There might now be some "tax issues" that are not to MS's taste, but the remedy is as simple as making a new law, just for them. Happens every day in the US Congress: check out the tax code, see how many exceptions there are for specifically identified companies.
This guy is an Übergeek. He discussed some research he did on "mind input devices". (for the Air Force?) This would be the "thinking cap" variety, not an "implanted electrode". He concluded that such a device is not possible at this time because detectable changes in brain activity occur too slowly to be useful.
It sounds like you want to serve up static pages. Why generate them dynamically?
Write a file of markup.
Write a file of content.
Write a script to merge them.
When you add a new language, translate the file of content, run the script, and stick the new pages in a new subdirectory. Tweak your splash page to point to the new language.
The district court found that encryption source code is not sufficiently expressive to be protected by the First Amendment, that the Export Administration Regulations are permissible content-neutral restrictions, and that the Regulations are not subject to a facial challenge as a prior restraint on speech.
The appellate court spoke only to the first finding, and directed the trial court to reconsider its opinion accordingly. It may well be the case that the code in question still may not be published, eg, for national security reasons.
How about a fully-interactive real-time-feedback model for linux kernel development? We can ask everyone, not just those "in the business", what they want, and give it to them! The customer is always right! Peter Coyote can ask Alan & co. "how did it feel to write that driver?"
If producers thought they could get a better return on their investment by offering interactivity, they would do it. If "faking it" were good enough, then they'd do that. H-wood is very good at "faking it".
I don't want to get all Katzy here, but we should consider all the things that can go wrong. This shows what can happen if, say, you put on The Wrong Trousers. (Even has a penguin.)
Here is the opinion. See section III for a refutation of RIAA's claims. For example,
There are simply no grounds in either the plain language of the definition or in the legislative history for interpreting the term "digital musical recording" to include songs fixed on computer hard drives.
Yes, linux can be hard to use. And why shouldn't users be able to slap an AOLShell on their desktop, if that's what they want?
But his last points regarding project management and humility are way wrong.
To whom will these "wealthy organizations" present their list? That person doesn't exist. What newcomers don't realize is that they're getting a fantastic bargain, and if they insist on harassing the worker bees, they won't get any more honey. It's hard to put aside the litigious urge.
The open source movement is now so firmly entrenched, it can only grow. Someday, linux will be overtaken by something better (although I suspect that "something better" will be linux morphing into something new, akin to the 1 -> 2 kernel change). But so what? This is a good thing, not a bad thing! We like stuff that is better! Mr. Connell should send an extra-large humble pie to Redmond in a couple days.
Some folks find Katz interesting, but I never have. It's not that I mostly disagree with his theses; it's the fuzzy thinking I don't care for. I appreciate a well-reasoned, connected argument that has at least a little evidence to back it up.
But, I'm sorry to say, his pieces have lost the meager entertainment value I found in them. It's no fun anymore to sift through the logorrhea to find yet another howler. It's no fun because Katz is boring. He only has a few ponies in his stable, and he trots them out every time: the evils of corporatism, geek oppression, "the tragedy of technology", censorship. The purported topic is irrelevant; whatever it is, he just hitches it up to his flea-bitten team & trots away. Go ahead, look up his stuff from one (or two or three) years ago; he's being saying the same stuff, in the same way, for a long time. I get the point already.
Imperative languages in general present syntax obstacles that you shouldn't have to deal with. Because of its genesis, perl is the most challenging, but C++'s provenence is nearly as mongrelish. It so happens that the greatest computer text ever, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, by Abelson & Sussman, uses Scheme, but if you don't have a teacher, this book is not for beginners. You might want to check out The Little Lisper or The Little Schemer by Friedman
No one tries to improve the present through pursuing worse technology. Katz claims that your new gewgaws will screw the pooch anyway, so it doesn't matter what you pursue.
You should find an older person & ask what it was like before the polio vaccine became available, & if they think vaccination is "tragic." I predict her answer won't be, "Very tragic; now a few thousands of us won't have a character-building obstacle, namely, a non-responsive body, thrust upon us." I, for one, hope to die a slow, painful, lingering death... at an extremely advanced age.
You are claiming that technology is "tragic" because unforseen, negative benefits flow from it. But this implies that technology has some kind of volition: it "wants" to do only good, but because it violates the Will Of The Gods, or The Natural Order, or whatever you want to call it (I'll call it "the Gods" from now on), the Gods hurl their lightningbolts at the transgressor, and reveal its folly. Technology doesn't care how it's used, so there is no inherent "tragedy".
You might as well say that *any* human artifact (religion, culture, nationalism) is tragic, because sometimes the Gods throw their lightningbolts at them too. But this is also wrong. Many things have been tried throughout history; those that have a net positive benefit (eg capitalism) tend to spread; those that have a net negative benefit (eg slavery) tend to disappear. Put 'em together: that's Progress. It's in those areas where the benefit is uncertain that are the most interesting; nationalism comes to mind. The books are closed on technology -- it's good, and more is better.
Do you think that old woman's mother would have argued with this? Would she have been disturbed that an "unnaturnal" metal cylinder was laid between the lake and her house? Or even that her new, longer expected lifespan would be a wee bit shorter because the pipe was made of lead? I don't think so.
Ironically, sometimes the thing that tells us our technology is harming us is -- more technology!
Slashdot Mirror
There might now be some "tax issues" that are not to MS's taste, but the remedy is as simple as making a new law, just for them. Happens every day in the US Congress: check out the tax code, see how many exceptions there are for specifically identified companies.
This guy is an Übergeek. He discussed some research he did on "mind input devices". (for the Air Force?) This would be the "thinking cap" variety, not an "implanted electrode". He concluded that such a device is not possible at this time because detectable changes in brain activity occur too slowly to be useful.
When you add a new language, translate the file of content, run the script, and stick the new pages in a new subdirectory. Tweak your splash page to point to the new language.
P.S. Someday, you will do this with XML/XSL.
The district court found that encryption source code is not sufficiently expressive to be protected by the First Amendment, that the Export Administration Regulations are permissible content-neutral restrictions, and that the Regulations are not subject to a facial challenge as a prior restraint on speech.
The appellate court spoke only to the first finding, and directed the trial court to reconsider its opinion accordingly. It may well be the case that the code in question still may not be published, eg, for national security reasons.
How about a fully-interactive real-time-feedback model for linux kernel development? We can ask everyone, not just those "in the business", what they want, and give it to them! The customer is always right! Peter Coyote can ask Alan & co. "how did it feel to write that driver?"
Hollywood has its own Prime Directive:
SELL TICKETS.
If producers thought they could get a better return on their investment by offering interactivity, they would do it. If "faking it" were good enough, then they'd do that. H-wood is very good at "faking it".
in Mrs. Murphy's chowder?
I don't want to get all Katzy here, but we should consider all the things that can go wrong. This shows what can happen if, say, you put on The Wrong Trousers. (Even has a penguin.)
Here is the opinion. See section III for a refutation of RIAA's claims. For example,
There are simply no grounds in either the plain language of the definition or in the legislative history for interpreting the term "digital musical recording" to include songs fixed on computer hard drives.
oops
6, 14, 23, 28, 33, ?
Now leave me alone.
But his last points regarding project management and humility are way wrong.
To whom will these "wealthy organizations" present their list? That person doesn't exist. What newcomers don't realize is that they're getting a fantastic bargain, and if they insist on harassing the worker bees, they won't get any more honey. It's hard to put aside the litigious urge.
The open source movement is now so firmly entrenched, it can only grow. Someday, linux will be overtaken by something better (although I suspect that "something better" will be linux morphing into something new, akin to the 1 -> 2 kernel change). But so what? This is a good thing, not a bad thing! We like stuff that is better! Mr. Connell should send an extra-large humble pie to Redmond in a couple days.
4
The Net is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than Linus.
Some folks find Katz interesting, but I never have. It's not that I mostly disagree with his theses; it's the fuzzy thinking I don't care for. I appreciate a well-reasoned, connected argument that has at least a little evidence to back it up.
But, I'm sorry to say, his pieces have lost the meager entertainment value I found in them. It's no fun anymore to sift through the logorrhea to find yet another howler. It's no fun because Katz is boring. He only has a few ponies in his stable, and he trots them out every time: the evils of corporatism, geek oppression, "the tragedy of technology", censorship. The purported topic is irrelevant; whatever it is, he just hitches it up to his flea-bitten team & trots away. Go ahead, look up his stuff from one (or two or three) years ago; he's being saying the same stuff, in the same way, for a long time. I get the point already.
Scheme.
Imperative languages in general present syntax obstacles that you shouldn't have to deal with. Because of its genesis, perl is the most challenging, but C++'s provenence is nearly as mongrelish. It so happens that the greatest computer text ever, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, by Abelson & Sussman, uses Scheme, but if you don't have a teacher, this book is not for beginners. You might want to check out The Little Lisper or The Little Schemer by Friedman
1) The discovery that the Captain Crunch whistle made a 2600 Hz tone, and What That Means To Telephones.
2) The way Sir Earnest Shackleton rescued the Endurance expedition. You gotta read the story, you won't believe it.
No one tries to improve the present through pursuing worse technology. Katz claims that your new gewgaws will screw the pooch anyway, so it doesn't matter what you pursue.
... at an extremely advanced age.
You should find an older person & ask what it was like before the polio vaccine became available, & if they think vaccination is "tragic." I predict her answer won't be, "Very tragic; now a few thousands of us won't have a character-building obstacle, namely, a non-responsive body, thrust upon us." I, for one, hope to die a slow, painful, lingering death
You are claiming that technology is "tragic" because unforseen, negative benefits flow from it. But this implies that technology has some kind of volition: it "wants" to do only good, but because it violates the Will Of The Gods, or The Natural Order, or whatever you want to call it (I'll call it "the Gods" from now on), the Gods hurl their lightningbolts at the transgressor, and reveal its folly. Technology doesn't care how it's used, so there is no inherent "tragedy".
You might as well say that *any* human artifact (religion, culture, nationalism) is tragic, because sometimes the Gods throw their lightningbolts at them too. But this is also wrong. Many things have been tried throughout history; those that have a net positive benefit (eg capitalism) tend to spread; those that have a net negative benefit (eg slavery) tend to disappear. Put 'em together: that's Progress. It's in those areas where the benefit is uncertain that are the most interesting; nationalism comes to mind. The books are closed on technology -- it's good, and more is better.
Do you think that old woman's mother would have argued with this? Would she have been disturbed that an "unnaturnal" metal cylinder was laid between the lake and her house? Or even that her new, longer expected lifespan would be a wee bit shorter because the pipe was made of lead? I don't think so.
Ironically, sometimes the thing that tells us our technology is harming us is -- more technology!