" one and which some states have adopted as an oficial ideology.
1. Comunism pretends to offer people a "bright future" where several rights will be fullfilled (a materialist variant of Eden/Paradise/Nirvana)
2. Comunism considers the group to be the decisive force in decision taking (NOTE: State does not exist in the "final" Comunist world)
3. Comunists consider that society should be lead be a group of "enlightened" people through its Socialist epoch (i.e. the Communist Party)
4. Due to several considerations, it is pretended that, under Comunism, money will be unecessary (so in Socialism money is considered as a evil
5 Higher ranks of the capitalist/socialist society are considered to be unrreliable on trying to attain Communism. So Communists try to rely their efforts on lower layers of society.
Now let's see Open Source world.
1. Open Source does not claim "bright futures". Its claim on future conditions is technical and based in real technical problems many developers face today.
2. Open Source does not consider a group to be a decisive force. In Open Source we have everything. Starting from such giants like AT&T, running through Linus and his lieutenants, and ending on groups where any change is a small modification on the CVS tree. Besides the most important is that most projects are individual (well that is also Communist, somehow, but that's completely other trend...).
3. Open Source does not pretend on enlightened minds and gurus to lead the movement (apart of some trying to become such...
4. On Open Source money is not evil. No one forbids you to get something for your work. The problem is not to create barriers to source code distribution. The rest remains in the clouds...
5. Open Source does not pretend on class squirmishes. Open Source does not ask who you are and how much money you have. Open Source goes against Property Software. But that is an historic result of thousands of disgruntled developers and users. It is because those who hold behind Property Software had several times fired their guns against Open Source. But there are many Property Software developers who have any problems with Open Source.
The commies spoke
I think you are making some sort of confusion. If your statement about CSS preventing interoperability, then CSS is illegal. CSS can be interpreted as a mean to spread a monopoly in a given market segment. Considering the last "legal hunts" and the fact that deCSS was primarly meant as an instrument to implement a new interoperability (something defended by law), then it seems that someone is trying to hold up a monopoly...
Past: First let me note. Pirates had already solved their problems with DVD. I have seen several pirated DVDs in the last monthes. So it is stupid to consider that this program has given some breakout in this field.
Present: The fact that such program is probably breaking the law gives several serious doubts. First there is a problem that reverse engineering is defended by the law of several countries, in cases when there are compatibility problems or needs to integrate new third-party features. Law only goes against such crack tools when authors suffer "significant material damage". Real one, well counted bucks. Not the abstract problem of how "dangerous" can be deCSS.
Future: DVD will end the same way CD ended. When CDs started, such guys as Sony claimed it to be a blow against piracy. As we see now piracy got a Hell of money exactly due to CDs. The fact is that DVDs, just as CDs, are a mean to spread information openly and massively. It is a practical nonsense to try to restrict the distribution of such stuff by means meant to be individual and private.
However the problem does not end just here. Right now the producers of information for mass consumption entered a field that may overturn our values of today. Those same supposedely defended by our dear capitalism.
You buy a DVD. Do you possess it? Or are you renting it for a "one time fee"? And what are your rights on having a rented piece of information? Can you borrow it, sell it? Can you manipulate it? Can you destroy it?
I don't want to go in details here. But if anyone analyses the problem DVDs and other media present today, then one will note that we are facing not a problem of "capitalist" ownership. In fact what we are facing is an attempt to feudalise the ownership of media. You have no right to own information. You cannot use it above a restricted set of permissions. You become an servant (hostage) of the information lords.
It would be much better and much more useful I believe. At least Bill has done something good among the whole mess. Antionline has just mess the whole mess even more.
Frankly I consider this an error. Well Antionline was something some time ago. It was a place one could agree/disagree with. But since that "major overhaul" there, the thing is pure crap. Vranesivich has become the Hoagland of the hacker community. He uses lies damn lies and statistics just the same way as he manipulates information, making his site a very dangerous place. It sounds much like a radio Freedom broadcasting over enemy territory. In this point Antionline is a great site. It has gained its point of perfection.
Anyway I would like Vranesevich to answer one simple question: Is Antionline just a metaphora or an intent?
Just-in-case disclaimer: My opinions, here, do not mean that I intend to cause any physical harm to Mr. Vranesevich, his family, his dog or anyone else related directly or indirectly to him.
Yahoo has been censoring sites and links since its early times. At least I know about this because I was censored by Yahoo in 1996. This happened with me and several sites referred to Mars.
:(
The thing happened when the whole group concerning UFOs, Aliens, parallel theories about Mars (pro and contra) was suddenly transferred from Mars Category (under Astronomy and Science) to Entertainment-Paranormal. One site was gone at all. The scandal that followed up manage to return the group to its general category. However one of the sites never managed to return to Yahoo. No mater that the author tried 5 times to reach them. A year later this same site "disappeared" from several search indexes.
Note that this strange event had to do not only with such things as the mystic "Circles of Fire", Hoagland's crazynesses but also with Stanley McDaniel's site, who I consider a relatively serious dissident. The most stupid of all was that Mike Malin, the guy who rules the intrumentation on Mars probes and a terrible traditionalist, suffered the same fate.
Besides. Some data gathered by one guy notes that Yahoo did this under request of some "scientific authority" from Stanford University. We never managed to identif the guy, but as far as know he did talk to Yahoo staff and they told him that.
So don't worry about Yahoo's censorship. They have taken care of what you think long ago...
Copyright for Eternity, God Allmighty (Alpha and Omega). All Rights Reserved.
Ok people stop speaking, writing, crying, reading, squatting, bubling, cursing, whispering. Well in resume just SHUT UP! Or else legal action will be taken...
These guys never learn. Well the maintainer already spoke here. And clearly show that the story is one more of those Massive Media dreaming myths.
However there is an important point that he left out. This hype around TurboLinux seems not to have nothing to do with any Linux flavour...
The article's hype goes not much around technical aspects but about Linus "being forced" to introduce property software. It sounds much like an ultimatum. Well written btw. However for the managers but not for the techies. Any cluster expert may see how stupid the article goes by.
Well I'm a cluster expert. At least in the area I work I have to deal with 4-5 types of cluster realizations. As far as I know there are several more that don't go with the madness of the system we have here. Btw TurboLinux is one of them. Not because it is bad but because there are several technical problems to use it in the architecture we have here.
Now the problem. Why the Hell this guy says Turbolinux should go into the kernel? And why not PVM, MPI, MOSIX, Bewoulf's metamorphoses and several others I heard of? Besides 2.3 kernel seems to be showing some glimpses of one more cluster realization. So let's put the question... Why not? Because WE ARE NOT WINDOWS DAMN! Because we need a working system and not a bucket of flowers with the label "DON'T BREATH! DON'T SMOKE! DON'T SHAKE! DON'T TOUCH!" Because if Linux turns up to this side, then it will be DON'T BUY! Even if it is given for free... I don't need a "fully do it for you, in 234 flavours and 500Mb of property code" I need working code in a damn network with a quite restricted set of resources. I don't have 80 *(PIII dual processor + 20Gb HDD + 256Mb RAM) for playing "proprietary" W2K.
What if anyone from Outer Space comes up and says this words?
Silly yeah?
But the unfortunate thing is that this already happened. 500 years ago another guy claimed for the crown of Spain a several islands in what was supposed to be the End of the World. And he created a precedent, that, until the beginning of this century, was an epidemia turned one of the greatest tragedies of Mankind. Even the democratic, pluralist and liberal United States of America did not avoid this train. Even now we have a few islands that came into possession of the US through such procedure.
No one asked the people of these lands what did they think of the fact that they belonged to anyone else. No one cared if these lands were completely desertic or had civilizations much older than their new "owners". On the contrary. Every european, asian or american power used all its means to "prove" such ownerships through Ironclad policies. And every resitence or rebellion had to face a terrible fate.
No matter these agreements or treaties, the first space powers (the real ones, those who will start up Space colonisation, if one gets the guts to do it) will just leave them on the shelf. And they will not take a damn about these Outer Space Real Estate dealers. All this is just snake oil. It is playing with everyone who wishes to become Colombus or Lord Sandwich (yeah, it seems there was such a guy). Btw, these new Pizarros and Corteses are doing a silly and unethical play.
The Moon is probably much worser then Mojave or Skeleton beach since its beginning. Mars is probably in a RIP status for quite a long time. Yeah Europe could have some bacteria inside. But I also heard that these unreal estaters sell stars, pieces of galaxy or even whole galaxies.
A warning. The next terminal station can be 10, 100 or 100000000 light years from us. BUT IT IS THERE. No matter we know or don't know about it. And we don't know how alien humour reacts to human dumbiness. Sincerly Clinton once said some harsh words about Mars. Luck no one's there now. But even for a human his words could be measured as highly offensive. To understand the level of what he said there is only the need to change the word "Mars" with any US foe or less friendly state. Had he messed a word (like Reagan once did) and that would be very serious diplomatic trouble.
You may think this sounds silly. Well NO ONE seems to be out there... For now, and here... But if IT IS out there? Or even here and now? What do you think he thinks about us and these stupidities?
Time zones will be mainly local with a translation
system to Earth times. It is not correct to say that UTC is used in space applications. UTC is mainly used in observations from Earth. However it is not the main standard for times in space probe
communications. There, it is mostly used sideral time and more complex stuff. One of them is to use the planet's "proper" timings.
Presently I only know about one planet carrying a complete timing up to a calendar system: Mars. Due to several constraints people at JPL created and used the Darien calendar. It looks much like Earth's but with clear differences. For example the day, "sol" is a bit longer than Earth's. As far as I know the first use of the Darien calendar was on Viking missions. After that and until Pathfinder's arrival it was nearly forgotten.
Ok Doom may not be perfect for all this but I'm putting here some ideas that could be used on it ;)
:) )
May look funny but some of these could be get some serious end...
You press a button and start a new process.
Each room is a user environment.
Shoot BFG in a room. All user's processes are killed.
The processes are shown in different "demons" according to several system parameters (ex. netscape as a Hell Baron
Every weapon you choose is equivalent to a kill signal.
The "architecture" of the level is based on a certain scheme "reflecting" the structure of demons, environments and users.
A lot of patches, several new objects for command and control and a whole new world. Funny? OF COURSE!! But not only. What will happen in a year or two if we start "playing" this new game?
Frankly when I saw the first Linux letters I thought that it was some funny but highly perspective kid's play. However I think that 95% of us would look at it the same way. So, let's do it?