That happens in the U.S. Senate every few years, too. Come to think of it, we're about due:)
Then there was President Jackson, aka Old Hickory, aka Colonel Jackson (though he was a General at the more interesting points). Just off the cuff: 1) sent the British commanding general at New Orleans home in a rum barrel. He demolished the last British force in North America, unaware that the war had been settled a week earlier in France. Remnants of the British army were scattered across three or four states. 2) At his innaugeration, became the only U.S. President *ever* to ride a horse through the White House. 3) He was a brawler and a duelist. His dueling glove shows visible wear (I believe it's in the Smithsonian). He once told the entire United States Senate to meet him on Capitol Hill, and bring their guns. None showed up. 4) My favorite: The duel with Charles Dickinson. This was one he'd rather have avoided. I forget the grounds, but I think it had something to do with Mrs. Dickinson. Dickinson was a marksman, and the night before the duel, put half a dozen bullets into an area the size of a silver dollar on the tree that Jackson would be standing by while showing off for his friends. Jackson came out in flowing robes, and simply let Dickinson shoot. He took the bullet in the chest without flinching. Dickinson tried to flee, and had to be dragged back so that Jackson could shoot. Jackson aimed, then lowered his aim, shooting him in the groin. Once Dickinson went down, Jackson collapsed from his own injury. "I didn't want the (*%^$&*( to die with the satisfaction of knowing he'd hit me." He spat blood for the rest of his life from the wound. 5) His dying words: "My only regrets are that I didn't shoot John C. Calhoun and hang Henry Clay." (two famous statesmen of the era).
Hmm, or in the Nevada state legislature: "Sir, are you accusing me of prevarication?" "I'm not sure what that big fancy word means, but if it means am I accusing you of lying, I sure am!"
It wasn't just that the slowness was only by comparison to dos; the perception was wrong.
The mac was generally faster than pc/xt class machines. At one point, we had my 128k mac next to the pc of someone convinced that his was faster and better. They were running identical BASIC code. Well, almost identical--it was a numerical integration program, and we stripped the point-by-point graphing from the version on the PC. It was still substantially slower than the mac.
I haven't read the article again, but wasn't it eleven employees? All of whom were either organizing the activity, or running "related" websites?
Assuming that all of them really are defendants, and that there is enough evidence for the suit to have gotten this far, there's really nothing unusual about a search this intrusive.
Maybe that should be changed, but given the current system, the protections offered (third party review) seem to have been well done.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need some, see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
You are pretty much correct here, but let me extend and comment a bit.
The ninth circuit is indeed the most often reversed, but that tends to be because of "lefty" decisions where ideology prevailed over the law. Criminal cases in particular, when judges confuse the rights of the accused and general population with the rights of criminals.
THis is a technical case, and of a type that the 9th gets a disproportionate share. It has more experince with this type of case than most of the otehr circutes, and the case doesn't fall into the categories that give the 9th its bad reputation (I won't name names, but there's a judge known as "Judge Certiori" for the near automatic review . ..).
The decision might also be classified as "pro-commerce," taking it far out of the type of cases that tend to be reviewd.
As far as the weight outside of the 9th, it's not as dismal as you paint it. The decision is not *binding* precedent outside of the 9th circuit, but it is *persuasive* evidence. That is, a a federal judge in another circuit *can* decide it's wrong, but will not do so lightly.
Finally, the Supreme Court, when possible, waits until conflicting opinions arise between the circuits before it hears an issue. It is unlikely to hear this case.
A couple of years ago at a conference, I was relating my summary of anglo-french history to a group that included some Europeans.
Roughly, in the second half of the eleventh centrury, a french duke got irritated and took the english crown for himself. He still held about a third of France. Over time, this got whittled down, and the british sent an army across to reclaim/expand their french holdings. Having done so again, they got neglectful, and the french holdings again dissipated. Periodically, the brits would send an army that would trounce a french army three to four times its own size.
After about 500 years of this, the french finally noticed that they had castles to hide in. When the brits came, they simply didn't go out and play, and eventually went home due to long supply lines. The brits never figured out that since they held the entire area except for the castles, that they could build their own castles.
Then came the 20th century, and they discovered that they hated the germans more than one another.
At this point I was interrupted with a sharp, "No we didn't."
:)
seems it was merely expedient to fight together for a few years
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
French courts simply lack jurisdiction over the U.S. The U.S. has absolutely no obligation to appear (and I'd call my congress-critters and demand another impeachment if there were a U.S. appearance), and would have no ability to enforce any ruling it entered.
The only way this *possibly* gets heard in a courtroom (at least with the U.S. as a party) would be in the U.S. Supreme Court. Even then, were a judgment entered, it could not be paid without an act of Congress authorizing payment of funds from the Treasury.
Also, it's been a *long* time since the Court heard a case of original jurisdiction (probably since diplomatic immunity was established). I'm not sure the current rules of court even provide for the situation (I'd have to look them up, and I'm just not that interested).
>This would make the MacOS share roughly 4.9 million (just under a >million per percentage point). Does that seem low to anybody else, >considering that Apple sold 1.3 million machines last quarter alone? >I would think Apple's shipment share in 1999 would have been at least >5-6 millione
That sounds about right (cool, you can invoke vi from within lynx to edit these . . . much easier than the netscape windows . ..).
Anyway, 1.3/quarter is an annual rate of 5.2. If Apple sales are rising at all, this appears reasonable--1.2/quarter would be 4.8 a year, and this is higher than that.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an atrorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This one needs hip-waders to get through.
This is not an employer searching employees. It is a litigant going through the normal discovery process in civil litigation. The other litigants just happen to be a group of employees (not all of the employees) of the airlines.
There are *no* privacy concerns here that are not present *every* time civil litigation looks at private papers or other materials of a litigant.
In this case, there was a very large number of "sick" employees during a labor dispute. Not just a little above average, but so many sick employees that it is beyond belief that they were all sick. *someone* organized this violation of federal labor law. The airline has sued those it believes to be impossible. If these people did it, it is probable that they exchanged email (which for some reason, people don't tend to delete). The litigant is entitle look.
> "If Northwest succeeds in gaining access to the hard drives of the > home computers of its employees, it will certainly put a chill on the > uses employees everywhere make of their home computers," said Beth > Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego.
*duh* If criminals belongings can be sorted through, it will certainly chill the stolen things they keep. In *no* way is this a general search of employees by an employer. To prevent this, we would have to create a special right for employees in litigation with their employer to withhold relevant evidence.
Note that the search was done only after getting a warrant from the court, which required a judge to review the search.
Also note (if you actually read the article) that it is not Northwest, nor even their attorneys, that are looking at the data. An accounting firm has been hired, and will only turn over data covered by the warrant.
from any good drug dealer:) then you come back, and back . ..
There's lots of companies that give it away to college students. The first I remember was MS in the late 80's, with an "academic" version of word--the regular disk for about $30, but no documentation. At that stage it wasn't to hook you, but because they figured you'd steal it anyway.
Look at apple's distribution of computers to schools. It's not due to their concerns about education.
THe real biggie is Lexis & WesLaw at law schools--get you hooked for free, and then it's a couple of hundred an hour in the real world after law school . . .
I don't think that I have *ever* filtered out anything with junkbuster until it blinked at me. It's annoying, and it sucks power. I had a k6-200 brought to its knees by just two open pages (ok, an unaccellerated server).
Guess what, ad folks--I do follow ads sometimes--when the text shows me something interesting. Usually that means (like now) that I'm using lynx, the one true browser:), rather than something slow like netscape.
\rant{I used to go to foxnews a lot. Now it's impossible to read without java (so they can throw ads better, apparently). Guess what? I've found that cnn is almost as good . ..}
anyway, the point is that if the damned things didn't blink, and didn't prevent a page from rendering, we probably wouldn't bother blocking them.
>For instance: What about the advertising? Will Slashdot and Freshmeat >still accept (under reasonable terms) advertising from VA's >competitors?
[Gee, I don't have to toss off disclaimers when I post as an economics professor rather than a lawyer:) ]
They really don't have a choice in this type of industry. Look at televesion. When the big 3 networks still dominated, it made sense to stay separate--If NBC ran an ABC ad, NBC would lose about half as much as ABC gained, making the price of an ad prohibitive (since NBC would need to cover its losses).
Now look at the world with most people having cable. Cable stations regularly advertise on one another--the station running the ad gets the revenue, but only a small fraction of the people watching the advertised program would have been watching that station anyway, so the loss is minor.
The web is closer to the second situation. Yes, VA could lose sales from a competitor's ad, but the lost sales get broken up among VA, IBM, Dell, etc.
[Note: this is not Microsoft bashing!] On the other hand, if Microsoft bought andover, it would make economic sense (though violating antitrust law) not to take adds for Red Hat, etc.--each copy of Linux shipped preinstalled due to the add would pretty much mean one less windows sale.
> Personally, I believe that Usenet will continue existing long after those who're predicting its death right now have gone away.
Hmm, I just ran into a limitation of lynx--I can't break that quoted line. But itstill beats thetar out of netscape for reading things . ..
Anyway, the Imminent Death did occur. Most of the usenet was nukedinto oblivion and rendereda wasteland ofspam.
However, some groups survived (Including the two that I care about:)
In both cases, it was due to agressive reporting of any abuse or advertising. The days when newbies could be flamed into compliance wiht nettiquette are gone (and seem to have ended before "newbie" was regularly used in this context). That worked when the established population was quite large compared to the newcomers, and it took a bit of effort to connect/nostalgia{and you could read the entire newsfeed for all thirty newsgroups in two hours}. However, as the influx grew, it didn't work any more. The solution was to aggresively forward to abues@.com.
A few groups survived. Many more didn't.
Ooops. I said the two groups i cared about survived. That's not right. Two ofthe three groups survived. The third got overrun, and the old regulars formed a mailing list. Then that became popular, the new folks got hostile about our culture (the amount of off topic stuff), and the old core formed a closed mailing list.
hawk, who really can't be old enough to be this nostalgic about the good old days:)
In spite of someone who got his first moderation points and thinks that the history of similar advances is offtopic . ..
You could continue with the same software on that transaction, but you had to buy it again forthe new architecture. It was easy forthe publisher to recompile (the 8086 was designed with thisin mind; it was meant as a transition chip ratherthan the future), but the binaries weren't compatible. I don't remember anyone having an "upgrade," either.
The concernstoday have largely been thatthe old binaries won'trun (ok, the windows side concerns:)
I have three apple II's just waiting. One to control a model railroad (and maybe my brewing equipment), one for the kids to learn low-level stuff with, and one for spare parts.
I would rather have Word 4.0 or 5.1, with excel 3.0 or 5.0, on my old Powerbook 180 (68030@33, 14/80 mb) than modern hardware with anything MS has put out since. My 486/50 thinkpad with linux & lyx flatly outperforms any windows- or mac-based word processor on modern equipment, save for wrapping text around objects (which is a latex problem) and when running latex/ghostview for rendering (but I do that on bigger machines). And I don't have to worry about it getting stolen. My Tandy 102 isbetter for simple note-taking (text only) than anything built since--though a PDA with a chording keyboard integrated intothe case would beat it hands down on the same criteria it beats a modern laptop). On the other hand, for my number crunching research, I'll take the latest, fastest, machine with a Fortran 90 compiler, right until I can get my paws on something faster with Fortran 2000. And to render text, speed is good.
There are places for upgrades. There are also places where sticking with a dinosaur is a better bet.
Now that I have a light background and can spawn new instances with my . key over a link, I have litte need for a browser other than lynx--all netscape was doing for me was spawning the extras . . . and this is much leaner.
btw, the advantages of the 8080 over the 8008 were pretty obvious. Save for the construction article in issue 1 of Byte (build your own external stack for your 8008 with 30 chips), virtually noone who had any choice stuck with the 8008--which wasn't really used much for general computing, anyway.
Get it as part of your distribution (the bsd port is "ijb"), or at www.junkbuster.com.
It works wonderfully. I rarely see blinkies anymore, and there are only two sites than can give me cookies, and a third that can retrieve one that it can't change.
By mid afternoon, Gore's office will be in full swing:
"Check out this statement. Pull out the checklist."
"Attributed to Gore. Check." "As dumb as anything Qualye said. Check." "No reasonable person would take it seriously. Check." "The boss is dumb enough to have said it. Check."
"OK, it adds up. Full scale PR blitz to defend it."
*sigh* I wish I *really* believed they didn't to this in the office of the Father of the Internet, banner of the internal combustion engine, believer of Bill, . . .
Then you chose the wrong university. At Iowa State, you didn't get a choice, but you got the university rate--10c/minute, 24/7. Yes, better is available now, but it wasn't at the time the contract was signed, and the contract is probably up soon (but I'm gone).
{I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.]
While the cable rebroadcast makes for a nice analogy, there's a serous problem--It is a very specific legal exception. Not only *can* the cable companies use these signals wihtout compensation, but they *must* carry them without compensation. Satellite, etc., can't do this, and must negotiate terms in order to rebroadcast.
Come to think of it, it seems to be that local stations have a choice between "must carry" and "negotiate," but it's been a while.
Anyone other than cable who grabs the signal and redistributes it (save for personal use such as time-shifting with a vcr) is stealing it and in violation of the copyright. It's that simple. It doesn't matter whether you're a competitor rebroadcasting a quarter second later, a satellite company, an internet broadcaster, or someone who tapes things to resell.
Your response is one of the most intelligent and insightful things I've ever seen around here.
And if he'd bothered to look around, or was even vaguely familiar with my other postings, he'd know that I"m pritty far out on the fringe (I'd maintain the last step before the nuts) on the side of the individual in the face of the awesome power of the state.
That said, Mitnick is a thug trying to manipulate the system. This is not about civil liberties, but an attempt to cloak criminal behavior in the dressings of liberty, and relying on knee-jerk reactions from folks who lack enough backround information or legal education to make an informed conclusion--a more serious version of the petitions to ban dihydrous oxide as a dangerous substance and the like.
I only saw this by chance when looking to see what Foogle was replying to--if it's not worth sighing you r name to, it's generally not worth my effort to read.
Anyway, he was in jail that long without trial because he explicitly waived his right to a speedy trial. As it was his choice, there's no durress.
I once knew someone who claimed that he didn't file returns because not filing was a misdemeanor, while a false return was a felony . . .
(I really couldn't tell you if he was right or not, and given that I haven't cared enough to look for ten years, it's not likely that I'm going to do it now . ..)
Slashdot Mirror
>he made a joking comment, that nobody could think came from the president.
:\) = cigar in the smiley . . .
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. How about, "that noone thinks the president
would make if he thought he'd get caught"
That happens in the U.S. Senate every few years, too. Come to think of it, we're about due :)
:)
Then there was President Jackson, aka Old Hickory, aka Colonel Jackson (though he was a General at the more interesting points).
Just off the cuff:
1) sent the British commanding general at New Orleans home in a rum barrel. He demolished the last British force in North America, unaware that the war had been settled a week earlier in France. Remnants of the British army were scattered across three or four states.
2) At his innaugeration, became the only U.S. President *ever* to ride a horse through the White House.
3) He was a brawler and a duelist. His dueling glove shows visible wear (I believe it's in the Smithsonian). He once told the entire United States Senate to meet him on Capitol Hill, and bring their guns. None showed up.
4) My favorite: The duel with Charles Dickinson. This was one he'd rather have avoided. I forget the grounds, but I think it had something to do with Mrs. Dickinson. Dickinson was a marksman, and the night before the duel, put half a dozen bullets into an area the size of a silver dollar on the tree that Jackson would be standing by while showing off for his friends. Jackson came out in flowing robes, and simply let Dickinson shoot. He took the bullet in the chest without flinching. Dickinson tried to flee, and had to be dragged back so that Jackson could shoot. Jackson aimed, then lowered his aim, shooting him in the groin. Once Dickinson went down, Jackson collapsed from his own injury. "I didn't want the (*%^$&*( to die with the satisfaction of knowing he'd hit me." He spat blood for the rest of his life from the wound.
5) His dying words: "My only regrets are that I didn't shoot John C. Calhoun and hang Henry Clay." (two famous statesmen of the era).
Hmm, or in the Nevada state legislature:
"Sir, are you accusing me of prevarication?"
"I'm not sure what that big fancy word means, but if it means am I accusing you of lying, I sure am!"
See, our politics aren't *always* dull
It wasn't just that the slowness was only by comparison to
dos; the perception was wrong.
The mac was generally faster than pc/xt class machines. At one point,
we had my 128k mac next to the pc of someone convinced that his
was faster and better. They were running identical BASIC code.
Well, almost identical--it was a numerical integration program,
and we stripped the point-by-point graphing from the version on
the PC. It was still substantially slower than the mac.
I haven't read the article again, but wasn't it
eleven employees? All of whom were either organizing the activity,
or running "related" websites?
Assuming that all of them really are defendants, and that there is
enough evidence for the suit to have gotten this far, there's
really nothing unusual about a search this intrusive.
Maybe that should be changed, but given the current system, the
protections offered (third party review) seem to have been well done.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need some,
.).
see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
You are pretty much correct here, but let me extend and comment a bit.
The ninth circuit is indeed the most often reversed, but that tends
to be because of "lefty" decisions where ideology prevailed over the law.
Criminal cases in particular, when judges confuse the rights of the
accused and general population with the rights of criminals.
THis is a technical case, and of a type that the 9th gets a disproportionate
share. It has more experince with this type of case than most of the
otehr circutes, and the case doesn't fall into the categories that give
the 9th its bad reputation (I won't name names, but there's a judge known
as "Judge Certiori" for the near automatic review . .
The decision might also be classified as "pro-commerce," taking it
far out of the type of cases that tend to be reviewd.
As far as the weight outside of the 9th, it's not as dismal as you
paint it. The decision is not *binding* precedent outside of the
9th circuit, but it is *persuasive* evidence. That is, a a federal
judge in another circuit *can* decide it's wrong, but will not do so
lightly.
Finally, the Supreme Court, when possible, waits until conflicting
opinions arise between the circuits before it hears an issue. It is
unlikely to hear this case.
hawk, esq.
A couple of years ago at a conference, I was relating my summary
of anglo-french history to a group that included some Europeans.
Roughly, in the second half of the eleventh centrury, a french
duke got irritated and took the english crown for himself. He
still held about a third of France. Over time, this got whittled
down, and the british sent an army across to reclaim/expand their
french holdings. Having done so again, they got neglectful, and the
french holdings again dissipated. Periodically, the brits would send
an army that would trounce a french army three to four times its own
size.
After about 500 years of this, the french finally noticed
that they had castles to hide in. When the brits came, they simply
didn't go out and play, and eventually went home due to long supply
lines. The brits never figured out that since they held the
entire area except for the castles, that they could build their
own castles.
Then came the 20th century, and they discovered that they hated the
germans more than one another.
At this point I was interrupted with a sharp, "No we didn't."
:)
seems it was merely expedient to fight together for a few years
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal
advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
French courts simply lack jurisdiction over the U.S. The U.S. has
absolutely no obligation to appear (and I'd call my congress-critters
and demand another impeachment if there were a U.S. appearance), and
would have no ability to enforce any ruling it entered.
The only way this *possibly* gets heard in a courtroom (at least
with the U.S. as a party) would be in the U.S. Supreme Court. Even
then, were a judgment entered, it could not be paid without an
act of Congress authorizing payment of funds from the Treasury.
Also, it's been a *long* time since the Court heard a case of
original jurisdiction (probably since diplomatic immunity was
established). I'm not sure the current rules of court even
provide for the situation (I'd have to look them up, and I'm just
not that interested).
hawk, esq.
>This would make the MacOS share roughly 4.9 million (just under a
.).
>million per percentage point). Does that seem low to anybody else,
>considering that Apple sold 1.3 million machines last quarter alone?
>I would think Apple's shipment share in 1999 would have been at least
>5-6 millione
That sounds about right (cool, you can invoke vi from within
lynx to edit these . . . much easier than the netscape windows . .
Anyway, 1.3/quarter is an annual rate of 5.2. If Apple sales are
rising at all, this appears reasonable--1.2/quarter would be 4.8
a year, and this is higher than that.
hawk
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an atrorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This one needs hip-waders to get through.
This is not an employer searching employees. It is a litigant going through the normal discovery process in civil litigation. The other litigants just happen to be a group of employees (not all of the employees) of the airlines.
There are *no* privacy concerns here that are not present *every* time civil litigation looks at private papers or other materials of a litigant.
In this case, there was a very large number of "sick" employees during a labor dispute. Not just a little above average, but so many sick employees that it is beyond belief that they were all sick. *someone* organized this violation of federal labor law. The airline has sued those it believes to be impossible. If these people did it, it is probable that they exchanged email (which for some reason, people don't tend to delete). The litigant is entitle look.
> "If Northwest succeeds in gaining access to the hard drives of the
> home computers of its employees, it will certainly put a chill on the
> uses employees everywhere make of their home computers," said Beth
> Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego.
*duh* If criminals belongings can be sorted through, it will certainly chill the stolen things they keep. In *no* way is this a general search of employees by an employer. To prevent this, we would have to create a special right for employees in litigation with their employer to withhold relevant evidence.
Note that the search was done only after getting a warrant from the court, which required a judge to review the search.
Also note (if you actually read the article) that it is not Northwest, nor even their attorneys, that are looking at the data. An accounting firm has been hired, and will only turn over data covered by the warrant.
hawk, esq.
from any good drug dealer :) then you come back, and back . . .
There's lots of companies that give it away to college students. The first I remember was MS in the late 80's, with an "academic" version of word--the regular disk for about $30, but no documentation. At that stage it wasn't to hook you, but because they figured you'd steal it anyway.
Look at apple's distribution of computers to schools. It's not due to their concerns about education.
THe real biggie is Lexis & WesLaw at law schools--get you hooked for free, and then it's a couple of hundred an hour in the real world after law school . . .
how many of us would bother filtering them out?
:), rather than something slow like netscape.
.}
I don't think that I have *ever* filtered out anything with junkbuster until it blinked at me. It's annoying, and it sucks power. I had a k6-200 brought to its knees by just two open pages (ok, an unaccellerated server).
Guess what, ad folks--I do follow ads sometimes--when the text shows me something interesting. Usually that means (like now) that I'm using lynx, the one true browser
\rant{I used to go to foxnews a lot. Now it's impossible to read without java (so they can throw ads better, apparently). Guess what? I've found that cnn is almost as good . .
anyway, the point is that if the damned things didn't blink, and didn't prevent a page from rendering, we probably wouldn't bother blocking them.
Yes, thereis the common ownership. But you regualrly see adds that cross it, or ads for cable on broadcastchannels, etc.
Then again, there's the Disney channel, which is a 24/7 infomercial for the Disney Empire, which breaksfor 34-40 minutes of programming/hour
>For instance: What about the advertising? Will Slashdot and Freshmeat
:) ]
>still accept (under reasonable terms) advertising from VA's
>competitors?
[Gee, I don't have to toss off disclaimers when I post as an economics professor rather than a lawyer
They really don't have a choice in this type of industry. Look at televesion. When the big 3 networks still dominated, it made sense to stay separate--If NBC ran an ABC ad, NBC would lose about half as much as ABC gained, making the price of an ad prohibitive (since NBC would need to cover its losses).
Now look at the world with most people having cable. Cable stations regularly advertise on one another--the station running the ad gets the revenue, but only a small fraction of the people watching the advertised program would have been watching that station anyway, so the loss is minor.
The web is closer to the second situation. Yes, VA could lose sales from a competitor's ad, but the lost sales get broken up among VA, IBM, Dell, etc.
[Note: this is not Microsoft bashing!] On the other hand, if Microsoft bought andover, it would make economic sense (though violating antitrust law) not to take adds for Red Hat, etc.--each copy of Linux shipped preinstalled due to the add would pretty much mean one less windows sale.
> Personally, I believe that Usenet will continue existing long after those who're predicting its death right now have gone away.
.
:)
/nostalgia{and you could read the entire newsfeed for all thirty newsgroups in two hours}. However, as the influx grew, it didn't work any more. The solution was to aggresively forward to abues@.com.
:)
Hmm, I just ran into a limitation of lynx--I can't break that quoted line. But itstill beats thetar out of netscape for reading things . .
Anyway, the Imminent Death did occur. Most of the usenet was nukedinto oblivion and rendereda wasteland ofspam.
However, some groups survived (Including the two that I care about
In both cases, it was due to agressive reporting of any abuse or advertising. The days when newbies could be flamed into compliance wiht nettiquette are gone (and seem to have ended before "newbie" was regularly used in this context). That worked when the established population was quite large compared to the newcomers, and it took a bit of effort to connect
A few groups survived. Many more didn't.
Ooops. I said the two groups i cared about survived. That's not right. Two ofthe three groups survived. The third got overrun, and the old regulars formed a mailing list. Then that became popular, the new folks got hostile about our culture (the amount of off topic stuff), and the old core formed a closed mailing list.
hawk, who really can't be old enough to be this nostalgic about the good old days
In spite of someone who got his first moderation points and thinks that the history of similar advances is offtopic . . .
You could continue with the same software on that transaction, but you had to buy it again forthe new architecture. It was easy forthe publisher to recompile (the 8086 was designed with thisin mind; it was meant as a transition chip ratherthan the future), but the binaries weren't compatible. I don't remember anyone having an "upgrade," either.
The concernstoday have largely been thatthe old binaries won'trun (ok, the windows side concerns:)
I have three apple II's just waiting. One to control a model railroad (and maybe my brewing equipment), one for the kids to learn low-level stuff with, and one for spare parts.
I would rather have Word 4.0 or 5.1, with excel 3.0 or 5.0, on my old Powerbook 180 (68030@33, 14/80 mb) than modern hardware with anything MS has put out since.
My 486/50 thinkpad with linux & lyx flatly outperforms any windows- or mac-based word processor on modern equipment, save for wrapping text around objects (which is a latex problem) and when running latex/ghostview for rendering (but I do that on bigger machines). And I don't have to worry about it getting stolen.
My Tandy 102 isbetter for simple note-taking (text only) than anything built since--though a PDA with a chording keyboard integrated intothe case would beat it hands down on the same criteria it beats a modern laptop).
On the other hand, for my number crunching research, I'll take the latest, fastest, machine with a Fortran 90 compiler, right until I can get my paws on something faster with Fortran 2000. And to render text, speed is good.
There are places for upgrades. There are also places where sticking with a dinosaur is a better bet.
Now that I have a light background and can spawn new instances with my . key over a link, I have litte need for a browser other than lynx--all netscape was doing for me was spawning the extras . . . and this is much leaner.
btw, the advantages of the 8080 over the 8008 were pretty obvious. Save for the construction article in issue 1 of Byte (build your own external stack for your 8008 with 30 chips), virtually noone who had any choice stuck with the 8008--which wasn't really used much for general computing, anyway.
Get it as part of your distribution (the bsd port is "ijb"), or at www.junkbuster.com.
It works wonderfully. I rarely see blinkies anymore, and there are only two sites than can give me cookies, and a third that can retrieve one that it can't change.
By mid afternoon, Gore's office will be in full swing:
"Check out this statement. Pull out the checklist."
"Attributed to Gore. Check."
"As dumb as anything Qualye said. Check."
"No reasonable person would take it seriously. Check."
"The boss is dumb enough to have said it. Check."
"OK, it adds up. Full scale PR blitz to defend it."
*sigh* I wish I *really* believed they didn't to this in the office of the Father of the Internet, banner of the internal combustion engine, believer of Bill, . . .
Then again, the politics were part of what lead me away from debian, happily landing with FreeBSD.
>Saying that UNIX is the only OS worth running is
:)
>trolling at its finest.
Most definitely. TOPS-10, TOPS-20, and VMS all offered distinct advantages over Unix for certain jobs . . .
For that matter, VMS still does.
Then you chose the wrong university. At Iowa State, you didn't get a choice, but you got the university rate--10c/minute, 24/7. Yes, better is available now, but it wasn't at the time the contract was signed, and the contract is probably up soon (but I'm gone).
{I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.]
While the cable rebroadcast makes for a nice analogy, there's a serous problem--It is a very specific legal exception. Not only *can* the cable companies use these signals wihtout compensation, but they *must* carry them without compensation. Satellite, etc., can't do this, and must negotiate terms in order to rebroadcast.
Come to think of it, it seems to be that local stations have a choice between "must carry" and "negotiate," but it's been a while.
Anyone other than cable who grabs the signal and redistributes it (save for personal use such as time-shifting with a vcr) is stealing it and in violation of the copyright. It's that simple. It doesn't matter whether you're a competitor rebroadcasting a quarter second later, a satellite company, an internet broadcaster, or someone who tapes things to resell.
Your response is one of the most intelligent and insightful things I've ever seen around here.
And if he'd bothered to look around, or was even vaguely familiar with my other postings, he'd know that I"m pritty far out on the fringe (I'd maintain the last step before the nuts) on the side of the individual in the face of the awesome power of the state.
That said, Mitnick is a thug trying to manipulate the system. This is not about civil liberties, but an attempt to cloak criminal behavior in the dressings of liberty, and relying on knee-jerk reactions from folks who lack enough backround information or legal education to make an informed conclusion--a more serious version of the petitions to ban dihydrous oxide as a dangerous substance and the like.
I only saw this by chance when looking to see what Foogle was replying to--if it's not worth sighing you r name to, it's generally not worth my effort to read.
Anyway, he was in jail that long without trial because he explicitly waived his right to a speedy trial. As it was his choice, there's no durress.
I once knew someone who claimed that he didn't file returns because not filing was a misdemeanor, while a false return was a felony . . .
.)
(I really couldn't tell you if he was right or not, and given that I haven't cared enough to look for ten years, it's not likely that I'm going to do it now . .