As someone who worked closely with Eric Raymond (and had interactions with Jon "maddog" Hall), what were they like in 1998? I'm curious what the whole "mood" of the development community was like in 1998 at that historic meeting. Maybe you could also talk about how things changed -- what they were like before the Open Source movement revved into high gear, and what they were like after.
And how does it all compare to when you first joined the tech scene in the 1980s?
> I and people I knew were using the term before Caldera's press release.
You're lying. You've never proven this statement -- but you repeat it over and over because you want it to be true. And when pushed you pull out [one] press release from 1996 about proprietary software where the code was made viewable-but-not-usable.
>The Caldera press release clearly uses "Open Source" in the sense which I describe, and the sense which we were using at the time.
Great! So then we agree that Caldera's code was proprietary/non-modifiable/no distribution allowed. But Martin prefers hiding behind weasly phrases like "clearly used...in the sense which I describe." (That "sense" being proprietary/non-modifiable/no distribution code.) Whoopee. It's not something to be proud of.
>That press release was a big deal, I actually remember it.
Right, because you were "chumming" with your friends at SCO. We all get that you want to hurt the Open Source Initiative -- but to do it, you're making shit up.
>>I can't believe you're raving about proprietary software like it's somehow a good thing because they let you glimpse their source code once in a while.
>
> I am doing no such thing. What I am [doing]
...is changing the subject.
You assert things which are untrue, and expect us to congratulate you.
"Proprietary code! Never ever touch it! Never modify it! Don't even think about re-distributing it!" That's what Caldera's talking about -- and it's evil.
I can remember when Slashdot used to understand the difference between proprietary and non-proprietary code.
> it was all that we meant when we said "Open Source"
You've been pushing this lie a long time, but in fact there was no significant usage of the term "open source" before 1998. You've scoured the cosmos for anyone who happened to use the words open and/or source and glomming onto product names with the word "open" and then using it to act like the OSI is the bad guy.
I understand that you think you're helping free software by attacking open source software -- but you take it too far when you also fabricate out of thin out this idea that people were using the phrase "open source software" before 1998. And you also denigrate all the work and contributions of the (actual) open source movement which began in 1998.
"Open standards" isn't remotely the same thing as open source. (Just because you can see someone's source code doesn't mean you can modify the source code, let alone re-distribute it.)
I can't believe you're raving about proprietary software like it's somehow a good thing because they let you glimpse their source code once in a while.
I don't know why everybody doesn't just use a credit union. They're non-profits, so they simply have no reason to pull the kind of crap that Wells Fargo did to hundreds of thousands of people.
If you hate banks, remember: you do have another choice.
...and he sees a monkey on sale for $100,000. "Wow! What does that monkey do?" the guy asks the pet store owner.
"Oh, that monkey is very special," the pet store owner replies. "He can write computer code -- in either Java or C++ !"
Then the guy sees another monkey that's on sale for $130,000. "Wow! That monkey must be even better!" he says. "What does that monkey do?" The pet store owner tells him that that monkey can write computer code -- but in C, or in assembly language.
Then the guy sees a third monkey on sale for $200,000. "Wow! That monkey must be incredible!" he says. "What does that monkey do?"
"Do?!" replies the pet store owner. "Well, I've never actually seen him do anything. But he says that he's a project manager."
There has to be a technical fix. How about installing those devices that block cellphones from working? Or better still, couldn't they just tap the phone calls? You could get a ton of useful information on what criminals are planning outside?
Lawmakers are sometimes slow to understand exactly how new technology is impacting the world. But this argument boils down to "You can't have a mini phone, because then some prisoners might someday get them too."
The original Wonkette wasn't fired. Gawker's site made her so famous that she landed a book deal, and left the site to focus on promoting her book-writing career.
I agree with that the style of Gawker's blogs - Valleywag was another one of them - was extremely entertaining while also being informative with occasional bursts of actual investigative journalism.
There's three credit services. You need to lock access to your credit files on all *three* of them to stop identity theft.
It's good that Equifax isn't charging for it on their service -- and they can't control what the other services charge -- so it's a place to start, but it doesn't solve the whole problem.
And in the long term, it'd be better to just scrap the current credit/identity tracking and start over with something more secure.
The point is that Taser's manufacturers claim there have only been 24 deaths from tasers. So even the most generous reading of these statistics stills leaves you with Tasers being more than six times deadlier than the company has ever admitted.
Slashdot Mirror
It's great to see the Perl advent calendar tradition continuing for a full 19 years. There aren't many geek traditions that go back that far.
And it's also nice to see that it's spread over the years into other programming communities.
I watched the original Halloween when it first came out.
I think it was the very first movie that Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel reviewed on their show....
I haven't seen that domain since Adam Curry was a VJ on MTV!
As someone who worked closely with Eric Raymond (and had interactions with Jon "maddog" Hall), what were they like in 1998? I'm curious what the whole "mood" of the development community was like in 1998 at that historic meeting. Maybe you could also talk about how things changed -- what they were like before the Open Source movement revved into high gear, and what they were like after.
And how does it all compare to when you first joined the tech scene in the 1980s?
> I and people I knew were using the term before Caldera's press release.
You're lying. You've never proven this statement -- but you repeat it over and over because you want it to be true. And when pushed you pull out [one] press release from 1996 about proprietary software where the code was made viewable-but-not-usable.
>The Caldera press release clearly uses "Open Source" in the sense which I describe, and the sense which we were using at the time.
Great! So then we agree that Caldera's code was proprietary/non-modifiable/no distribution allowed. But Martin prefers hiding behind weasly phrases like "clearly used...in the sense which I describe." (That "sense" being proprietary/non-modifiable/no distribution code.) Whoopee. It's not something to be proud of.
>That press release was a big deal, I actually remember it.
Right, because you were "chumming" with your friends at SCO. We all get that you want to hurt the Open Source Initiative -- but to do it, you're making shit up.
>>I can't believe you're raving about proprietary software like it's somehow a good thing because they let you glimpse their source code once in a while.
...is changing the subject.
>
> I am doing no such thing. What I am [doing]
You assert things which are untrue, and expect us to congratulate you.
"Proprietary code! Never ever touch it! Never modify it! Don't even think about re-distributing it!" That's what Caldera's talking about -- and it's evil.
I can remember when Slashdot used to understand the difference between proprietary and non-proprietary code.
> it was all that we meant when we said "Open Source"
You've been pushing this lie a long time, but in fact there was no significant usage of the term "open source" before 1998. You've scoured the cosmos for anyone who happened to use the words open and/or source and glomming onto product names with the word "open" and then using it to act like the OSI is the bad guy.
I understand that you think you're helping free software by attacking open source software -- but you take it too far when you also fabricate out of thin out this idea that people were using the phrase "open source software" before 1998. And you also denigrate all the work and contributions of the (actual) open source movement which began in 1998.
"Open standards" isn't remotely the same thing as open source. (Just because you can see someone's source code doesn't mean you can modify the source code, let alone re-distribute it.)
I can't believe you're raving about proprietary software like it's somehow a good thing because they let you glimpse their source code once in a while.
You can be bought pretty cheap, drinkypoo.
I don't know why everybody doesn't just use a credit union. They're non-profits, so they simply have no reason to pull the kind of crap that Wells Fargo did to hundreds of thousands of people.
If you hate banks, remember: you do have another choice.
...and he sees a monkey on sale for $100,000. "Wow! What does that monkey do?" the guy asks the pet store owner.
"Oh, that monkey is very special," the pet store owner replies. "He can write computer code -- in either Java or C++ !"
Then the guy sees another monkey that's on sale for $130,000. "Wow! That monkey must be even better!" he says. "What does that monkey do?" The pet store owner tells him that that monkey can write computer code -- but in C, or in assembly language.
Then the guy sees a third monkey on sale for $200,000. "Wow! That monkey must be incredible!" he says. "What does that monkey do?"
"Do?!" replies the pet store owner. "Well, I've never actually seen him do anything. But he says that he's a project manager."
There has to be a technical fix. How about installing those devices that block cellphones from working? Or better still, couldn't they just tap the phone calls? You could get a ton of useful information on what criminals are planning outside?
Lawmakers are sometimes slow to understand exactly how new technology is impacting the world. But this argument boils down to "You can't have a mini phone, because then some prisoners might someday get them too."
It was 100% consensual. (Dude, there's a difference between "sex" and "sexual harassment.")
According to Bill Clinton, there's even a difference between sex and getting a blow job.....
The original Wonkette wasn't fired. Gawker's site made her so famous that she landed a book deal, and left the site to focus on promoting her book-writing career.
I agree with that the style of Gawker's blogs - Valleywag was another one of them - was extremely entertaining while also being informative with occasional bursts of actual investigative journalism.
So are you calling me evil -- or stupid?
There's three credit services. You need to lock access to your credit files on all *three* of them to stop identity theft.
It's good that Equifax isn't charging for it on their service -- and they can't control what the other services charge -- so it's a place to start, but it doesn't solve the whole problem.
And in the long term, it'd be better to just scrap the current credit/identity tracking and start over with something more secure.
It includes NFL football games, which probably accounts for a good chunk of that million.
Maybe they thought Star Trek could attract customers from an entirely new demographic.
The point is that Taser's manufacturers claim there have only been 24 deaths from tasers. So even the most generous reading of these statistics stills leaves you with Tasers being more than six times deadlier than the company has ever admitted.