look, the poor guy just wants to know where he can buy a real 3 button mouse..... and here slashdot goes debating the whether or not he should want one, and restating the reasons he can't find one.
personally i don't give a rat's ass if you have a touch screen and click everything with your genitals, or if you do everything in emacs... i think people should use what they're comfortable with.
So I'll restate the question for him: Where can you find a real 3 button mouse for a PC with no scroll wheel?
I have one in my drawer...... a real big fat logitech which was quite nice. But I hated having to clean its balls all the time and decided to go with an optical mouse (yes, with a scroll wheel). Maybe I should put it on eBay... muahhahaha!
And just to add more fuel to the flame war, my 3 button scroll wheel mouse is quite functional on my Mac.... just in case you were wondering.;)
Actually, in the United States, though the president is commander-in-chief, the Constituion expressly gives the power to declare war to Congress. Obviously, it's been de facto made moot, but I raise the point that "USA declares war on Iraq" coming out of the President's mouth isn't meaningful either.
As an American, the fact that Congress relinquished this power to the President at least six months before the "decision was made" (according to the president at any rate) really pisses me off....
The framers never expected war to take less than a year.... they entrusted congress with war declaration powers for a reason, and I think this is another example of the consolidation of power in the executive which has been happening throughout the 20th (and now 21st) century.
I find it hard to give Diebold too much grief about that email.... anybody that is contracted will charge through the nose if you want to change anything.
Not that their previously expressed feelings on democracy are much better. An the fact that a company making voting machines is actually contributing to the campaigns of politicians bothers me deeply.
I have a proposal for a new law: No company making voting machines should be allowed to make political contributions. Period. There's way too much of a conflict of interest there....
Realistically, I think outer space colonialization will go down much like earth colonialization.... It's a chicken and egg problem: to have property "rights" in a civilized manner, you have to have a government to enforce those rights, otherwise it's just the guy with the biggest stick wins. Unfortunately, to realistically have a government you have to have people there to defend that governments claims to something and enforce the law. But if you have people there, someone will be claming the land... most likely all of it. (Remember in the early days Virginia didn't have a western boundary... it was basically as far as the eye coudl see). So basically people will fight it out, with "possession as 9/10 of the law") until the situation stabilizes (ie there's a government with enough muscle to keep things in check). Not very pretty from a civilized society perspective, but I really don't see how it will go down differently as long as individuals are pushing the frontier faster than the governments are.
I disagree.... this is why articles are dated. To say that this is still Bush Sr.'s opinion may or may not be dishonest. To say that it never was his opinion is simply untrue, and there is documentation to support that.
Deleting the article from the table of contents of the issue is tantamount to implying that it never happened. Maybe there's some small print somewhere saying the archives aren't complete, in which case we're back to your original argument, but they seem to be advertising "back issues" on the website and a simple check in the library would turn up something different.
Without going into an epistomological discussion, I think honesty is simply telling the truth. Not linking to the article or providing on a website is not being dishonest. Having a table of contents for what is supposed to be a reproduction of the printed issue which purposefully omits things originally contained there in, is.
I've seen the NYT change the title of an article or rework a paragraph or two a few days later... usually it significantly alters the spin of the article.
The most egregious case I've seen to date is msnbc changing the entire article completely. This article, entitled "U.N. urges inspectors return to Iraq" is dated Oct. 13, and completely replaced this article, entitled "Rumsfeld acknowledges intelligence may have been bad", dated Oct. 2. Now it could be something to do with how they number their articles, but given it's Nov. 11 now (a month after oct. 13) and the article has not been changed and that the replacement article was 11 days after the article it was replacing, I don't think so. Unfortunately since the time I took note of this (about a week or so ago), google has recached the page, thus destroying its record of the old article. Also, wayback machine didn't get it either... the only record I can find now that google has been recached is a reprint on this blog . Which of course probably violates msnbc's copyright to boot.
I dunno...perhaps someone needs to set up something to archive major news sources more frequently than wayback and check for *changes*... this way we can watchdog news angencies which are making up spin on the fly.
It's crazy... print doesn't have this problem.... once it's out, it's out, but on the 'net we seem to be able to have revisionist history, soviet style.
Without degrading the discussion into an OSS/Proprietary religious war, I don't think the issue is the money/cost as much is the openess. Remember governments get to tax companies, so money for companies == money for govt. I don't know if MS has an office in massachusetts or what, but I'm just thinking about the issue in general here. Basically I see two advantages to open source or at least free as in speech software for goverment use: 1) you don't require recpients of data to use a particular companies software (ie word documents), therefore opening up competition and allowing different branches of goverment to communicate without forcing a particular software choice on any of them. and 2) closed source software is basically a "black box"... if there is a bug or security hole it isn't possible to figure it out/fix it. Being a scientist, I have seen #2 bite a few people in the ass on ocassion. There's a certain proprietary data analysis package which had a least squares line fitting routine with a nasty bug -- it gave completely wrong results... but since the source to the routine was closed, people were forced to find other solutions (and no warranty on those high licensing fees either...). Anyway, we all know the drill here: in summary, I think it is definitely in the interest of the government to promote software openness in general.
It's not blatantly obvious to me what "music business" we're talking about here. I mean putting speakers on computers is equivalent to being a record label somehow. Is Borders a record label? Is Amazon a record label?
Other posters seem to think that this is an open and shut case... but as far as I know in order to be considered in violation of a trademark you have to prove that another's trademark could reasonably be confused with yours. I guess applemusic.com is arguable, but until people start sending Steve Jobs demo tapes, I still think the case is fuzzy, previous lawsuits notwithstanding.
It's unfortunate, b/c Apple Computer will probably lose b/c of breach of contract, not trademark violation... a contract they had to sign in the early days lest they go out of business.
Not like my post really adds anything here, but my guess is apple computers will just buy them off. They've paid $50million to apple records already... well, itunes just sold 10 million songs at $1 a piece.... I bet apple's pockets are deep enough for this sort of thing.
Question though: Does anybody have any definitve links describing the last two suits? I really can't find the specifics after googling for 15 minutes or so. I read the first suit was settled out of court, but it seems the second one went before a judge --- what specifically did they lose on? (trademark or breach of contract?) All I got above was wikipedia, but even that wasn't too specific.
I read the review and mainly the criticism is that the books don't necessarily use the latest methods. Bill Press (one of the authors of NR) is an astronomer by trade and actually wrote the book/code in Fortran originally back in 1986. The second edition came out in the early '90s... it is now 2003. So yeah, if you want the latest stuff, this isn't it. That being said, if you're trying to develop something quickly and you don't mind trading execution time for development time, it's still okay for some applications. I don't know if I would say you were incompetent for using it, as I would say maybe you have a bad habit.
I personally had never heard of NetLib myself before this, so pardon my ignorance...
"Some might scoff at this possibility, but from what I've seen of KDE and GNOME 2.2, the Linux desktop if [sic] finally equaling some of the highest quality features in any desktop"
Why are we always trying to "equal" the "quality features" of other desktops.... we (the open source community) are smart and creative, right? When will we start innovating? When will the day come when Microsoft and Apple start equalling our features? (I guess tabs from Opera is a start, but...) To hell with "oh it's more stable and it's free", we need "damn, that new sprocket they have in Linux kicks ass!". Anyway, just a thought.
It's cool to see that so many astronomy grads read slashdot.... woo-hoo! I myself am a student at the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii.... since our telescopes are on a different island, off-site backups are pretty much the default. Re forgetting the tapes: Subaru & CFH are nice 'cause they have a stash in case you forget.
Anyhow, my condolences to my colleagues down under.
But how would they know? A smart PVR would make itself look like an ordinary web browser... what difference does it make to the TV guide server whether a browser or a pvr grabbed the site? Granted, the difference matters to the TV guide execs, but still....
Here's a choice quote from the article: "The increase in productivity is not worth the extra cost and it takes away from the key focus, which has to be work."
ummmmmm..... hmm. so you mean, you don't do work to be productive? I'm suddenly very confused....
I have my wireless phone service with T-Mobile, and their site is "incompatible with Netscape 6".
I went to Boston University, and their alumni site was (maybe still is... haven't checked in a while) "incompatible with Netscape 6. Grr.... WTF?
I can understand why certain proprietary extensions with IE & stuff don't work, but why the hell would a website work with 4.7 and not 6? I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but it seems strange to me.....
Slashdot Mirror
look, the poor guy just wants to know where he can buy a
;)
real 3 button mouse..... and here slashdot goes debating the whether or not he should want one, and
restating the reasons he can't find one.
personally i don't give a rat's ass if you have a touch screen and click everything with your genitals, or if you do
everything in emacs... i think people should use what they're comfortable with.
So I'll restate the question for him: Where can you find a real 3 button mouse for a PC with no scroll wheel?
I have one in my drawer...... a real big fat logitech which was quite nice. But I hated having to clean its balls all the time and decided to go with an optical mouse (yes, with a scroll wheel). Maybe I should put it on eBay... muahhahaha!
And just to add more fuel to the flame war, my 3 button scroll wheel mouse is quite functional on my Mac.... just in case you were wondering.
Actually, in the United States, though the president is commander-in-chief, the Constituion expressly gives the power to declare war to Congress. Obviously, it's been de facto made moot, but I raise the point that "USA declares war on Iraq" coming out of the President's mouth isn't meaningful either.
As an American, the fact that Congress relinquished this power to the President at least six months before the "decision was made" (according to the president at any rate) really pisses me off....
The framers never expected war to take less than a year.... they entrusted congress with war declaration powers for a reason, and I think this is another example of the consolidation of power in the executive which has been happening throughout the 20th (and now 21st) century.
yeaah, i saw a "sonet" once... pretty funny.
I find it hard to give Diebold too much grief about that email.... anybody that is contracted will charge through the nose if you want to change anything.
Not that their previously expressed feelings on democracy are much better. An the fact that a company making voting machines is actually contributing to the campaigns of politicians bothers me deeply.
I have a proposal for a new law: No company making voting machines should be allowed to make political contributions. Period. There's way too much of a conflict of interest there....
Realistically, I think outer space colonialization will go down much like earth colonialization.... It's a chicken and egg problem: to have property "rights" in a civilized manner, you have to have a government to enforce those rights, otherwise it's just the guy with the biggest stick wins. Unfortunately, to realistically have a government you have to have people there to defend that governments claims to something and enforce the law. But if you have people there, someone will be claming the land... most likely all of it. (Remember in the early days Virginia didn't have a western boundary... it was basically as far as the eye coudl see). So basically people will fight it out, with "possession as 9/10 of the law") until the situation stabilizes (ie there's a government with enough muscle to keep things in check). Not very pretty from a civilized society perspective, but I really don't see how it will go down differently as long as individuals are pushing the frontier faster than the governments are.
I disagree.... this is why articles are dated. To say that this is still Bush Sr.'s opinion may or may not be dishonest. To say that it never was his opinion is simply untrue, and there is documentation to support that.
Deleting the article from the table of contents of the issue is tantamount to implying that it never happened. Maybe there's some small print somewhere saying the archives aren't complete, in which case we're back to your original argument, but they seem to be advertising "back issues" on the website and a simple check in the library would turn up something different.
Without going into an epistomological discussion, I think honesty is simply telling the truth. Not linking to the article or providing on a website is not being dishonest. Having a table of contents for what is supposed to be a reproduction of the printed issue which purposefully omits things originally contained there in, is.
I've seen the NYT change the title of an article or rework a paragraph or two a few days later... usually it significantly
... this way we can watchdog news angencies which are making up spin on the fly.
alters the spin of the article.
The most egregious case I've seen to date is msnbc changing the entire article completely. This article, entitled "U.N. urges inspectors return to Iraq" is dated Oct. 13, and completely replaced this article, entitled "Rumsfeld acknowledges intelligence may have been bad", dated Oct. 2. Now it could be something to do with how they number their articles, but given it's Nov. 11 now (a month after oct. 13) and the article has not been changed and that the replacement article was 11 days after the article it was replacing, I don't think so. Unfortunately since the time I took note of this (about a week or so ago), google has recached the page, thus destroying its record of the old article. Also, wayback machine didn't get it either... the only record I can find now that google has been recached is a reprint on this blog . Which of course probably violates msnbc's copyright to boot.
I dunno...perhaps someone needs to set up something to archive major news sources more frequently than wayback and check for *changes*
It's crazy... print doesn't have this problem.... once it's out, it's out, but on the 'net we seem to be able to have revisionist history, soviet style.
A Spectacle of Graphics and Sound!
Without degrading the discussion into an OSS/Proprietary religious war, I don't think the issue is the money/cost as much is the openess. Remember governments get to tax companies, so money for companies == money for govt. I don't know if MS has an office in massachusetts or what, but I'm just thinking about the issue in general here. Basically I see two advantages to open source or at least free as in speech software for goverment use: 1) you don't require recpients of data to use a particular companies software (ie word documents), therefore opening up competition and allowing different branches of goverment to communicate without forcing a particular software choice on any of them. and 2) closed source software is basically a "black box"... if there is a bug or security hole it isn't possible to figure it out/fix it. Being a scientist, I have seen #2 bite a few people in the ass on ocassion. There's a certain proprietary data analysis package which had a least squares line fitting routine with a nasty bug -- it gave completely wrong results... but since the source to the routine was closed, people were forced to find other solutions (and no warranty on those high licensing fees either...). Anyway, we all know the drill here: in summary, I think it is definitely in the interest of the government to promote software openness in general.
Yeah, and I love the port number it uses:
:)
1337.
These guys are hacktastic!
It's not blatantly obvious to me what "music business" we're talking about here. I mean putting speakers on computers is equivalent to being a record label somehow. Is Borders a record label? Is Amazon a record label?
Other posters seem to think that this is an open and shut case... but as far as I know in order to be considered in violation of a trademark you have to prove that another's trademark could reasonably be confused with yours. I guess applemusic.com is arguable, but until people start sending Steve Jobs demo tapes, I still think the case is fuzzy, previous lawsuits notwithstanding.
It's unfortunate, b/c Apple Computer will probably lose b/c of breach of contract, not trademark violation... a contract they had to sign in the early days lest they go out of business.
Not like my post really adds anything here, but my guess is apple computers will just buy them off. They've paid $50million to apple records already... well, itunes just sold 10 million songs at $1 a piece.... I bet apple's pockets are deep enough for this sort of thing.
Question though: Does anybody have any definitve links describing the last two suits? I really can't find the specifics after googling for 15 minutes or so. I read the first suit was settled out of court, but it seems the second one went before a judge --- what specifically did they lose on? (trademark or breach of contract?) All I got above was wikipedia, but even that wasn't too specific.
On the road, I guess...
:)
I can hear the traffic report now "And the Thames
is all backed up with those damned amphibious vehicles"
it would still be pretty cool to have
an amphibious car anyway.
At least that's what slashdot told me Nov. 2001...
here
You analyze data in SuperMongo?
Uggggggghhhhhhh.....
I used to use that for plotting things until
I found WIP.
That's a little harsh...
... it is now 2003. So yeah, if you want the latest stuff, this isn't it. That being said,
I read the review and mainly the criticism is that the books don't necessarily use the latest methods. Bill Press (one of the authors of NR) is an astronomer by trade and actually wrote the book/code in Fortran originally back in 1986. The second edition came out in the early '90s
if you're trying to develop something quickly and you don't mind trading execution time for development time, it's still okay for some applications. I don't know if I would say you were incompetent for using it, as I would say maybe you have a bad habit.
I personally had never heard of NetLib myself before this, so pardon my ignorance...
yes very much so .... like if you have a nice perl script in your path you need to edit..
:)
% vi `which myscript.pl`
awww yeah...
"Some might scoff at this possibility, but from what I've seen of KDE and GNOME 2.2, the Linux desktop if [sic] finally equaling some of the highest quality features in any desktop"
Why are we always trying to "equal" the "quality features"
of other desktops.... we (the open source community) are smart and creative, right? When will we start innovating? When will the day come when Microsoft and Apple start equalling our features? (I guess tabs from Opera is a start, but...) To hell with "oh it's more stable and it's free", we need "damn, that new sprocket they have in Linux kicks ass!". Anyway, just a thought.
*slinks back to the peanut gallery*
It's cool to see that so many astronomy grads read slashdot.... woo-hoo! I myself am a student at the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii.... since our telescopes are on a different island, off-site backups are pretty much the default.
Re forgetting the tapes: Subaru & CFH are nice 'cause they have a stash in case you forget.
Anyhow, my condolences to my colleagues down under.
A wise one once said.. "Those who don't use UNIX are doomed to reinvent it"
c'mon slashdot, we're getting a little loose with
our definitions here, aren't we?
where's the experiments? the simulations? the
theoretical predictions of exactly what ear stresses there are?
spectualion maybe, hypothesis perhaps, but this
is certainly no science.
OS X does rock... with the exception of that
nasty "case perserving" (read case insensitive) filesystem.
echo "aaa!" > aaa.txt
echo "AAA!" > AAA.txt
more aaa.txt
AAA!
But how would they know? A smart PVR would make itself look like an ordinary web browser... what
difference does it make to the TV guide server
whether a browser or a pvr grabbed the site?
Granted, the difference matters to the TV guide execs, but still....
Here's a choice quote from the article:
"The increase in productivity is not worth the extra cost and it takes away from the key focus, which has to be work."
ummmmmm..... hmm. so you mean, you don't do work to
be productive? I'm suddenly very confused....
Maybe they should read The Hacker Ethic.
I have my wireless phone service with T-Mobile,
and their site is "incompatible with Netscape 6".
I went to Boston University, and their alumni site was (maybe still is... haven't checked in a while) "incompatible with Netscape 6. Grr....
WTF?
I can understand why certain proprietary extensions with IE & stuff don't work, but why the hell would a website work with 4.7 and not 6? I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but it seems strange to me.....
Never mind... .should have read more comments first...