I use Firefox on both my Linux box and my Windows machine at home. Unfortunately, I don't have an option at work. We're not allowed to load any software on government machines, and IE is the standard browser.
(Of course, Firefox doesn't require admin privleges to install on Windows, and one could install it in one's personal folders and deny everyone except oneself the right to access those folders, meaning even admins couldn't see it unless they came in and took ownership of the folders and changed the permissions. One COULD do that but it would be completely against government policy.)
The freedom to code on Gnome yourself is exactly the point that you apparently missed. Some users don't like the way Gnome is going, so they choose to write code which modifies Gnome to a way that they like it. Gnome itself doesn't want their mods, so they're grouping together and making them available as an alternative to Gnome. Some Gnome developers/users don't like that. Too bad. The freedom to do exactly that is what FOSS is all about.
OK, if we're going to have this conversation, we need to define what we mean by "fake photograph." Yes, many photos were staged, particularly when taking photos was significantly more difficult than "point and shoot." But a staged photograph is not a fake photograph - it's still a reasonably accurate representation of reality as it existed at the time the photo was taken.
You're also quite correct that photos are routinely manipulated in the dark room. However, manipulating the color and otherwise enhancing the image is not at all what most people mean by a "fake photograph." There's a fundamental difference in those types of manipulations and putting Sarah Michelle Gellar's head on a porn star's body or putting John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the same podium together. This type of thing was possible before, but it was much, much more difficult and much less common.
One could read into these lines that the ability to fake photographs was great until anyone could do it. Now that we know how easy it is to fake photographs, we no longer implicitly trust messages...but we will trust mathematically authenticated fake photographs because math is infallable.
Or you could read into them that when it was rare and difficult to fake photographys, most of the photographs you saw were genuine, so you could place a decent amount of trust in what you were seeing. Now that faking photos is easy and commonplace, you can no longer place much trust in photos. With mathematically verified photos, you can place more (though not complete) trust back in the photo. It isn't foolproof but the level of assurance is significantly higher.
Really? I hope you're right. I really do. And if you are, it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a pointer to the law or court decision that says that backs you up, and the law or decision that says click throughs are not valid.
If I go buy a car, it belongs to me. Once I've paid for it (that is, I don't have a loan where the car is acting as colateral) I can go smash the thing with a sledge hammer if I want. It's mine.
However, if I lease that same car, it's not mine. I signed an agreement that lets me use the car, but it's not mine. I just have the use of it.
If it's legal for a car company or dealership to lease a car to me, why isn't it legal for a software company to lease a piece of software to me? And if you read the fine print of the EULA, that's what many companies claim to be doing. They aren't selling you the software. They're selling you the physical media and leasing you the usage rights to the software on the media.
There are still some issues that have yet to be legally confirmed or decided, such as whether or not a click-through license is as legally binding as the lease you sign at a car dealership.
It may turn out that the leasing tactic the software companies are using isn't legally valid. Until there's a legal decision to that effect, however, (and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen) there's still a lot of questions as to exactly what rights you do and do not have in regards to software and other IP. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as you try to make it sound.
I understand that. Moving IP's around would effectively destroy the idea of a subnet. However, I was replying to a claim that moving IPs was logically (not technically) equiavalent to moving a telephone number. Technical issues aside, the reasons for phone number portability simply don't exist for IP addresses.
When someone goes to call me, they dial my specific phone number. If that changes, everyone who wants to get in touch with me has to memorize the new number.
How many people use an IP to send an email or access a web site or whatever other service he's using the IP for? You use a URL. And he CAN take that URL with him. All he has to do is update the authoritative DNS server for the URL with the new IP address.
That's funny. I'm running 0.9 right now with AdBlock and have been since the day it was released.
I don't believe that AdBlock is listed as an extension if you go to the 0.9 extensions page. But sonce Firefox helpfully imported all of my bookmarks from 0.8, I just went to the old extensions page and installed it from there. I had zero problems with the installation and zero problems with running it.
Get a clue. If you're going to offer an analogy, at least make it an appropriate one.
It doesn't cost the kernel developers anything for RedHat to sell their work. They produce the kernel for their own use and for others to use. Redhat packages it up and sells it.
When you use Trillian to send an IM via Yahoo, you're using Yahoo's servers, which they purchase and pay to maintain, and their bendwidth, which they also pay for. You're costing them money, and you're not viewing their ads, which is the method they use to make money. From their viewpoint, you're a leech on their services.
No such drain occurs on the kernel developers from Redhat selling their product.
I have no problem with Open Source products which use Yahoo or other IM providers. But if Trillian wants to make money off their product, then they should license the right to access Yahoo's servers. That's a personal opinion; my understanding is that they're not be under any _legal_ obligation to do so, and I'm not implying anything different here.
It's certainly true that Firefox is more standards complaint. Unfortunately, it's also irrelevant, since way too many web authors don't care about standards.
There are many, many web pages that are authored in Front Page, run on IIS and look great on IE and like crap on everything else. Giving up and refusing to run alternate browsers in order to reduce headaches is in many ways a cop out. It makes the problem worse, since no one is slamming the webmasters for non-working pages. But it's easier, and when it comes to standing on principles or putting bread on the table, principles all too often take a back seat.
A secure protocol of that sort requires a challenge - response. In other words, two way communication. I doubt very seriously they're intending to put a receiver and a CPU in everyone's plate. It'll simply be a responder. To spoof it, all you have to do is record it and play it back.
If you have one integrated into the car, why on earth do you need one in the plates? It might be useful for the very rare occasion that someone switches plates on a car but I'd imagine the whole point of putting it in the plates is to avoid the expense and effort of retrofitting all of the existing cars on the road.
It may not be possible to know the exact location at any given point in time, but how difficult would it be to put a reader at every intersection in a city? At every on and off ramp on a highway? The state now has a record of everywhere you went on any given day.
Yes, a helo can follow you around and yes, toll booths can track you from one to the next. That's a completely different thing than the state being able to say "Who? Hacksaw? What date? Hold on, let me run this query. Yeah, here you go. Here's a time stamped map of everywhere his car went on that day, every where he stopped, and how long he was there. Anything else I can do for you?"
Because if you pronounce it "et cetera" you're implying the existence of a directory name consisting of 8 letters and an embedded space. There is no such directory on most systems.
I think 60 is about right for film. However, there is a difference in film and rendered frames. In film, when there is motion, there is a slight blur of the moving item. This contributes to the illusion of motion. At around 60 FPS, the illusion is complete and higher frame rates don't contribute to a smoother appearance.
With rendered frames, each frame is independent. There is no blur of the moving items. Because the brain doesn't have those clues to follow, the illusion is less complete. At around 60 FPS, the illusion is still not complete and higher frame rates do contribute to a smoother appearance.
X Windows, like bash, has it's own way of copy/paste (ie: highlight/middle-click) and KDE/GNOME have their own way of copy/paste (ie: ctrl+c/ctrl+v). What that means is while you're running X with a popular desktop suite like KDE or GNOME, you have more than one clipboard.
Which is simply a broken system. It's one of the things that definitely needs to be fixed before you can tryly say that Linux is ready for prime time.
The only problem I have with this is that Thunderbird doesn't support maildir format. There are a few other capabilities it lacks but maildir is the big one keeping me from using it.
Every technology is risky. We should go back to plowing fields with oxen and hunting with a bow and arrow, then we'd be safe from all of this horrible technology. Millions might die of hunger, but hey, at least they won't be killed by technology.
While nothing you said is incorrect, where did I say anything that implied anything different? A geostationary satellite is in an orbit that keeps it stationary over one geographic location.
The point of good SciFi is to tell a good story. Period. Otherwise, it's simply propoganda.
Good SciFi, like all literature, should explore the human condition. That may very well include expositions about the dangers of certain technologies or social trends. But those are side effects - a property of the story rather than the purpose for it.
Second, science fiction must be as accurate and technically feasible as possible. Otherwise, it isn't SciFi - it's fantasy.
How does that affect things? So long as you can show that the term "window" was used to refer to a borderd section of computer display that was updated independently of the rest of the screen, you've demonstrated that MS used a generic term when they named their software.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Firefox on both my Linux box and my Windows machine at home. Unfortunately, I don't have an option at work. We're not allowed to load any software on government machines, and IE is the standard browser.
(Of course, Firefox doesn't require admin privleges to install on Windows, and one could install it in one's personal folders and deny everyone except oneself the right to access those folders, meaning even admins couldn't see it unless they came in and took ownership of the folders and changed the permissions. One COULD do that but it would be completely against government policy.)
The freedom to code on Gnome yourself is exactly the point that you apparently missed. Some users don't like the way Gnome is going, so they choose to write code which modifies Gnome to a way that they like it. Gnome itself doesn't want their mods, so they're grouping together and making them available as an alternative to Gnome. Some Gnome developers/users don't like that. Too bad. The freedom to do exactly that is what FOSS is all about.
Just started playing with zsh. Thanks for the files. However, irt these lines in .zshrc:
/home/username/.zshrc:bindkey:49: cannot bind to an empty key sequence
bindkey -e
bindkey '' backward-delete-char
I get the following:
OK, if we're going to have this conversation, we need to define what we mean by "fake photograph." Yes, many photos were staged, particularly when taking photos was significantly more difficult than "point and shoot." But a staged photograph is not a fake photograph - it's still a reasonably accurate representation of reality as it existed at the time the photo was taken.
You're also quite correct that photos are routinely manipulated in the dark room. However, manipulating the color and otherwise enhancing the image is not at all what most people mean by a "fake photograph." There's a fundamental difference in those types of manipulations and putting Sarah Michelle Gellar's head on a porn star's body or putting John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the same podium together. This type of thing was possible before, but it was much, much more difficult and much less common.
One could read into these lines that the ability to fake photographs was great until anyone could do it. Now that we know how easy it is to fake photographs, we no longer implicitly trust messages...but we will trust mathematically authenticated fake photographs because math is infallable.
Or you could read into them that when it was rare and difficult to fake photographys, most of the photographs you saw were genuine, so you could place a decent amount of trust in what you were seeing. Now that faking photos is easy and commonplace, you can no longer place much trust in photos. With mathematically verified photos, you can place more (though not complete) trust back in the photo. It isn't foolproof but the level of assurance is significantly higher.
Really? I hope you're right. I really do. And if you are, it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a pointer to the law or court decision that says that backs you up, and the law or decision that says click throughs are not valid.
I wish it were that simple. It's not.
If I go buy a car, it belongs to me. Once I've paid for it (that is, I don't have a loan where the car is acting as colateral) I can go smash the thing with a sledge hammer if I want. It's mine.
However, if I lease that same car, it's not mine. I signed an agreement that lets me use the car, but it's not mine. I just have the use of it.
If it's legal for a car company or dealership to lease a car to me, why isn't it legal for a software company to lease a piece of software to me? And if you read the fine print of the EULA, that's what many companies claim to be doing. They aren't selling you the software. They're selling you the physical media and leasing you the usage rights to the software on the media.
There are still some issues that have yet to be legally confirmed or decided, such as whether or not a click-through license is as legally binding as the lease you sign at a car dealership.
It may turn out that the leasing tactic the software companies are using isn't legally valid. Until there's a legal decision to that effect, however, (and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen) there's still a lot of questions as to exactly what rights you do and do not have in regards to software and other IP. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as you try to make it sound.
I understand that. Moving IP's around would effectively destroy the idea of a subnet. However, I was replying to a claim that moving IPs was logically (not technically) equiavalent to moving a telephone number. Technical issues aside, the reasons for phone number portability simply don't exist for IP addresses.
When someone goes to call me, they dial my specific phone number. If that changes, everyone who wants to get in touch with me has to memorize the new number.
How many people use an IP to send an email or access a web site or whatever other service he's using the IP for? You use a URL. And he CAN take that URL with him. All he has to do is update the authoritative DNS server for the URL with the new IP address.
That's funny. I'm running 0.9 right now with AdBlock and have been since the day it was released.
I don't believe that AdBlock is listed as an extension if you go to the 0.9 extensions page. But sonce Firefox helpfully imported all of my bookmarks from 0.8, I just went to the old extensions page and installed it from there. I had zero problems with the installation and zero problems with running it.
Get a clue. If you're going to offer an analogy, at least make it an appropriate one.
It doesn't cost the kernel developers anything for RedHat to sell their work. They produce the kernel for their own use and for others to use. Redhat packages it up and sells it.
When you use Trillian to send an IM via Yahoo, you're using Yahoo's servers, which they purchase and pay to maintain, and their bendwidth, which they also pay for. You're costing them money, and you're not viewing their ads, which is the method they use to make money. From their viewpoint, you're a leech on their services.
No such drain occurs on the kernel developers from Redhat selling their product.
I have no problem with Open Source products which use Yahoo or other IM providers. But if Trillian wants to make money off their product, then they should license the right to access Yahoo's servers. That's a personal opinion; my understanding is that they're not be under any _legal_ obligation to do so, and I'm not implying anything different here.
It's certainly true that Firefox is more standards complaint. Unfortunately, it's also irrelevant, since way too many web authors don't care about standards.
There are many, many web pages that are authored in Front Page, run on IIS and look great on IE and like crap on everything else. Giving up and refusing to run alternate browsers in order to reduce headaches is in many ways a cop out. It makes the problem worse, since no one is slamming the webmasters for non-working pages. But it's easier, and when it comes to standing on principles or putting bread on the table, principles all too often take a back seat.
A secure protocol of that sort requires a challenge - response. In other words, two way communication. I doubt very seriously they're intending to put a receiver and a CPU in everyone's plate. It'll simply be a responder. To spoof it, all you have to do is record it and play it back.
If you have one integrated into the car, why on earth do you need one in the plates? It might be useful for the very rare occasion that someone switches plates on a car but I'd imagine the whole point of putting it in the plates is to avoid the expense and effort of retrofitting all of the existing cars on the road.
It may not be possible to know the exact location at any given point in time, but how difficult would it be to put a reader at every intersection in a city? At every on and off ramp on a highway? The state now has a record of everywhere you went on any given day.
Yes, a helo can follow you around and yes, toll booths can track you from one to the next. That's a completely different thing than the state being able to say "Who? Hacksaw? What date? Hold on, let me run this query. Yeah, here you go. Here's a time stamped map of everywhere his car went on that day, every where he stopped, and how long he was there. Anything else I can do for you?"
Because if you pronounce it "et cetera" you're implying the existence of a directory name consisting of 8 letters and an embedded space. There is no such directory on most systems.
Or as "Et Sea"
I think 60 is about right for film. However, there is a difference in film and rendered frames. In film, when there is motion, there is a slight blur of the moving item. This contributes to the illusion of motion. At around 60 FPS, the illusion is complete and higher frame rates don't contribute to a smoother appearance.
With rendered frames, each frame is independent. There is no blur of the moving items. Because the brain doesn't have those clues to follow, the illusion is less complete. At around 60 FPS, the illusion is still not complete and higher frame rates do contribute to a smoother appearance.
X Windows, like bash, has it's own way of copy/paste (ie: highlight/middle-click) and KDE/GNOME have their own way of copy/paste (ie: ctrl+c/ctrl+v). What that means is while you're running X with a popular desktop suite like KDE or GNOME, you have more than one clipboard.
Which is simply a broken system. It's one of the things that definitely needs to be fixed before you can tryly say that Linux is ready for prime time.
The only problem I have with this is that Thunderbird doesn't support maildir format. There are a few other capabilities it lacks but maildir is the big one keeping me from using it.
Every technology is risky. We should go back to plowing fields with oxen and hunting with a bow and arrow, then we'd be safe from all of this horrible technology. Millions might die of hunger, but hey, at least they won't be killed by technology.
While nothing you said is incorrect, where did I say anything that implied anything different? A geostationary satellite is in an orbit that keeps it stationary over one geographic location.
Uh, no! Perhaps you should look up the definition of "geostationary." I'll give you a hint - it has something to do with the word "stationary."
The point of good SciFi is to tell a good story. Period. Otherwise, it's simply propoganda.
Good SciFi, like all literature, should explore the human condition. That may very well include expositions about the dangers of certain technologies or social trends. But those are side effects - a property of the story rather than the purpose for it.
Second, science fiction must be as accurate and technically feasible as possible. Otherwise, it isn't SciFi - it's fantasy.
How does that affect things? So long as you can show that the term "window" was used to refer to a borderd section of computer display that was updated independently of the rest of the screen, you've demonstrated that MS used a generic term when they named their software.